Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey …huntingheritage.org/.../files/hunting_recruitment_retention_report.pdfRecruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | Page 1 Introduction

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report

Hunting Heritage Action Plan March 20, 2009

Hunting Heritage Action Plan

Prepared for:Wildlife Management Institute

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Recruitment and RetentionAssessment Survey Report

March 20, 2009

Robert L. Byrne, Project Manager

D.J. Case & Associates317 E. Jefferson Blvd.Mishawaka, IN 46545

www.djcase.com

This publication was partially funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (Grant DC M-59-R), a program supported with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and jointly managed with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2007.

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | Page i

| Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2State Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

State wildlife agencies perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ missions (Question 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Wildlife agencies’ perceived integration of R&R efforts into the agencies’ missions (Question 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7State agencies’ perceived effectiveness of hunter R&R efforts in achieving their agencies’ missions (Question 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7State agencies’ perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts (Question 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8States that reported having established R&R oversight groups (Question 5) . . . . . . 9State wildlife agencies having a separate line-item budget for recruitment and retention (R&R) efforts (Question 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Numbers and types of specifically dedicated hunter R&R staff reported by state wildlife agencies (Question 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Numbers and types of hunter education (HE) staff in state wildlife agencies, by region (Question 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14R&R efforts undertaken by state wildlife agencies (Question 12) . . . . . . . . . . . .14Audiences targeted with hunting communications efforts by state agencies (Question 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16State wildlife agencies that have developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting (Question 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17State wildlife agency awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states (Question 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19State wildlife agencies’ sponsorship of youth hunting and/or shooting clubs in their respective states (Question 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Wildlife agencies that participate in hunting-related outdoor expos or events (Question 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Wildlife agencies that sponsor access programs (Question 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Detailed State Programmatic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Youth Hunts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Advanced training courses or seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Youth Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Page ii | Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report

Women’s Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Family Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Industry/Corporate Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Camp Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Mentoring Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Shooting Sports Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Outdoor Expos or Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73NGO Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75NGO’s perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of their organization’s mission (Question 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75NGOs’ perceived integration of R&R efforts into their organizations’ missions (Question 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76NGOs’ perceived effectiveness of hunter R&R efforts in achieving their organizations’ missions (Question 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76NGO’s perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts (Question 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77NGOs that have established R&R oversight groups (Question 5). . . . . . . . . . . .78NGOs having separate line-item budget for recruitment and retention (R&R) efforts (Question 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Numbers and types of specifically dedicated hunter R&R staff reported by NGOs (Question 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79R&R efforts undertaken by NGOs (Question 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Audiences targeted with hunting communications efforts by NGOs (Question 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82NGOs which have developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting. (Question 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83NGO awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states (Question 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83NGO sponsorship of youth hunting and/or shooting clubs in their respective states. (Question 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84NGOs that participate in hunting related outdoor expos or events (Question 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84NGOs that sponsor access programs (Question 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Table of Contents |

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | Page iii

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Youth Hunts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Advanced training courses or seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Youth Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Women’s Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Family Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Industry/Corporate Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Camp Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Mentoring Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Shooting Sports Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Outdoor Expos or Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Appendix B. State Agencies’ Hunter Education Staff by AFWA region. . . . . . . . . . 145

| Table of Contents

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | Page 1

Introduction

The precise origin of this project is difficult to identify. During the past few years, the North American hunting community has become acutely concerned with the persistent national decline of hunting license sales and hunting participation rates. This new awareness has generated a more vigorous and comprehensive examination of the incentives for and process of becoming a hunter, while sparking an increase in activities related to the recruitment of new hunters and retention of existing ones.

One of the many actions taken by the hunting community to address the national decline of hunters was to create a Hunting Heritage Steering Committee (Steering Committee). This committee provided national-level oversight to a series of Governor’s Symposia on Hunting Heritage (held on a two- to three-year cycle) that attempted to identify a host of actions being conducted to reverse negative hunter participation trends, while outlining additional actions needed. After several successful Symposia, the Steering Committee concluded that a National Hunting Heritage Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was needed.

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) was selected by the Steering Committee as the coordinator for the development of the Strategic Plan. In 2005, WMI obtained an Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Multi-State Conservation Grant to begin this effort. The funds from the grant were subsequently supplemented with additional funds to support this effort.

It is important to recognize that the future development of the Strategic Plan is only one of many efforts aimed at stabilizing and reversing the trends in hunting participation. Recent examples of parallel efforts are the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention and Task Force 2020 efforts, in addition to The Future of Hunting and Shooting Sports Report produced jointly by the NSSF and Responsive Management.

It is also important to note that the Strategic Plan is being designed to complement and supplement existing efforts, and not replace them.

While developing the conceptual framework for the Strategic Plan, WMI recognized that numerous issues needed to be addressed concurrently. These issues included: Recruitment and Retention; Access; Education; Political and Legal Challenges; Sociological and Economic Impacts of Hunting; Funding; Conservation; and Outreach Efforts. A common denominator for all of these issues was a critical need to identify and assess existing programs.

In recent years, the awareness of declining trends in hunting license sales and hunting participation rates has spawned an increase in activities related to recruiting new hunters and retaining existing ones. However, details regarding the nature or geographic extent of these activities have not been fully documented. To date, no comprehensive assessment of recruitment and retention activities has been conducted.

| Introduction

Page 2 | Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report

In 2005, WMI obtained an AFWA/U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Multi-State Conservation Grant to begin an effort to develop a National Hunting Heritage Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) and conduct an assessment of recruitment and retention programs (R&R). The funds from the grant were supplemented with contributions from the Steering Committee and other groups dedicated to supporting this effort. WMI retained the services of D. J. Case and Associates (DJ Case) to assist in this effort. An additional assessment of access programs is also being conducted by DJ Case for WMI.

These efforts will form the foundation for the eventual development of the Strategic Plan.

Methods

In order to obtain national-scale data on hunting and R&R activities, an assessment survey was sent to all fifty state wildlife agencies, forty-two conservation organizations (NGOs) associated with hunting, and two federal agencies. All fifty state wildlife agencies and both federal and nineteen NGOs completed the assessment survey during the fall of 2008.

The assessment survey was developed as a “work product” from a recruitment and retention workshop held in conjunction with NSSF’s Shooting Sports Summit, in Colorado Springs, Colorado in June 2008. Nineteen experts participated in the one-day workshop. They represented state wildlife agencies (via the four regional state fish and wildlife associations), and conservation NGOs who have traditionally demonstrated an interest in recruitment and retention activities.

In addition to the assessment survey, a literature review of the most pertinent research pertaining to or addressing hunting recruitment and retention was also conducted and published in a separate report to WMI. As part of that sub-project, a selected bibliography of pertinent research on hunting recruitment and retention was also developed.

The assessment survey consisted of several general questions on relative program importance and agency or organization involvement, as well as a series of questions regarding details on specific programs. The assessment survey underwent two rounds of comment and review by the participants of the workshop. In addition, the assessment survey was tested with a small group of participants prior to being administered to the larger target audience. The final assessment survey can be found in Appendix A.

The assessment survey was administered using an online survey application. Individuals were invited to participate in the assessment survey through an email which included a direct link to access the survey instrument. The individuals who were invited to participate were identified by WMI in a pre-assessment survey request for contacts. It is important to note that the assessment participants were identified by state fish and wildlife agency directors, NGO-CEOs or senior staff as the person most knowledgeable in the agency or organization regarding R&R issues. Generally, the agency head or CEO did not complete the assessment survey.

With the invitation to participate in the survey, invitees received a cover letter co-signed by the President of WMI and the Executive Director of AFWA encouraging them to participate.

Methods |


| Methods

The online software allowed the survey to be saved and resumed by the participant rather than completed in one sitting. Each survey participant received a maximum of three “automatic” reminder emails requesting that they complete the assessment survey. At that point, (approximately four weeks from the initial mailing), all NGO participants that had R&R programs were deemed to have been “captured” by the assessment survey and no additional contact was made.

However, state agencies that had not completed the assessment survey were regularly and individually contacted until a survey was completed. It is important to note that this strategy was specifically designed to obtain a 100% participation rate from state wildlife agencies. It is also important to note that all responses were treated equally once they were received. No attempt was made to differentiate “late participants” from any of the other participants in their respective group. As such, no attempt was made to determine whether or not any response biases may have existed.

In some instances, more than one person was identified per agency or organization. In most of these situations, the people invited to participate pooled their knowledge with other agency/organization participants and responded on one survey. In situations where multiple surveys were obtained from an agency or organization, the information was combined by the project leader.

In a few instances the email invitation was caught in the agency or organization “spam” filter. In situations where a simple “work-around” could not be found, these participants were sent a “rich text” version of the assessment instrument. All of those surveys were completed and included in the summary report.

This assessment survey asked detailed questions regarding twelve different program-types. We recognize that there is considerable overlap in the program-types that the survey addressed. However, this overlap was consciously retained so that the broadest array of programs by allowing participants could be covered to define each of the program-types.

Results are generally reported by group (state agencies and NGO conservation groups). In addition, state agencies were generally reported regionally. In some instances, however, because relatively few states answered a specific question affirmatively, we only listed those states. States not listed in these questions reported that they did not have that specific program or program element.

Comments and suggestions from individual states were pooled to avoid redundancy and, in most cases, individuals making suggestions were not identified.

The two federal agencies are included in composite tabulations. However, because there were only two agencies surveyed, their results are reported in the text rather than in the accompanying tables or graphs. In addition, their responses were reported only when the questions were germane to a role that a federal agency could play in hunter R&R. Because the assessment survey was designed largely with state agencies and NGOs in mind, many of the questions were not applicable to federal agencies.


Methods |

The states were included in regions (Table 1):

Table 1 State Members of Regional Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Northeast Southeast Midwest Western

CT AL ND AK

DE AR SD AZ

ME FL NE CA

MD GA KS HI

MA LA CO ID

NH MS MN MT

RI NC IA NV

NJ OK MO NM

NY SC WI OR

PA TN IL UT

VT TX MI WA

WV VA IN WY

OH

KY

Non-Government Organizations that responded to the survey include:

• Archery Trade Association• Bear Trust International• Resource Management Service, LLC• Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation• Delta Waterfowl• Ducks Unlimited, Inc.• Mule Deer Foundation• National Rifle Association• National Wild Turkey Federation• New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Club• North American Bear Foundation• Pope and Young Club• Quality Deer Management Association – southern region• Quality Deer Management Association – northern region• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation• Safari Club International • Texas Wildlife Association• Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.• National Shooting Sports Foundation


| State Results

The results are reported by either state agency or NGO group. However, within each of these two sections are broad questions regarding the overall importance and general administration of R&R programs and details regarding specific programs. Recommendations for the broad questions regarding overall importance and general administration are presented immediately following the specific question in that section, whereas recommendations for the programmatic section are presented at the end of the document. This dual treatment of the recommendations is intended to keep them close to the section that they applied to in order to make them more germane.

While this assessment was designed to be complete and comprehensive the authors acknowledge that it is likely that biases likely were introduced and not all programs were captured. Clearly, the length of the assessment likely introduced “survey fatigue.” In addition, the extended timeframe in which the assessment was conducted, and need to “remind” some participants to fill out the assessment likely introduced additional biases. No attempt was made to compare answers provided by the early responders to those of the late responders. Also, the people selected to participate in the assessment were identified by their agency or organization as point of contact for this issue. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that all participants had the same level of awareness and knowledge for all programs. That assumption is not likely true. In addition, when two responses were obtained from an agency the information was merged. The bias introduced by this merging process is unknown. As mentioned earlier, the assessment was designed primarily to capture the efforts of state agencies. Both federal agency and NGO programs were likely to be fully captured in this process. Lastly, less effort was made to capture information from the NGO community. All NGOs received the initial invitation to participate, plus two additional reminders. It was assumed that the NGOs that responded to these invitations and reminders had an interest in this issue and responded accordingly. No further attempts were made after these invitations were sent to include those NGOs that did not respond. As a result, some programs likely were missed.

This assessment collected a large amount of information. Great care was taken to accurately report on the information that was provided. However, if errors were made in reporting the data presented, both WMI and its contractors stand ready to make the necessary corrections.

State Results

As a precursor to the programmatic R&R assessment, a series of general questions were asked regarding the perceived importance of R&R efforts. Results of these questions are as follows:

State wildlife agencies perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ mission (Question 1)Figure 1 reports the states’ perceptions of the perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ missions. While largely a philosophical question, it does provide a framework for additional discussion within the hunting-conservation community. We hope these discussions take place.

The bi-modal response clearly indicates that the state agency personnel who responded to the assessment survey are of two minds regarding this question.


State Results |

Twenty-seven states indicated that hunter R&R was very important to achieving the agencies’ missions. This seems to lend support to the concepts embodied in the North American Conservation Model where hunters, and a viable hunter population, are considered an integral part of long-term wildlife conservation.

Twenty-one states indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant to achieving their agencies’ missions. One speculative explanation for this response is that the respondents may feel that their agencies’ missions are primarily aimed at perpetuating wildlife. Recruiting and retaining hunters could, therefore, be considered a by-product of successfully achieving that mission rather than an integral mechanism to achievement. This thinking, if correct, would support the concept that the agencies’ missions should be achieved with or without hunters, and that hunters are one of many tools that could be employed to achieve the agencies’ missions.

Two states indicated that hunter R&R was somewhat important to achieving their agencies’ missions.

While there is some possibility that the question was misunderstood, it is unlikely since subsequent, similarly-worded questions did not elicit bi-modal responses.

Again, this philosophical question can provide a framework for additional discussion about the role of hunters in achieving wildlife conservation within the hunter-conservation community.

Both federal agencies that participated in the assessment survey reported that hunter R&R was very important to achieving the agencies’ missions.

Figure 1 Perceived importance of hunter RR to the future of state agencies’ missions

0

2

21

27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Somewhat important

Somewhat unimportant

Very unimportant

Very important

Perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of state agencies' missions

Number of States


| State Results

Wildlife agencies’ perceived integration of R&R efforts into the agencies’ missions (Question 2)Figure 2 reports on respondents’ opinions on the perceived integration of R&R efforts into their agencies’ missions.

Ten states reported that R&R efforts were very well integrated and another thirty-one states reported that R&R efforts were somewhat integrated into their agencies’ missions. Eight states reported that their R&R efforts were not integrated much into the agencies’ missions. One state reported “no opinion.”

Five of eight states that reported that their efforts were not integrated much into their agencies’ missions also reported that R&R efforts were very unimportant to achieving their agencies’ missions (Question 1).

One of two reporting federal agencies reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat integrated into its agency’s mission and the other reported that their R&R efforts were not integrated much into the agency’s mission.

Figure 2 Integrataion of current R&R efforts into state agencies’ missions

State agencies’ perceived effectiveness of hunter R&R efforts in achieving their agencies’ missions (Question 3)

Figure 3 presents the opinions of the respondents about the effectiveness of R&R efforts in achieving their agencies’ missions.

Two states reported that R&R efforts were very effective and another thirty-three states reported that R&R efforts were somewhat effective in achieving their agencies’ missions. Nine states reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective in achieving their agencies’ missions. One state reported that their R&R efforts were very ineffective in achieving the agency’s mission. Five states reported “no opinion.”

0

1

8

10

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Not at all integrated

No opinion

Not integrated much

Very well integrated

Somewhat integrated

Integration of current R&R efforts into state agencies' missions

Number of States


Results |

Four states which reported that they did not have an opinion, six states which reported their R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective, and one state which reported that its efforts were very ineffective in achieving their agencies’ missions also reported that R&R efforts were very unimportant to achieving the agencies’ missions.

One federal agency reported that its R&R efforts were somewhat effective in achieving the agency’s mission and the other reported that its R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective in achieving the agency’s mission.

Figure 3 Perceived effectiveness of current R&R efforts to achieve agencies missions

State agencies’ perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts (Question 4)Figure 4 presents respondents’ opinions regarding integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts within their organizations.

One state reported that its R&R efforts were very well integrated, and nineteen states reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat integrated with their angler R&R efforts. Nineteen states reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not integrated much with their angler R&R efforts. Seven states reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not at all integrated with their angler R&R efforts. Four states reported “no opinion.”

One federal agency reported that its R&R efforts were not integrated much with its angler R&R efforts, and the other reported that its R&R efforts were not at all integrated with its angler R&R efforts.

1

2

5

9

33

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Very ineffective

Very effective

No opinion

Somewhat ineffective

Somewhat effective

Perceived effectiveness of current R&R efforts to achieve

agencies' missions

Number of States


| State Results

Figure 4 Perceived integration of angler and hunter R&R programs

RECOMMENDATIONAn examination of license sale data has shown that there is considerable overlap between hunter and angler participation. A greater integration and coordination of R&R efforts between these two programs would likely pay dividends.

States that reported having established R&R oversight groups (Question 5)Table 2 provides details for states that reported having established R&R oversight groups. Sixteen states indicated that they had created an R&R oversight group to provide direction to their agencies’ efforts. Of these states, twelve included administrative staff; twelve included wildlife biologists and information and education staff; nine included law enforcement staff and marketing staff; seven included outreach staff; and five included human dimensions staff in their oversight groups.

Only three agencies included non-agency staff as part of their R&R oversight groups. One state indicated that a R&R Committee was created at the commission level (agency policy oversight group), but that agency staff was not on this committee.

Neither federal agency reported having an R&R oversight group.

RECOMMENDATIONState-level R&R oversight groups should be created. Ideally, this group would include a broad cross-section of agency staff. In addition, agencies should consider involving non-agency staff. Non-agency staff could include commission (agency policy oversight group) representatives, representatives from conservation organizations, and possibly representatives from the legislature and/or governor’s offices. Potential political members of these groups could be members of the various State Sportsmen’s Legislative Caucuses.

1

4

7

19

19

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Very well integrated

No opinion

Not at all integrated

Not integrated much

Somewhat integrated

Perceived integration of angler and hunter R&R programs

Number of States


Tabl

e 2 M

embe

rs of

R&

R O

versi

ght g

roup

s for

fifte

en st

ate a

genc

y resp

onde

nts w

ho in

dica

ted th

at th

eir ag

ency

had

such

an ov

ersig

ht gr

oup.

Stat

eA

dmin

.W

L Bi

olog

ists

Law

En

forc

emen

t St

aff

Hun

ter

Educ

atio

n St

aff

Out

reac

h St

aff

Mar

ketin

g St

aff

Info

. &

Ed. S

taff

Hum

an

Dim

ensi

ons

Staf

fN

on-a

genc

y St

aff

Oth

ers

Ariz

ona

XX

XX

XX

Illin

ois

XX

XKa

nsas

XX

XX

XM

aryl

and

XX

XX

XX

XX

Miss

ouri

XX

XX

XX

XX

XM

onta

naX

XX

XX

X

Neb

rask

aX

XX

XX

XX

X

New

Ham

pshi

reX

XX

X

New

Mex

ico

XX

XN

evad

aX

XX

XX

X

Okl

ahom

aX

XX

XX

XX

XO

rego

nX

XX

X

Sout

h C

arol

ina

XX

XX

XX

X

Tenn

esse

eX

Wisc

onsin

XX

X

Wes

t Virg

inia

XX

Tota

ls12

119

127

912

52

3

(Oth

ers l

iste

d in

clud

ed: s

cien

tist,

fishe

ries

staf

f and

“O

ur C

omm

issi

on h

as a

R&

R C

omm

ittee

mad

e up

of t

hem

, not

any

age

ncy

empl

oyee

s on

it”)


| State Results

State wildlife agencies having a separate line-item budget for recruitment and retention (R&R) efforts (Question 11) Table 3 reports on the responses from two questions regarding whether states have an oversight group to guide their R&R efforts and whether they have a specific line item in their budgets directed toward R&R efforts. Eleven state agencies indicated that they had a separate line-item in their budgets for R&R efforts (Table 3).

In addition, the results were cross-tabulated to compare those states that had R&R oversight groups with those that had separate line-item budgets. As Table 3 indicates, seven of the sixteen states with oversight groups also had separate line-items in their budget. Four states with separate R&R budgets did not have oversight groups and nine states with R&R oversight groups did not have separate R&R line-items in their budgets.

Neither federal agency reported having separate R&R line-items in their budgets.

Table 3 States which indicated that they had a hunting R&R oversight group and/or a separate line item in their budget for R&R efforts.

State R&R

Oversight Group? R&R Budget?

Arizona Yes YesColorado No Yes

Illinois Yes YesKansas Yes Yes

Maryland Yes NoMissouri Yes Yes

Montana Yes NoNebraska Yes Yes

Nevada Yes YesNew Hampshire Yes Yes

New Mexico Yes NoNew York No Yes

North Carolina No YesOklahoma Yes No

Oregon Yes NoSouth Carolina Yes No

Tennessee Yes NoVirginia No Yes

West Virginia Yes NoWisconsin Yes No

TOTALS 16 11

RECOMMENDATIONSLine-items within agency/organization budgets should be developed specifically to address R&R efforts. These budgets should be tracked and R&R programs should be evaluated against budget expenditure as a measure of their successes.


Results |

Numbers and types of specifically dedicated hunter R&R staff reported by state wildlife agencies (Question 8) Table 4 reports the numbers and types of (full-time, part-time, contractors, volunteers, and other) staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R. Tables were sorted by AFWA region for ease of inter-state comparisons.

States in the Midwest reported having nine full-time and more than five part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts. In addition, these states reported having more than nine volunteers working on R&R efforts, and employed the services of one contractor.

States in the Southeast reported having more than ten full-time and more than four part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts. In addition, these states reported having more than nine volunteers working on R&R efforts and more than three volunteers.

States in the West reported having six full-time and and more than four part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts. The Northeast reported having two full-time R&R staff.

Table 4 Numbers of types of hunter R&R staff (other than hunter education staff ) in state agencies, by region. (FT = Full-time, PT= Part-time)

Midwest Region

State #FT R&R

Staff# PT R&R

Staff# R&R

Contractors# R&R

Volunteers# Other R&R

Staff

Colorado 1 1 0 >3 0Illinois 2 0 0 >3 0Indiana 1 1 0 0 0Iowa 0 0 0 0 0Kansas 0 0 0 0 0Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0Michigan 1 0 0 0 0Minnesota 2 >3 0 0 0Missouri 0 0 0 0 0Nebraska 2 0 1 >3 0North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0Ohio 0 0 0 0 0South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0Region Totals 9 >5 1 >9 0


| State Results

Northeast Region

State #FT R&R

Staff# PT R&R

Staff# R&R

Contractors# R&R


Staff

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0Delaware 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 0 0 0 0 0Maryland 2 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0New York 0 0 0 0 >3

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

Vermont 0 0 0 0 0West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0Region Totals 2 0 0 0 >3

Southeast Region

State #FT R&R

Staff# PT R&R

Staff# R&R

Contractors# R&R


Staff

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0Arkansas >3 0 0 >3 0

Florida 0 0 0 0 0

Georgia 0 >3 0 >3 0

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0

North Carolina 1 1 0 0 0

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 2 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 1 0 0 >3 0

Texas 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia >3 0 0 0 0

Region Totals >10 >4 0 >9 0

Western Region

State #FT R&R

Staff# PT R&R

Staff# R&R

Contractors# R&R


Staff

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0Arizona 1 0 0 0 0

California 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada 1 0 0 0 0

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon 0 >3 0 >3 0

Utah >3 1 0 0 0

Washington 0 0 0 0 0

Wyoming 1 0 0 0 0



State Results |

Numbers and types of hunter education (HE) staff in state wildlife agencies, by region . (Question 10)This information is not being presented in this report because it would vastly under-represent the level of effort exerted by state agencies in terms of hunter education. Because the intent of this assessment was to evaluate R&R programs, the metrics used were purposely chosen to exclude the numbers of volunteer hunter education instructors being used to deliver this important program. However, each region reported having more than twenty full-time employees and nine or more part-time staff dedicated to hunter education programs (Appendix B).

R&R efforts undertaken by state wildlife agencies (Question 12)Figure 5a identifies various R&R efforts undertaken by >50% of state agencies; Figure 5b presents R&R efforts undertaken by >25% but <50% of state agencies; and Figure 5c presents R&R efforts undertaken by <25% of state agencies, in descending order. The survey provided twenty-two forced-choice options from which agencies could select. Results reported in Figures 5a-c were re-configured to appear in descending order and are not the order in which the options were presented in the survey. In addition to the twenty-two forced-choice selections, an open ended “other” option was also available. Thirteen states provided explanations in the “other” category. These are presented as a footnote to Figure 5.

The top four R&R efforts undertaken included (states indicating that they undertook these actions are in parentheses): establish youth-only seasons (48); establish online license/permit sales (44); modify season structures to encourage youth or family hunting (42); and establish youth licenses (39).

Additional noteworthy efforts include: market specific hunting opportunities (35); re-allocate wildlife resources to encourage youth or family hunting (29); establish employee/orientation training (27); use human dimensions research to develop new programs (25); develop specific information for R&R efforts (23); create TV/radio programs for R&R efforts (20); systematically implement a process to identify and reduce barriers to recruitment (19); extend seasons to encourage youth or family hunting (18); establish an apprentice license (18); lower the minimum age for hunting (17); and create a hunter education deferral program (17).

Since this was intended to be a baseline assessment, no time frame for these efforts was provided. However, it is encouraging that several states implied that these efforts were relatively recent. One state indicated that, “many of the items marked in this section predate the formal program. The hunting R&R program is formally less than two years old and serves to coordinate these efforts agency-wide.”

One federal agency reported that they had systematically implemented a process to identify and reduce barriers to both recruitment and retention. In addition, one agency indicated that many agency staff members volunteer as instructors in state-run hunter education programs.


| State Results

Figure 5a R&R efforts undertaken by > 50% of state agencies.

25

27

29

35

39

42

44

48

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Use HD research to develop new programs

Est. employee training/orientation

Re-allocate WL resources to encourage youth or family hunt

Market specific hunt opportunities

Est. youth license

Modify season structure to encourage youth or family hunt

Est. online license/permit sales

Est. youth only seasons

RR Efforts undertaken by >50% of 50 Reporting State Agencies

#State Agencies

Figure 5b R&R efforts undertaken by >25% but <50% of state agencies.

Figure 5c R&R efforts undertaken by <25% of state agencies.

1

1

1

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Est. family license

Est. family seasons

&Create speakers' bureau for RR efforts

,Develop merchandizing efforts for RR efforts

RR Actions taken by <25% of 50 Reporting State Agencies

# State Agencies

17

17

18

18

19

20

20

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

Approve HE deferral program

Lowered min. age

Est. apprentice license

1Extend seasons to encourage youth or family hunt

.System. Implement barrier-reductions - Recruit

Create hunting awareness prog.

-Create outdoor TV/radion prog. for RR efforts

$Develop specific info for RR efforts

RR Efforts undertaken by >25% but <50% of 50 Reporting State Agencies

#State Agencies


State Results |

Additional comments and suggestions on R&R actions include:

• Several states indicated that either: they do not have a law regarding minimum age to hunt; youth can hunt when parents think they are responsible enough to hunt; they do not have to complete hunter education; or licenses cannot be bought until a specified age. In all of these situations, youth can have trial and apprenticeship experiences.

• Several additional states noted that they have enacted “Families Afield”-type legislation that allows any individual under the supervision of a properly licensed adult hunter to purchase a “supervision required” hunting license.

• Several additional states noted that they host or allow numerous youth seasons prior to general season. The most common species hunted included: turkey, deer, pheasants and waterfowl. These hunts are often held in collaboration with sportsmen’s clubs.

• One state noted that many of the items marked in this section pre-date their formal program. Their R&R program is formally less than two years old and serves to coordinate these efforts agency-wide.

• One state indicated that they held a “Future of Hunting Conference” and had eighty-five participants from around the state attend. Another state indicated that they have developed a 20 Year Plan for Hunter/Angler Recruitment, Development and Retention and earmarked $1,000,000 for this effort which will include education, marketing and access elements.

• Several states indicated that they have also: implemented youth shooting sports programs; offer Becoming an Outdoors Woman workshops; offer hunter education programs/fishing programs at the summer environmental education camps; wingshooting clinics; other shooting opportunities; and participate in EXPO events.

• Additional suggestions included creating simple, easy-to-understand regulations; minimizing hunter education barriers; implementing a “try before you buy” program; reducing age limits; and providing places to shoot. These are all critical to the success of R&R efforts.

RECOMMENDATIONA process to identify and reduce barriers to recruitment and retention should be systematically implemented.

A staff person should be assigned to coordinate the many efforts that may be ongoing within the agency or organization.

Audiences targeted with hunting communications efforts by state agencies (Question 13)Figure 6 reports the frequency of audiences to which various communications efforts are being implemented by state wildlife agencies. The five choices reported in the chart were provided to the participants for selection. Respondents were asked to check “all that apply” so the total frequency is greater than fifty.

Clearly, state agencies are focusing their communications efforts on existing hunters (presumably current license buyers) and new hunters (presumably new hunter education graduates). A large number of states (20) are targeting lapsed hunters in their communications


| State Results

efforts. Non-traditional participants are being targeted by fourteen states. Five states (Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, Idaho and Georgia) are specifically targeting transient hunters (hunters that have moved into their state from another state).

States which indicated that they were targeting “other” audiences indicated that these audiences were non-resident hunters, women, and new youth hunters.

Figure 6 Audiences that agencies have targeted with specific hunting communication efforts.

RECOMMENDATIONSEfforts to communicate with existing, new, and recently lapsed hunters should continue. Enhancing efforts to communicate with lapsed hunters is particularly important. These efforts should be carefully monitored to evaluate their effectiveness.

Society’s increasing mobility will likely make efforts to communicate with transient hunters more important in the future. Existing efforts should be enhanced and carefully monitored.

Sharing change of address information among conservation organizations (and other information sources such as outdoor magazine subscriptions) and state wildlife agencies may be a worthwhile strategy.

Including information on wildlife, hunting and fishing in information packets sent to people who apply for changes in driver’s licenses may be worthwhile. Linking agency Web sites to DMV Web sites may also as well.

State wildlife agencies that have developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting . (Question 14)Ten states indicated that they have developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting. Their responses are listed in Table 5.

4

5

14

20

33

38

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Transient hunters

Non-traditional participants

Lapsed hunters

New hunters

Existing hunters

Frequencies that different Audiences are targeted with hunting Communication Efforts as reported

by 50 State Agencies

#State Agencies


State Results |

Table 5 States that have developed social support programs associated with hunter R&R efforts.

State Program DescriptionArizona AGFD has several programs that have a focus on the social aspect

of hunting, fishing and shooting sports programs. We also encourage participants to join a local sportsman’s groups that they can continue to learn about the programs and outdoor activities

Arkansas Outdoor Newsletters Magazine Web site TV ShowsMinnesota NASP, SCTP, Becoming an Outdoor Family, Youth hunts that require

participation by an adult family memberMissouri Youth, Adult hunting and shooting programs for families that require

the family unit to attend and learn togetherNebraska Shooting Range Grant Assistance Program but we need to do

more to enhance social network for hunters, especially in the way of developing new shooting ranges!

New Hampshire A publication, not a program, that helped get new hunters acclimated to where to shoot, joining organizations where they might meet future hunting buddies

Oregon The Mentored Youth Hunter Program is designed to enhance the social support for hunting by getting parents involved. When family members are involved, they in turn talk to other adults sharing the Mentored Youth Hunter Program.

South Carolina Take One Make One Program: Program to match youth who would not have a chance to hunt with mentors to take them hunting. Youth are paired with a mentor and with hunting clubs in their area

Texas Working on a Hunt Mentor program and Youth Super Shoots at shooting ranges

Virginia Outdoor Beach Women, Women in the Outdoors

Mentoring programs and family or adult/child programs appear to be the dominant program-types that states have initiated.

Additional comments and suggestions on specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting include:

• The Mentored Youth Hunter Program is designed to enhance the social support for hunting by getting parents involved. When family members are involved they, in turn, talk with other adults and the program expands.

• Several states indicated they have programs that require family involvement such as: Becoming an Outdoor Family; youth and adult hunting and shooting programs for families that require the family unit to attend and learn together; and youth hunts that require participation by an adult family member.

• One state identified its “Take One Make One Program” which matches a youth who would not have a chance to hunt with mentors that take them hunting. At least one other state is developing mentored hunting and shooting programs.


| State Results

• One agency indicated that they encourage participants to join a local sportsman’s group so they can continue to learn about programs and outdoor activities.

• One agency indicated that they considered their Shooting Range Grant Assistance Program to be a mechanism to enhance the social network for hunters but conceded that they needed to do more to enhance the social network for hunters. Other agencies considered their youth shooting programs to be a mechanism to enhance the social network.

• Other agencies indicated that their Outdoor Beach Women, Women in the Outdoors, and Becoming an Outdoors Woman programs were important social networking programs for women hunters.

• One agency indicated they developed a publication for new hunters that promoted public hunting and shooting areas and directed them to organizations they could join to meet future hunting companions. Another agency considered their outdoor newsletters/magazines, Web site and TV shows to be networking mechanisms.

RECOMMENDATIONExperts believe that having a social support network is critical to advancing a new “recruit” through the awareness/trial stage of initiation to the continuation without support stage. (See NSSF’s Best Practices for Hunting and Shooting Recreation and Retention for detail on the stages new participants go through before adopting a recreational pursuit.) Additional program development, experimental programs, research and programmatic emphasis are needed in this area.

State wildlife agency awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states . (Question 15)Table 6 Awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs by state wildlife agencies.

State

Alabama MissouriAlaska Montana

Arkansas NebraskaCalifornia NevadaColorado New Jersey

Florida New MexicoGeorgia New York

Idaho OhioIllinois Oklahoma

Indiana OregonIowa South Carolina

Kansas South DakotaKentucky Tennessee

Maine TexasMassachusetts Vermont

Michigan VirginiaMinnesota West VirginiaMississippi Wyoming

Totals = 36


State Results |

Thirty-six states indicated that they were aware of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states. The results are listed by state. Of the twenty-nine states that provided details, the 4-H Shooting Sports Program was identified by sixteen states and the Scholastic Clay Target Program by eleven states. In addition, twenty-one other club-programs were specifically mentioned. These include: Outdoor Heritage Foundation; Isaac Walton of America; National Wild Turkey Federation; 4-H Shooting Sports; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; Boy Scouts of America; Scholastic Clay Target Program; Future Farmers of America; National Rifle Association; Ag Clays Program; Operation Orphans; high school shooting programs; local shooting clubs; various state-level sportsmen’s leagues and hunter associations; John Glenn Archery, Bucks & Buckthorn; Cedar Mountain Youths, Inc.; Ducks Unlimited; and Quail Unlimited. State wildlife agencies’ sponsorship of youth hunting and/or shooting clubs in their respective states . (Question 16)Table 7 Sponsorship of youth hunting and shooting clubs by state wildlife agencies.

State

Alaska Massachusetts New Mexico TexasArkansas Minnesota North Dakota Vermont

Florida Missouri Oklahoma Virginia

Illinois Nebraska Oregon Wyoming

Iowa New Hampshire South Carolina

Kansas New Jersey Tennessee Totals = 22

Twenty-two states indicated that they were sponsors of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states. Of twenty-two states that provided details, the Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP) and Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC) were identified by six states, and the National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP) was identified by four states. Several states indicated that they provided in-kind support or materials and supplies for numerous programs. At least 14 programs were identified in some manner. Several additional comments or details were provided on the kinds of support provided and additional partners supporting shooting clubs. These programs and support include:

• Various youth shooting sports programs; 4-H Shooting Sports; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; various state youth hunting programs; Delta Waterfowl events; youth Sporting Clays and Five Stand League; National Archery in the Schools Program; Scholastic Clay Target Program; silhouette, muzzleloader and Future Farmers of America events; Take One Make One Program; and Beau Turner Youth Conservation Center.

• One state noted that they cannot sponsor any clubs; but do support all clubs in the state through donations of staff time and materials. Several states noted that they provide supplies and materials such as eye and ear protection, guns, ammo, and clay targets; shooting instruction; and pheasants for youth pheasant hunts. Several states also noted that they provide shooting range grants.

Wildlife agencies that participate in hunting related outdoor expos or events . (Question 17) .Table 8 provides the responses of state agencies regarding their participation in hunting related outdoor expos or events. Forty-six states indicated that they participated in hunting related outdoor expos or events.


| State Results

Table 8 Does your agency/organization participate in any hunting-related expos? State agencies who answered yes: (n = 46)

Alabama Maine Ohio Idaho Arizona

Arkansas Maryland Oklahoma Illinois Delaware

Texas Massachusetts South Carolina Connecticut Nebraska

North Dakota Michigan Florida Wyoming Nevada

Hawaii Minnesota Tennessee New Jersey New Hampshire

Alaska Mississippi Utah California Virginia

Pennsylvania Missouri Vermont Rhode Island West Virginia

Iowa Montana Oregon Georgia Washington

Colorado New Mexico Wisconsin Kansas

Kentucky North Carolina

Primary sponsors of these outdoor expos or events were: the National Wild Turkey Federation (30); local clubs (27); Ducks Unlimited (24); Pheasants/Quail Forever (17); National Rifle Association (14); Safari Club International (13); Quail Unlimited (11); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (11); National Wildlife Federation (7); and Mule Deer Foundation (2). Other partners were reported by twenty-four states. See Figure 7.

Both federal agencies reported that they participated in national, regional and local outdoor expos or events and had numerous partners in these events.

Figure 7 Primary sponsors of events/expos participated in by state agencies

Wildlife agencies that sponsor access programs . (Question 19)Twenty-six state wildlife agencies reported that they sponsored access programs. See Table 10. Of these, twenty-one indicated that they sponsored private lands access programs and five indicated that they sponsored corporate lands access programs. Fifteen indicated that their programs were for general access; eight had programs that were restricted to youth-only; and

2

7

11

11

13

14

17

24

24

27

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Mule Deer Foundation

National Wildlife Federation

Quail Unlimited

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Safari Club International

National Rifle Association

Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever

Ducks Unlimited

Other

Local clubs (independent)

National Wild Turkey Federation

Primary sponsors of events/expos participated in by state agencies

# State Agencies


Results |

one had a program for family-only access. Five states indicated that they had other types of access programs. These included access for disabled hunters, hunting in state parks; state game lands/wildlife management areas; leasing programs and access for waterfowl/fishing.

*Note: an extensive access program assessment survey is being conducted. A separate, detailed report will be available on that project.

One federal agency reported that it sponsored a hunter access program.

Table 9 Does your agency sponsor any hunting access programs?

State agencies who answered yes: (n = 26)

Arkansas New York

North Dakota South Dakota

Pennsylvania Utah

Kansas Vermont

Colorado Virginia

Maine Idaho

Arizona Wyoming

Michigan California

Montana Rhode Island

Nebraska Georgia

New Hampshire Oregon

New Mexico Delaware

Washington Nevada

Detailed State Programmatic Information

A summary of state involvement, reported by AFWA regions, in various R&R programs is presented in Table 10.

Each of these programs is discussed in detail in the following section. However, only the specific states involved in each program-type will be displayed in this table. They will be discussed in aggregate in the specific programs sections.


| Detailed State Programmatic Information

Table 10 State agencies within AFWA regions by program types.

Midwest Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CO X X X X X X 6IL X X X X X X X X X 9

IN X X X X X X X X 8IA X X X X X X 6KS X X X X X X 6KY X X X 3MI X X X X 4

MN X X X X X X X X 8MO X X X X X X X X X X X 11NE X X X X X X X X X X X 11ND X X X X X X X X 8OH X X X X X X X 7SD X X X X X X X 7WI X X X X X X X X X 9

TOTALS 13 10 11 14 7 0 5 8 10 13 8 4 103

Northeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CT 0DE X X X X X X 6ME X X X X X X 6MD X X X X X X X 7MA X X X X 4NH X X X X X 5NJ X X X X X X X 7NY X X X X X X X X 8PA X X X X X X X 7RI X X X 3

VT X X X X X X 6WV X X X 3

TOTALS 10 9 8 11 3 0 1 5 5 4 6 0 62


Detailed State Programmatic Information |

Southeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL X X 2AR X X X X X X X X X 9FL X X X X X X 6

GA X X X X X X 6LA X X X X X X 6

MS X X X X 4NC X X X X X 5OK X X X X X X X X 8SC X X X X X X X X X 9TN X X X X 4TX X X X X X X X X X X 10VA X X X X X X X 7

TOTALS 12 7 11 10 6 1 3 7 2 8 7 2 76

Western Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X X X X 7AZ X X X X X X X X X 9CA X X X X X 5HI X X X X X X X X 8ID X X X X X 5

MT X X X X 4NV X X X X X 5NM X X X X X X X 7OR X X X X X X 6UT X X X X 4

WA X X X X 4WY X X X X X X X X 8

TOTALS 12 9 9 7 4 1 2 4 6 7 8 3 72

Overall Counts Yo

uth

Hun

ts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

47 35 39 42 20 2 11 24 23 32 29 9 313


Youth Hunts | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Youth Hunts

State Wildlife agency sponsorship of youth huntsForty-seven states indicated that they sponsored youth hunts of some type. See Table 9 above for state-specific detail.

Of these, forty-one states reported that they sponsored youth waterfowl hunts; thirty-nine sponsored youth deer hunts; thirty-three sponsored youth small game hunts; thirty-two sponsored youth turkey hunts; seventeen sponsored youth dove hunts; and eleven sponsored other youth hunts. These “other” hunts included: feral hogs, exotic species, elk, turkey, pheasant, squirrels, woodchucks and coyotes. See Figure 8.

Figure 8 Youth hunt by species

Of the states that reported sponsoring youth hunts, thirty-one indicated that the primary purpose of these hunts was both recruitment and retention. Fourteen states indicated that these hunts were primarily for hunter recruitment and one state indicated it was primarily for hunter retention. See Figure 9.

Figure 9 Purpose of youth hunt

11

17

32

33

39

41

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Other

Dove

Turkey

Small game

Deer

Waterfowl

Types of Youth Hunts Sponsored

# State Agencies

1

1

14

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Youth Hunt Purpose

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Youth Hunts

Thirty-seven states indicated that they had partner organizations for these youth hunts. See Figure 10 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with youth hunts.

Local clubs (28) were identified as the most frequent partners of state agencies in sponsoring youth hunts. Among the national conservations organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (17), Ducks Unlimited (16) and Pheasants/Quail Forever (15) were the most frequent agency partners for youth hunts. These were followed by federal land management agencies (10); Quail Unlimited (9) and Safari Club International (7). Other partners included: other federal agencies (5); other state agencies (4); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (3); National Rifle Association (3); National Wildlife Federation (2) and Mule Deer Foundation (0). Other partners were reported by nine states. These “other” partners included: Texas Wildlife Association; wildlife management cooperatives; volunteer “Hunt Masters”; private landowners; retail companies; Young Sportsman Foundation, Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska; Utah Chukar Association, various military bases and individual dog handlers.

Figure 10 Youth hunt partners

Overall, annual participation in these youth hunt programs appears to be substantial. Eleven states reported that participation in their youth hunting program was greater than 5,000 youths per year and eleven other states reported that participation in their youth hunting program was between 1,001 and 5,000 youths per year. Six states reported participation between 501 and 1,000; eleven states reported participation between 101 and 500; and four states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 11.

0

2

3

3

4

5

7

9

9

10

15

16

16

17

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30





Other state agencies

Other federal agencies


Quail Unlimited

Other

Federal land management agencies


Ducks Unlimited

State Wildlife agencies



Youth Hunt Partners

# State Agencies


Youth Hunts | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Figure 11 Youth hunt participation levels

Of forty-seven states that sponsor youth hunts, ten reported having program manuals and two reported that they were in the process of developing program manuals. See Table 11 for a list of states with program manuals.

Table 11 List of states with program manuals and evaluations

StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X

Arizona X1 X

California X X

Colorado X X

Delaware X

Florida X X

Georgia X

Iowa X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X X1

Minnesota X1 X1

Missouri X

North Dakota X

Nebraska X

Oregon X1

Rhode Island X X1

South Carolina X X1

Texas X X

Vermont X

1 = program manual/evaluation is in progress but not completed

Of forty-seven states that sponsor youth hunts, eleven reported having a formal evaluation process in place and five reported that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 10 for a list of states with formal evaluation processes.

Figure 12 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their youth hunting programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, with

4

6

11

11

11

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-100

501-1,000

101-500

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Annual Participants of Youth Hunts

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Youth Hunts

fifteen states reporting use of this metric. Ten states used enrollment numbers and eight states collected participant contact information, measured program demand, and/or tracked hunting licenses sold. Six states monitored the responses received and five states monitored long-term trends, used exit evaluations and/or formal after-event evaluations. Four states reported using contacts made, reported hunting incidents, exit interviews with participants, informal after-event evaluations and/or formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. Three states reported using informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback and/or tabulated hunter days. Texas reported using university-level human dimensions survey research; letters to landowners; and research on minority involvement and participation in programs.

Figure 12 Youth hunt evaluation metrics

All eleven of the states that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others. See Table 11.

Numerous states provided comments and additional information on their youth hunt programs. These comments included: (1) training for volunteer “hunt masters” is critical so that they can learn how to set up and conduct hunts, (2) programs are best coordinated via administrative regions based on volunteer availability, with the best results obtained from a public agency (staffing and support) and private (operations) partnership, and (3) local chapters of national organizations are critical in the implementation of these youth hunts. In addition, many states indicated that they offer youth hunts, special youth days and youth seasons. In most cases, the youth must be accompanied by a licensed hunter. These seasons are often held in advance of the regular season opener and are often for either sex animal. In the case of big game hunts, in many situations either sex permits are available for all youth hunters, but are only available by limited drawing for an adult hunter.

Maryland cautioned that some of the evaluation metrics are not always available to others because of privacy laws.

0

1

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

6

8

8

8

10

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Longitudinal (long-term) studies

Other

Hunter-days tabulated

Qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback - informal

Contacts made (mailing, e-mail, etc. sent)

Reported hunting incidents (accidents)

Exit interviews with participants

Follow up (after event) evaluations - informal

Qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback - formal

Long-term trends

Exit evaluations from participants

Follow up (after event) evaluations - formal

Responses received

Participant contact information

Demand

Hunting licenses sold

Enrollment numbers

Number of participants

Youth Hunt Program Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Advanced training courses or seminars | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Advanced training courses or seminars

State agency sponsorship of advanced training courses or seminarsThirty-five states indicated that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, eighteen states reported that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for deer; fifteen sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for waterfowl; twelve sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for small game; five developed instructional videos; four sponsored how-to-hunt seminars; and three sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for elk. In addition, twenty states reported that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for other outdoor skills. These “other” seminars included: alligators; trapping; game calling; bear; feral hogs; pronghorn; big horn sheep; turkey; master hunter program; handgun hunting; wilderness survival; land navigation; hunter ethics and landowner relations; advanced marksmanship; and bird dogs handling.

One federal agency reported that it sponsored advanced training seminars for waterfowl hunting and bow hunter education in cooperation with state agencies. These programs have program manuals and are evaluated in some manner.

Figure 13 Types of advanced training courses or seminars

Of thirty-five states that reported sponsoring advanced training courses or seminars, fifteen indicated that the primary purpose of these hunts was both recruitment and retention. Ten states indicated that these advanced training courses or seminars were primarily for hunter retention, while four states indicated that they were primarily for hunter recruitment. Five states indicated that the primary purpose of these advanced training courses or seminars was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 14.

3

4

5

12

15

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Elk

How-to-hunt field courses

Instructional videos (how-to videos)

Small game

Waterfowl

Deer

Other

Types of Advanced Training Course Seminars

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Advanced training courses or seminars

Figure 14 Purpose of advanced training courses or seminars

Twenty-three states indicated that they had partner organizations for these advanced training courses or seminars. See Figure 15 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with advanced training courses or seminars.

Local clubs (14) were identified as the most frequent partners of state agencies in sponsoring advanced training courses or seminars. Among the national conservation organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (10) and Ducks Unlimited (8) were the most frequently reported agency partners. These were followed by National Rifle Association (5); other state agencies (5); federal land management agencies (4); Quail Unlimited (3); Safari Club International (3); other federal agencies (3); Pheasants/Quail Forever (2); and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (1). Other partners were reported by ten states. These other partners included: various state hunter education instructors’ associations; volunteer instructors; local, regional and national outdoor retail stores; local archery clubs; Texas Wildlife Association (Brigade Camps); Outdoor Texas Camps; CONSEP - Waterfowl Training; Woods and Waters Clubs; Texas AgriLIFE Extension; Paraplegics on Independent Nature Trips -Turning POINT; Quality Deer Management Association; Wilderness Unlimited; Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife; and Hunter Heritage Foundation of Alaska. Several states indicated that they would participate in other local events when asked.

4

5

10

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Hunter Recruitment

Neither

Hunter Retention

Both

Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Purpose

# State Agencies



Figure 15 Advanced training courses or seminars partners

Overall, annual participation in advanced training courses or seminars appears to be less than participation reported for youth hunts. Three states reported that the participation in their advanced training courses or seminars was between 1,001 and 5,000 per year. Six states reported participation between 501 and 1,000; twelve states reported participation between 101 and 500; and eleven states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 16.

Figure 16 Advanced training courses or seminars participation levels

0

0

1

2

3

3

3

4

5

5

7

8

10

10

14

0 5 10 15






Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited


Other


Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Partners

# State Agencies

0

3

6

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

More than 5,000

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

0-100

101-500

Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Annual Participants

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Advanced training courses or seminars

Of thirty-five states that sponsor advanced training courses or seminars, eight reported having program manuals and none reported that they were in the process of developing program manuals. See Table 12 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X X

California X

Hawaii X X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X X

Minnesota X X1

Missouri X X

North Carolina X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Island X

Texas X X

Vermont X

Washington X


Of thirty-five states that sponsor advanced training courses or seminars, eleven reported having a formal evaluation process in place and one reported that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 12 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 17 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their advanced training courses or seminars. The most frequent metric used was number of participants, with twelve states reporting use of this metric. Nine states used enrollment numbers and/or exit evaluations from participants. Seven states used informal after-event evaluations and six states collected participant contact information or measured program demand. Four states monitored long-term trends and/or informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. Three states reported using contacts made and/or responses received. Two states monitored hunting incidents; conducted exit interviews with participants; conducted formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; conducted formal after-event follow-up evaluations; and/or monitored hunting licenses sold. One state, Washington, reported using violations reported annually involving program graduates. No state reported using hunter-days or longitudinal studies.



Figure 17 Advanced training courses or seminars evaluation metrics

Ten of eleven states that are currently conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others. See table 12 for these states.

Several states provided additional information or comments on their advanced training courses or seminars. States also sponsored or participated in: “How-to” hunting camps; SCI Hunting Camp on hunting exotic species; disabled hunter seminars; various states’ “deer classics”; and scoring trophy racks seminars. It was noted that many of these seminars are primarily sponsored by other organizations, but the states participate as resource managers. Ohio indicated that they were not participating in as many of these as they had in the past due to lack of staff time and lack of evaluations from past programs.

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

4

6

6

9

9

12

0 5 10 15



Other





Qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback -

formal


Responses received

Long-term trends


Qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback -

informal


Demand

Enrollment numbers



Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Youth Events

Youth Events

State Wildlife agency sponsorship of youth eventsThirty-nine states indicated that they sponsored youth events of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, thirty-four states reported that they sponsored youth field days; nineteen sponsored youth seminars; and thirteen sponsored other youth events. See Figure 18. These other events included: 4-H and FFA field days; Agriculture Science Field Days; JAKES, Greenwings, Trailblazer, Outdoor Kid Adventure Days, and Outdoor Kids Zone events; Youth Conservation Camps, Outdoor Skills Camps and other summer camps; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; Youth Duck Stamp Contest; Becoming an Outdoor Family events; youth shooting programs; National Hunting and Fishing Day events; Aquatic Education Programs; and Project WILD.

Both federal agencies reported that they sponsored youth seminars and/or youth field days in cooperation with state agencies and NGO partners.

Figure 18 Types of youth events

Of thirty-nine states that reported sponsoring youth events, twenty-three indicated that the primary purpose of these youth events was both recruitment and retention. Ten states indicated that these youth events were primarily for hunter recruitment, while two states indicated they were primarily for hunter retention. Three states indicated that the primary purpose of these youth events was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 19.

13

19

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Seminars

Field days

Types of Youth Events

# State Agencies


Youth Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Figure 19 Purpose of youth events

Thirty-three states indicated that they had partner organizations for these youth events. See Figure 20 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with youth events.

Local clubs (25) were identified as the most frequent partners of state agencies in sponsoring youth events. Among national conservation organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (24) and Ducks Unlimited (17) were the most frequent agency partners for sponsoring youth events. These were followed by Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (11); National Rifle Association (10); other state agencies (9); federal land management agencies (9); Quail Unlimited (9); Safari Club International (9); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (6); National Wildlife Federation (6); other federal agencies (4); and Mule Deer Foundation (2). Other partners were reported in ten states. These other partners included: Boy and Girl Scouts; 4-H; FFA; Agriculture Science in High Schools; Outdoor Trails Program; Texas Wildlife Association LANDS program; various city parks and recreation departments; U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance; Quality Deer Management Association; local and regional environmental learning centers; state chapters of the National Wildlife Federation and other national species-group conservation organizations; state bow hunters associations; local churches; and Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

2

3

10

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Youth Events Purpose

# State Agencies



Figure 20 Youth events partners

Overall, annual participation in these youth events appears to be substantial. Eight states reported that participation in their youth events was greater than 5,000 per year and nine states reported participation in their youth events as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year. Nine states reported participation between 501 and 1,000; eight states reported participation between 101 and 500; and three states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 21.

Figure 21 Youth events annual participation

2

4

6

6

9

9

9

9

10

10

11

16

17

24

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30







Quail Unlimited



Other



Ducks Unlimited



Youth Events Partners

# State Agencies

3

8

8

9

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0-100

101-500

More than 5,000

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

Youth Events Annual Participants

# State Agencies


Youth Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Of thirty-nine states that sponsor youth events, seven reported having program manuals and one reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 13 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X X

Arizona X1 X

Georgia X

Illinois X

Indiana X X

Iowa X

Minnesota X1

Missouri X X

Nebraska X1

Oregon X1

South Carolina X X1

Texas X

Vermont X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X


Of thirty-nine states that sponsor youth events, eight reported having a formal evaluation process in place and four were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 13 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 22 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their youth events. The most frequent metric used was number of participants, with twelve states reporting use of this metric. Eleven states used enrollment numbers. Six states reported using exit evaluations from participants. Five states monitored demand; tracked hunting licenses sold; tracked contacts made; or used exit interviews with participants. Four states collected participant contact information and monitored long-term trends and/or responses received. Three states reported using formal and/or informal after-event evaluations. Two states reported monitoring hunting incidents and/or formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. One state used informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. Nebraska reported “We conducted one long-term styde on our skills camps and use National Studies for project WILD, NASP, Hunter Education, etc.” No state reported using hunter-days or longitudinal studies as evaluation metrics.



Figure 22 Youth events program evaluation metrics

Nine of twelve states (Texas, Alaska, Indiana, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Georgia) that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others.

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



Qualitative evaluations based on participant

feedback - informal

Other


Qualitative evaluations based on participant

feedback - formal

Follow up evaluations - formal

Follow up evaluations - informal


Long-term trends

Responses received

Demand





Enrollment numbers


Youth Events Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Women’s Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Women’s Events

State Wildlife agency sponsorship of women’s eventsForty-two states indicated that they sponsored women’s events of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of forty-two states that sponsored women’s events, forty reported that they sponsored Becoming an Outdoors Woman events; sixteen sponsored Women in the Outdoors events; and twelve sponsored other women’s events (Figure 23). These other women’s events included: Beyond BOW; Texas Outdoor Woman’s Network–TOWN; DIVAs; Women on Target: Women Afield; Women’s Step Outside Weekends with local town parks and recreations; Missouri Department of Conservation Discover Nature Programs for Women; Family in the Outdoors; Mother/Daughter events; hunter education courses for women only; and club-sponsored events.

Figure 23 Women’s events by type

Of forty-two states that reported sponsoring women’s events, twenty-seven indicated that the primary purpose of these women’s events was both recruitment and retention. Eleven indicated that these women’s events were primarily for hunter recruitment. No states indicated hunter retention as the primary purpose of such events. Four states indicated that the primary purpose of these women’s events was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 24.

12

16

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Other

Women in the Outdoors

Becoming an Outdoors Woman

Types of Women's Events

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Women’s Events

Figure 24 Women’s events by purpose

Thirty-five states indicated that they had partner organizations for these women’s events. See Figure 25 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with women’s events.

Local clubs (23) and the National Wild Turkey Federation (23) were identified as the most frequent partners of state agencies in sponsoring women’s events. Among other organizations, the National Rifle Association (11) and Ducks Unlimited (10) were the most frequently identified agency partners for women’s events. These were followed by Safari Club International (9); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (8); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (7); other state agencies (6); federal land management agencies (4); Quail Unlimited (4); National Wildlife Federation (3); other federal agencies (2); and Mule Deer Foundation (1). Other partners were reported by ten states. These other partners include: National BOW office; DIVA; National Shooting Sports Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska; Iowa Women in Natural Resources; Ruffed Grouse Society; Michigan Association of Gamebird Breeders and Hunting Preserves; Whitetails Unlimited; Hal & Jean Glassen Memorial Foundation; NH Wildlife Federation; WV Bowhunters; local and regional parks; outdoor retailers (Cabela’s, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Sportsman’s Warehouse, G.I. Joes, Leatherman, Winchester, Federal, Remington); and numerous local sponsors that donate material and supplies.

0

4

11

27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Women's Events Purpose

# State Agencies



Figure 25 Women’s events partners

Overall, annual participation in these women’s events appears to be less than what is reported for advanced training courses or seminars. Five states reported participation in their women’s events was between 501 and 1,000 per year: twenty-eight states reported participation between 101 and 500; and five states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 26.

Figure 26 Women’s events annual participation

1

2

3

4

4

6

7

8

9

10

10

11

12

23

23

0 5 10 15 20 25





Quail Unlimited





Ducks Unlimited

Other





Women's Events Partners

# State Agencies

0

0

5

5

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

0-100

501-1,000

101-500

Women's Events Participants

# State Agencies


Of forty-two states that sponsor women’s events, ten reported having program manuals and one reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 14 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X X

Arkansas X1

Colorado X

Florida X X

Georgia X

Indiana X X

Louisiana X

Maine X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesota X X1

Missouri X X

Nebraska X X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X

New Mexico X

New York X1 X

North Carolina X

North Dakota X

Oregon X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Texas X X

Vermont X

Wisconsin X


Of forty-two states that sponsor women’s events, twenty-one states reported having a formal evaluation process in place and two reported that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 14 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 27 reports the evaluation metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their women’s events. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, with twenty-two states reporting use of this metric. Eighteen states reported using exit evaluations from participants; seventeen reported collecting participant contact information; sixteen states used enrollment numbers; and sixteen monitored demand. Eleven states monitored responses received and nine states tracked the contacts made. Five states used formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback and/or formal follow-up, after-event evaluations. Four states used informal follow-up, after-event evaluations; exit interviews with participants; or monitored long-term trends and/or hunting licenses sold. One state reported monitoring hunting

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Women’s Events


incidents and/or used longitudinal studies as evaluation metrics. One state reported using university-sponsored surveys to evaluate their BOW program. No state reported using hunter-days as evaluation metrics.

Figure 27 Women’s events evaluation metrics

Thirteen of twenty-one states that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others. Those states are Texas, Alaska, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, North Dakota, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Vermont and Georgia.

Several states provided additional comments and details regarding their women’s events. Arizona indicated that most of its women’s events do not focus on hunting. It was noted that hunting is a portion of the program but the majority of the weekend is focused on outdoor skills in general. Ohio indicated that it sponsored special women-only deer hunts. South Carolina indicated that its evaluation results for all education programs would be available in October 2009.


0

1

1

1

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

9

11

16

16

17

18

22

0 5 10 15 20 25




Other

Long-term trends








Responses received

Enrollment numbers

Demand




Women's Events Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Family Events

State Wildlife agency sponsorship of family eventsTwenty states indicated that they sponsored family events of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, twelve states reported that they sponsored field day family events; four reported that they sponsored family seminar events; and ten reported that they sponsored other family events. Other family events included: National Hunting and Fishing Day; outdoor expos; Family Fishing Days and state fairs, Family Water Safety Day; Becoming an Outdoor Family; on-site programs at state parks, nature centers and ranges; family hunts; and various hunting-related workshops.

Figure 28 Family events by type

Of twenty states that reported sponsoring family events, twelve indicated that the primary purpose of these events was both recruitment and retention. Four states indicated that these family events were primarily for hunter recruitment. One state indicated their event was primarily for hunter retention. Three states indicated that the primary purpose of these family events was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See figure 29.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Family Events

4

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Seminars

Other

Field Days

Types of Family Events

# State Agencies


Figure 29 Family events purpose

Fifteen states indicated that they had partner organizations for these family events. See Figure 31 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with family events.

Other state agencies (8) and local clubs (7) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring family events. Among national organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (5) was reported as the most frequent agency partner for family events. This was followed by Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (3); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (3); National Wildlife Federation (3); National Rifle Association (3); federal land management agencies (2); Ducks Unlimited (2); other federal agencies (2); Safari Club International (2); and Quail Unlimited (1). Other partners were reported by three states. These partners included: Department of Land and Natural Resources - Enforcement, Forestry and Wildlife, Aquatics; Boating/Ocean Recreation; Watson T. Yoshimoto Foundation; Wahaiawa Freshwater Fishing Association; Hawaii Historic Arms Association; Kakaako Kasting Club; Pacific Ocean Producers; Hawaii Food Bank; Oahu Pig Hunters Association; Friends of the NRA; Hawaii Metallic Silhouette Shooters Association; national, regional and local retail outlets; 4-H Extension; various regional and local parks and recreation departments; state rifle and pistol associations; various high school shooting clubs; local archery clubs; and local chapters of national organizations.

Family Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information

1

3

4

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Family Events Purpose

# State Agencies


Figure 30 Family events partners

Overall, annual participation in these family events appears to be more than what is reported for women’s events. Four states reported participation in their family events was more than 5,000 participants per year. Three state agencies reported participation between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; one state reported participation between 501 and 1,000; six states reported participation between 101 and 500; and six states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 31.

Figure 31 Family events annual participation


0

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

5

7

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10


Quail Unlimited



Ducks Unlimited






Other





Family Events Partners

# State Agencies

1

3

4

6

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

0-100

101-500

Family Events Participants

# State Agencies


Of twenty states that sponsor family events, four reported having program manuals. No state reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 15 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Hawaii X

Minnesota X1

Missouri X X

Nebraska X

Oklahoma X1

Oregon X1

South Carolina X

South Dakota

Texas X X

Vermont X X

Wisconsin X


Of twenty states that sponsor family events, six reported having a formal evaluation process in place and four reported that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 15 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 32 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their family events. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants; with ten states reporting use of this metric. Four states collected participant contact information and/or enrollment numbers. Seven states conducted exit evaluations from participants. Two states monitored demand; monitored responses received; tracked the contacts made; tracked hunting licenses sold; conducted exit interviews with participants; conducted informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; and/or informal after-event, follow-up evaluations. In each case, a single state indicated using formal after-event, follow-up evaluations; monitored long-term trends; and/or reported hunting incidents and/or conducted formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. Hawaii reported using funds and pounds of food donated to the food bank as a metric to measure the success of its program. No state reported using hunter-days or longitudinal studies as evaluation metrics.

Family Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information


Figure 32 Family events evaluation metrics

Eight of ten states that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others. Those states are Texas, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Hawaii provided additional comments on its family events and noted that during the National Hunting and Fishing Day (NHFD) celebration, participants donate food or money to benefit the Hawaii Food Bank in exchange for activity coupons. These coupons are exchanged for opportunities to shoot rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, pistols and air guns; or participate in archery, fly rod casting and surfcasting. Additionally, sportsmen share their experiences and expertise with the general public. NHFD is an opportunity for the public to express their concern with donations and to experience first-hand firearms safety orientation and actual discharge of different arms. The Hawaii Food Bank has benefited from over $13,200 in funds raised and almost 17,000 pounds of food donations. This translates into over 44,000 meals to the needy in Hawaii.

Texas noted that they have developed a “Texas Outdoor Family” program modeled after the successful Becoming an Outdoors Woman program.


0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

7

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12



Long-term trends




Other

Demand


Responses received






Enrollment numbers



Family Events Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Industry/Corporate Events

State agency sponsorship of industry/corporate eventsTwo states indicated that they sponsored industry/corporate events of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Both states that reported sponsoring industry/corporate events indicated that the primary purpose of these industry/corporate events was for both recruitment and retention.

One state indicated that it had partner organizations for its industry/corporate events. These partners included: other state agencies; local clubs; National Wild Turkey Federation; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; National Wildlife Federation; National Rifle Association; federal land management agencies; Ducks Unlimited; other federal agencies; Safari Club International; Quail Unlimited; and other partners. Other partners and participants included industry professionals and the public.

Annual participation in these industry/corporate events was reported as greater than 5,000 participants per year by one state and between 101 and 500 by the other state.

Of two states that sponsor industry/corporate events, Arizona reported having a program manual. No state reported that they were in the process of developing program manuals.

Of two states that sponsor industry/corporate events, Arizona reported having a formal evaluation process in place. The metric used in its evaluation process was exit interviews with participants. Arizona will make its evaluations available to others.

Arizona added that a portion of its Outdoor Expo is dedicated to industry interaction with the public. In the past, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Glock, and other manufacturers have participated.

Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program

State agency sponsorship of non-traditional participant recruitment programEleven states indicated that they sponsored a non-traditional participant recruitment program of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, seven states reported that they sponsored non-traditional participant recruitment programs for people with disabilities; four reported that they had a program developed for Hispanics; three reported that they had a program developed for Asians; two reported that they had a program developed for African-Americans; one had a program developed for veterans and/or Native Americans; and two had programs developed for other non-traditional participants. These other efforts included: the Harambe Festival in Texas for African-Americans; Hispanic Outreach events; Turning POINT for disabled hunters; provision of signers for the hearing impaired during its basic hunter education classes; as well as hosting conferences for inner-city youth, new residents, Boy/Girl Scouts and 4-H groups. Nebraska added that it developed the “Sportspeople Assisting the Nation’s Disabled Sportspeople” program two years ago.


Figure 33 Types of non-traditional participant recruitment activities

Nine states indicated that they had partner organizations for these non-traditional participant programs. See Figure 34 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these non-traditional participant programs.

Local clubs (8) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring non-traditional participant programs. Among national organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (4) was the most frequent agency partner for non-traditional participant programs. This was followed by Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (1); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (1); National Rifle Association (1); federal land management agencies (1); Ducks Unlimited (1); other federal agencies (1); and Safari Club International (1). Other partners were reported by three states. These included Texas agriLIFE Extension, Southeast Asian Community Organization (MN) and Whitetails Unlimited (NE).

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Non-Traditional Participant Programs

1

1

2

2

3

4

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Native American

Veterans

African-American

Other

Asian

Hispanic

Disabled

Types of Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Activities

# State Agencies


Figure 34 Non-traditional participant program partners

Overall, annual participation in these non-traditional participant recruitment programs appears modest. One state agency reported participation between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; two states reported participation between 501 and 1,000; three reported participation between 101 and 500; and four reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 35.

Figure 35 Non-traditional participant program participation levels

Of eleven states that sponsor a non-traditional participant program, two reported having program manuals. No state reported that they were in the process of developing program manuals. See Table 16 for a list of states with program manuals.

Non-Traditional Participant Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

4

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited






Other



Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Partners

# State Agencies

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

More than 5,000

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

101-500

0-100

Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Participants

# State Agencies



StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Hawaii X X

Idaho X

Missouri X

New York X

Of eleven states that sponsor a non-traditional participant program, three reported having a formal evaluation process in place. See Table 16 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 36 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their non-traditional participant recruitment programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants; with two states reporting use of this metric. In many cases a single state used an evaluation method including collecting participant contact information; monitoring demand; monitoring responses received; tracking hunting licenses sold; conducting exit evaluations with participants; conducting informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; and/or conducting formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No state reported using hunter-days; enrollment numbers; long-term trends; contacts made; reported hunting incidents; exit interviews with participants; formal or informal follow-up, after-event evaluations; longitudinal studies; or other measures.

Figure 36 Non-traditional participant program evaluation metrics

Of the three states that are conducting evaluations, Idaho will make its evaluations available to others.

Texas added that it conducts many informal outreach efforts to reach non-traditional participants as part of its overall outreach efforts.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Non-Traditional Participant Programs

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Enrollment numbers

Long-term trends








Other


Demand

Responses received






Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Camp Programs

State agency sponsorship of camp programsTwenty-four states indicated that they sponsored a camp program of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, twenty-two states reported that they sponsored youth camps; eight reported that they sponsored family camps; five sponsored 4-H camps; four sponsored scout camps; and one sponsored church camps. Five states reported that they sponsored other types of camps. These included: Outdoor Texas Camp; Parrie Haynes Youth Conservation Ranch (operated by department); Brigade Camps; Lure ‘Em For Life; summer conservation camps; and a teachers camp.

Figure 37 Types of camp programs

Of twenty-four states that reported sponsoring camp programs, fifteen indicated that the primary purpose of these camp programs was both recruitment and retention. Six states indicated that the primary purpose was hunter retention. Three states indicated that the primary purpose of their camp programs was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 38.

Camp Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

1

4

5

5

8

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

Church

Scout

4-H

Other

Family

Youth

Types of Camp Programs

# State Agencies


Figure 38 Purpose of camp programs

Twenty-one states indicated that they had partner organizations for their camp programs. See Figure 39 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these camp programs.

Local clubs (13) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring camp programs. Among national organizations, the Safari Club International (7) and the National Wild Turkey Federation (6) were the most frequently reported agency partners for camp programs. These were followed by other state agencies (5); National Wildlife Federation (4); federal land management agencies (3); Ducks Unlimited (3); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (2); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2); other federal agencies (2); Mule Deer Foundation (2); Quail Unlimited (1); and National Rifle Association (1). Other partners were reported by eight states, and included: Texas Wildlife Association; Outdoor Texas Camps; Delta Waterfowl; Watson T. Yoshimoto Foundation; U. S. Geological Survey; Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska; various university Cooperative Extension programs and 4-H camps; various Boy Scouts of America camps; and private plantation owners.

Figure 39 Camp programs partners

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Camp Programs

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

5

6

7

8

8

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Quail Unlimited







Ducks Unlimited






Other


Camp Programs Partners

# State Agencies

0

3

6

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Camp Programs Purpose

# State Agencies


Overall, annual participation in these camp programs appears to be fairly substantial. One state agency reported participation of greater than 5,000 individuals per year. Three states reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; five states reported participation between 501 and 1,000; eight states reported participation between 101 and 500; and six states reported participation between 0 and 100 (Figure 40).

Figure 40 Camp programs participation levels

Of twenty-four states that sponsor camp programs, nine reported having program manuals. No state reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 17 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X X

Arizona X X

Florida X X

Hawaii X

Louisiana X

Maryland

Massachusetts X

Missouri X

Nebraska X

New Hampshire X

New York X X

Ohio X

South Carolina X1

Texas X X

Vermont X X

Wyoming X X


Camp Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

1

3

5

6

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

More than 5,000

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

0-100

101-500

Camp Programs Participants

# State Agencies


Of twenty-four states that sponsor camp programs, twelve reported having a formal evaluation process in place. One state reported that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 17 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 41 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their camp programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants; with eleven states reporting use of this metric. Nine states reported monitoring demand. Eight states conducted exit evaluations with participants. Seven states reported collecting participant contact information. Six states tracked enrollment numbers. Five states tracked long-term trends. Four states monitored responses received; conducted exit interviews with participants; and/or conducted formal follow-ups, after-event evaluations and/or conducted formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. Three states tracked contacts made. Two states tracked hunting licenses sold and/or conducted informal follow-up, after-event evaluations. One state reported using hunter-days; reported hunting incidents; conducted longitudinal studies; and/or conducted informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No state reported using other measures.

Figure 41 Camp programs evalution metrics

Seven of twelve states that are conducting evaluations are willing to make their evaluations available to others. These states Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, Vermont and Wyoming.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Camp Programs

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

4

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Other








Responses received




Long-term trends

Enrollment numbers



Demand


Camp Programs Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Mentoring Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Mentoring ProgramsState agency sponsorship of mentoring programsTwenty-three states indicated that they sponsored mentoring programs of some type. See Table 10 for details.Of these, eighteen states reported that the agency itself was the prime sponsor of the mentoring programs; five states reported that they sponsored mentoring programs with other organizations (e.g. Big Brothers or Big Sisters); three states reported that they sponsored a “Master Hunter” mentoring program; and three states reported that they sponsored other types of mentoring programs. Other mentoring programs included assistance from various state hunter education associations (these associations are independent from state agencies), as well as individual hunter education instructors. Both the associations and individual instructors assist with mentoring programs or take students out on mentored hunts.

Figure 42 Types of mentoring programs

Of twenty-three states that reported sponsoring mentoring programs, ten indicated that the primary purpose of these mentoring programs was for hunter recruitment; two indicated the primary purpose was for both hunter recruitment and retention; and one indicated that their program was primarily for hunter retention. Two states indicated that the primary purpose of their mentoring programs was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 43.

Figure 43 Purpose of mentoring programs

3

3

5

18

0 5 10 15 20

Master Hunter

Other

Partnership w/other org. (e.g. Big Brother/Big Sister)

Agency sponsored

Types of Mentoring Programs

# State Agencies

1

2

10

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Mentoring Programs Purpose

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Mentoring Programs

Fourteen states indicated that they had partner organizations for these mentoring programs. See Figure 44 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these mentoring programs.

Local clubs (7) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring mentoring programs. Among national organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (5); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (3); Safari Club International (3); and Ducks Unlimited (3) were the most frequently reported agency partners. These were followed by: other state agencies (3); National Wildlife Federation (2); federal land management agencies (2); other federal agencies (2); Quail Unlimited (1); and National Rifle Association (1). Other partners were reported by seven states and included: Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska; National Shooting Sports Foundation; Quality Deer Management Association; South Carolina Law Enforcement Association; Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association; Washington Hunter Education Instructors’ Association; Oregon Hunting Association; private landowners; and family and friends of the Jr. Hunter program.

Figure 44 Mentoring programs partners

Overall, annual participation in these mentoring programs appears to be fairly substantial. Five states reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; one state reported participation between 501 and 1,000; six states reported participation between 101 and 500; and eleven states reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 45.

0

0

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

5

7

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited






Other

Mentoring Programs Partners

# State Agencies


Mentoring Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Figure 45 Mentoring programs participation levels

Of twenty-three states that sponsor mentoring programs, six reported having program manuals. One state reported that they were in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 18 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Arizona X X1

Colorado X X

Illinois X

Maryland X

Minnesota X1 X1

Nebraska X X1

North Dakota X X

Oregon X1

South Carolina X X


Of twenty-three states that sponsor mentoring programs, four reported having formal evaluation processes in place. Another four states indicated that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 18 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 46 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their mentoring programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, with eight states reporting use of this metric. Six states reported enrollment numbers. Five states collected participant contact information; tracked long-term trends; tracked demand; and/or tracked hunting licenses sold. Four states conducted exit evaluations with participants. Three states monitored responses received and/or contacts made. Two states tabulated hunter-days; conducted exit interviews with participants; and/or conducted informal follow-up, after-event evaluations. One state reported conducting informal qualitative evaluations based on

0

1

5

6

11

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

More than 5,000

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

101-500

0-100

Mentoring Programs Participants

# State Agencies


Detailed State Programmatic Information | Mentoring Programs

participant feedback; conducted formal follow-up, after-event evaluations; tracked reported hunting incidents; and/or conducted longitudinal studies. One state reported using feedback from mentors and parents as an evaluation metric.

Figure 46 Mentoring programs evaluation metrics

Seven of eight states that are conducting evaluations on their mentoring programs are willing to make their evaluations available to others. Those states are Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina.

Pennsylvania added that it sponsored mentored youth hunts for deer, squirrel, pheasant, and turkey.

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

5

5

5

5

6

8

0 2 4 6 8 10






Other





Responses received



Demand

Long-term trends


Enrollment numbers


Mentoring Programs Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Shooting Sports Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

Shooting Sports Programs

State agency sponsorship of shooting sports programsThirty-two states indicated that they sponsored shooting sports programs of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of these, twenty-eight states reported that the agency was a sponsor of the National Archery in the Schools program; fifteen reported that they sponsored the Scholastic Clay Target Program; thirteen sponsored the 4-H Shooting Sports Program; seven states sponsored a National Rifle Association shooting sports program; five states sponsored a Step Outside program; and twelve states sponsored other types of shooting sports programs. Other shooting sports programs included: Arkansas Youth Shooting Sports; Mobile Shooting Sports (Sporting Clays); Ag Clays; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; National Shooting Sports Foundation - First Shots program; Introduction to Wing-shooting Programs; Future Farmers of America; Amateur Trap Shooting Association; silhouette and muzzleloader workshops; semi-annual events featuring shooting sports; hunter sight-in days at shooting ranges; shooting events at camp programs for older campers; funding for shooting ranges in the state; state-run staffed and un-manned shooting ranges; archery and air rifle ranges at state park facilities; and local shooting ranges and clubs. See Figure 47.

Figure 47 Types of shooting sports programs

Of thirty-two states that reported sponsoring shooting sports programs, nineteen states indicated that these mentoring programs were for both hunter recruitment and retention; ten states indicated that the primary purpose was for hunter recruitment; and one state indicated that their program was primarily for hunter retention. Two states indicated that the primary purpose of these shooting sports programs was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 48.

5

7

12

13

15

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Step Outside (NSSF)

NRA shooting sports program

Other

4-H Shooting Sports

Scholastic Clay Target

National Archery in the Schools

Types of Shooting Sports Programs

# State Agencies


Figure 48 Purpose of shooting sports programs

Twenty-seven states indicated that they had partner organizations for these shooting sports programs. See Figure 49 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these shooting sports programs.

Local clubs (18) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring shooting sports programs. Among national organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (12) and National Rifle Association (9) were the most frequent agency partners for mentoring programs. These were followed by: other state agencies (6); Safari Club International (6); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (4); Ducks Unlimited (3); National Wildlife Federation (2); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2); federal land management agencies (1); other federal agencies (1); and Quail Unlimited (1). Other partners were reported by sixteen states. These included: National Shooting Sports Foundation; National Scholastic Clays Foundation; Archery Trade Association; various State Departments of Education; Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska; Quality Deer Management Association; Ruffed Grouse Society; Whitetails Unlimited; Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen; Upper Peninsula Whitetails Association; Amateur Trap Shooting Association; National Skeet Shooting Association; Hal and Jean Glassen Memorial Foundation; Michigan Bow Hunters; volunteer hunter education instructors; Conservation Federation of Missouri; South Carolina Youth Shooting Foundation; 4-H Shooting Sports; Harry Hampton Wildlife Foundation; South Carolina Department of Education; Tennessee Wildlife Federation; Georgia Outdoor Network; local schools; local ranges; and industry such as Parker Bows and Horton Archery.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Shooting Sports Programs

1

2

10

19

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Shooting Sports Programs Purpose

# State Agencies


Figure 49 Shooting sports programs partners

Overall, annual participation in these shooting sports programs appears to be very substantial. Ten states reported that participation was greater than 5,000 each year. Eight states reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; six reported participation between 501 and 1,000; five reported participation between 101 and 500; and one state reported participation between 0 and 100. Two states reported the exact numbers of participants which were 85,000 and 1,486 participants. See Figure 50.

Figure 50 Shooting sports programs participation levels

Shooting Sports Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

0

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

6

6

7

9

12

16

18

0 5 10 15 20




Quail Unlimited



Ducks Unlimited







Other


Shooting Sports Programs Partners

# State Agencies

1

5

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-100

101-500

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Shooting Sports Programs Participants

# State Agencies


Of thirty-two states that sponsor shooting sports programs, nineteen reported having program manuals. No state reported that they were in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 19 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Alaska X

Arizona X X1

Arkansas X X

Georgia X X

Hawaii X X

Illinois X

Indiana X X

Iowa X

Michigan X X

Minnesota X

Missouri X X

North Dakota X X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Pennsylvania X

South Carolina X X1

Tennessee X

Texas X X

Utah X

Virginia X

Wisconsin X


Of thirty-two states that sponsor shooting sports programs, ten reported having formal evaluation processes in place. Another two states indicated that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 19 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 51 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their shooting sports programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, with twelve states reporting use of this metric. Eight states reported collected enrollment numbers and/or participant contact information. Seven states tracked demand and six conducted exit evaluations with participants. Five states monitored responses received; tracked long-term trends; and/or conducted informal follow-up, after-event evaluations. Four states tracked contacts made and three tracked hunting licenses sold. Two states reported conducting exit interviews with participants; conducting formal follow-up, after-event evaluations; and/or conducting informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. One state reported conducting formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback and/or tracked reported hunting incidents. No state reported conducting longitudinal studies or tracking hunter-days. Two states reported other metrics: one state reported involvement in a multi-

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Shooting Sports Programs


state educational evaluation and a second state reported being involved in an ongoing national survey of the National Archery in the Schools Program.

Figure 51 Shooting sports programs evaluation metrics

Ten of twelve states that are conducting evaluations on their shooting sports programs are willing to make their evaluations available to others. Those states are Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

One state added that it was planning on partnering with the National Archery in the Schools Program and the Scholastic Clays Target Program in the near future; another state indicated that it was involved with the NRA-sponsored Youth Hunter Education Challenge program; while a third state, South Carolina, indicated that the results of its evaluation will be available October 2009.

Outdoor Expos or Events

State agency sponsorship of outdoor expos or eventsTwenty-nine states indicated that they sponsored outdoor expos or events of some type. See Table 10 for details.

Of twenty-nine states that reported sponsoring outdoor expos or events, twenty-four indicated that these outdoor expos or events were for both hunter recruitment and retention; three indicated that the primary purpose was for hunter recruitment. Two states indicated that the primary purpose was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 52.

Outdoor Expos or Events | Detailed State Programmatic Information

0

0

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

5

5

5

6

7

8

8

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14








Other



Long-term trends

Responses received



Demand


Enrollment numbers


Shooting Sports Programs Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Figure 52 Purpose of outdoor expos or events

Twenty-six states indicated that they had partner organizations for these outdoor expos or events. See Figure 53 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these outdoor expos or events.

Local clubs (16); the National Wild Turkey Federation (16); Ducks Unlimited (16); and other state agencies (15) were identified as the most frequent partners of state wildlife agencies in sponsoring outdoor expos or events. Among other organizations, Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (12); other federal agencies (12); Quail Unlimited (11); Safari Club International (11); National Rifle Association (10); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (9); and federal land management agencies (8) were also important partners. These were followed by National Wildlife Federation (6) and Mule Deer Foundation (3). Other partners were reported by nine states and included: Nature Conservancy; Quality Deer Management Association; Wildlife Heritage Foundation of New Hampshire; Harry Hampton Wildlife Fund; Weatherby International; Wisconsin Conservation Congress; various State Departments of Education and participating schools; and the state newspaper.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Outdoor Expos or Events

0

2

3

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Purpose

# State Agencies


Figure 53 Outdoor expos or events partners

Overall, annual participation in these mentoring programs appears to be very substantial. Twelve states reported that participation was greater than 5,000 individuals each year. Eight states reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; one state reported participation between 501 and 1,000; five states reported participation between 101 and 500; and one state reported participation between 0 to 100. In addition, two states knew exact numbers of participants and reported that 35,000 and 27,000 participants attended their respective events. See Figure 54.

Figure 54 Outdoor expos or events annual participation


3

6

8

9

9

10

11

11

12

12

12

15

16

16

16

0 5 10 15 20





Other


Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited



Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Partners

# State Agencies

1

1

5

8

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0-100

501-1,000

101-500

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Participants

# State Agencies


Of twenty-nine states that sponsor shooting sports programs, four reported having program manuals. No state reported that they were in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 20 for a list of states with program manuals.


StateProgram manual

Program evaluation

Arizona X X

Hawaii X

Indiana X X1

Louisiana X1

Nebraska X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Texas X X

Wyoming X


Of twenty-nine states that sponsor shooting sports programs, eight reported having formal evaluation processes in place. Another two states indicated that they were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. See Table 20 for a list of states with evaluation programs.

Figure 55 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their outdoor expos or events. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, with nine states reporting use of this metric. Six states reported conducting exit interviews and five report conducting exit evaluations with participants. Three states monitored demand and two states tracked enrollment numbers. One state reported collecting participant contact information; monitored responses received; tracked hunting licenses sold; conducted longitudinal studies; conducted informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; and/or tracked reported hunting incidents. No state reported tracking long-term trends; contacts made; tracking hunter-days and/or conducting informal follow-up, after-event, evaluations and/or formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No states reported using other evaluation metrics. However, Texas indicated that it has captured data from seventeen years of exit interviews and surveys.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Outdoor Expos or Events


Figure 55 Outdoor expos or events evaluation metrics

Four of eight states that have a formal evaluations process on their hunting-related outdoor expo or events are willing to make their evaluations available to others. Those states are Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and Oklahoma. In addition, Louisiana, which has a formal evaluation process in progress, is willing to make evaluation results available to others.

Several states provided additional information on their outdoor events and expos. Pennsylvania conducts a National Hunting and Fishing Day event at a wildlife management area and Indiana is in the process of planning an expo-type event that will be take place mid-2009. Colorado indicated that it held sheep and goat hunter clinics; while Montana reported that it offers simulated shooting and hunting training sessions for the public. New Hampshire holds a Discover Wild New Hampshire Day that is conducted with its conservation partners as exhibitors. This event is co-sponsored by the Department of Environmental Services and its department foundation.


0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

5

6

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

Long-term trends





Other


Responses received






Enrollment numbers

Demand




Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention ProgramsState agency sponsorship of other hunter recruitment or retention programsNine states indicated that they sponsored other hunter recruitment or retention programs of some type. In addition, several states provided additional information on other programs that they sponsor. Other programs included: establishing a hunter (education) deferral program; implementing an Apprentice Hunting License Project (Families Afield); and using LaserShot systems for teaching firearms safety, handling and enjoyment where firearms are not allowed providing staff for locally organized events; and hosting weekly radio shows; Missouri developed a “New Hunter Starter Kit” and Nebraska has implemented the PATH Program which provides lands for mentors to take youth onto private lands. Montana has developed a targeted, integrated marketing effort to reach lapsed hunters through a direct mail campaign that is funded by National Shooting Sports Foundation and supported by DJ Case & Associates and Southwick & Associates.

Of nine states that reported sponsoring other hunter recruitment or retention programs, seven indicated that these programs were for both hunter recruitment and retention; one indicated that the primary purpose of its programs was for hunter retention. One state indicated that the primary purpose of its other program was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 56.

Figure 56 Purpose of other hunter recruitment or retention programs

Six states indicated that they had partner organizations for these other hunter recruitment or retention programs. See Figure 58 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with state agencies as partners with these other hunter recruitment or retention programs.

Local clubs (3) were the only identified partners (from the list provided) of state wildlife agencies in other hunter recruitment or retention programs. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (3), Bass Pro (1) and local businesses (1) were identified as other partners for these other hunter recruitment or retention programs.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs

0

1

1

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hunter Recruitment

Hunter Retention

Neither

Both

Other Hunter Recruitment and Retention Programs Purpose

# State Agencies


Figure 57 Other hunter recruitment or retention programs partners

Overall, annual participation in these other hunter recruitment and retention programs appears to be substantial considering their relative number. Four states reported that participation was greater than 5,000 individuals each year. Three states reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year, and one reported participation between 101 and 500. Texas reported that 11,918 people participated in fiscal year 2008 and greater than 10,000 participated in each of the four years of their program’s implementation. See figure 58.

Figure 58 Other hunter recruitment or retention programs participation levels

Of nine states that sponsor other hunter recruitment or retention programs, none reported having program manuals. No state reported that they were in the process of developing a program manual.

Of nine states that sponsor other hunter recruitment or retention programs, five states reported having formal evaluation processes in place. Those states are Texas, Montana Iowa, Nevada and Ohio. One other state, Oklahoma, indicated that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process.

Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs | Detailed State Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5





Ducks Unlimited


Quail Unlimited







Other


Other Hunter Recruitment and Retention Programs Partners

# State Agencies

0

0

1

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

0-100

501-1,000

101-500

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Other Hunter Recruitment and Retention Programs Participants

# State Agencies


Figure 59 reports the frequency of metrics used by state agencies in evaluating their other hunter recruitment or retention programs. The most frequent metric used was the number of participants, wtih five states reporting use of this metric. Four states reported tracking hunting licenses sold. Three states conducted informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; tracked responses received; and/or collected participant contact information. Two states tracked enrollment numbers and/or tracked reported hunting incidents. One state conducted exit interviews and/or exit evaluations with participants; monitored demand; conducted formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; monitored long-term trends; and/or conducted formal or informal follow-up, after-event evaluations. No state conducted longitudinal studies or tracked hunter-days. One state conducted a follow-up survey, but recognized the need to do more; another state indicated that its program was too new to effectively measure results.

Figure 59 Other hunter recruitment or retention programs evaluation metrics

Four of the five states that have formal evaluation processes on their other hunter recruitment or retention programs are willing to make their evaluations available to others. These states were Texas, Montana, and Ohio. In addtion, Oklahoma, which is in the process of developing a formal evaluation, will make its results available to others.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6



Demand

Long-term trends







Other

Enrollment numbers



Responses received




Other Hunter Recruitment and Retention Programs Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Programs

Twenty-one respondents indicated that they had additional ideas for recruitment and retention programs.

These ideas included:• Several respondents recommended that license structures, such as a family license

package, be developed to serve as incentives to recruit new hunters and retain current hunters.

• Several respondents recommended a “targeted approach” to marketing such as focusing on the niche market of anglers who do not hunt. Other potential targets for marketing are lapsed hunters and people who may be interested in advanced hunter education courses and seminars.

• Several respondents recommended that R&R strategic plans be developed at the state level. In addition, regular multi-state meetings of hunter R&R staff should be held to share ideas and network.

• Several respondents suggested that R&R programs be organized in a searchable database and presented on a Web site that identifies events so that the public can become aware of and sign up for them.

• Several respondents suggested improving mentoring programs and/or initiating state-sponsored beginner-hunter programs that would take new hunters on guided hunts.

• Several respondents recommended that increased educational programs be directed toward the school system. One recommended that a mandatory course on the North American Model of Conservation be developed for the 5th and 6th grades. Other suggested courses included hunter education, shooting clubs, archery in the schools and wildlife clubs.

• Several respondents recommended additional development of national-level resources that states can utilize, and a joint nationwide marketing program that creates a solid foundation for the R&R efforts initiated by the states.

• One respondent recommended greater stakeholder involvement by giving hunters more opportunities to carry out agency missions, similar to citizen volunteers teaching hunter education. This level of involvement and entrusted delegation would build ownership among our constituency, treats the hunter as more than a mere participant or customer.

• One respondent suggested that retention programs for existing hunters be based on hunting forecasts. This would utilize direct mail and outbound email campaigns. Recruitment efforts will also need to start with developing easily accessible information addressing how, when and where to hunt. Once these materials are in place and the existing hunter base is secure, then efforts should focus on re-invigorating lapsed hunters and/or recruiting new (transient) hunters in a given area. Additional efforts could then be focused on non-hunters or completely new hunters.

• One respondent suggested that the hunting community work closely with local, non-game-related publications to expand the explanations of the benefits of hunting and the culinary possibilities of eating wild-harvested game.

Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Program | Detailed State Programmatic Information


• One respondent suggested that the community develop greater social support for hunters, such as having local businesses and organizations sponsor hunting clubs and school organizations. In addition, a suggestion was made to improve or develop greater social support for hunters.

• One respondent suggested that the community take a closer look at Outdoors Florida. This program currently partners with Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations; has developed an outdoors television program with an emphasis on Florida similar to the “Florida’s Backyard” program; and has emphasized the R&R of agency employees.

• One respondent suggested expanding the number of Wing Shooting Clinics for families; Becoming an Outdoor Family Workshops; Family hunts; Youth Days; and Family Days.

• Another respondent suggested that a “round-table” discussion be held among state level hunting and conservation groups to improve stakeholder awareness and involvement in the issue.

• Another respondent suggested that there is a need for more good news stories regarding the good work that the hunting community is doing. For example, many years ago two game and fish clubs helped build a playground for kids. When the local press covered the story, other social and service clubs received exposure, but not the game and fish clubs, who were left out of the story.

• One suggestion from the federal agencies was to include youth and family hunting opportunities at National Wildlife Refuges as part of the R&R programmatic strategy.

Lastly one state indicated that it was, “Still doing research, and their ideas were not yet ready for prime time.”

Several respondents indicated that some recruitment and retention programs should be eliminated. These included:

• One respondent indicated that youth field days should be eliminated. These activities have been conducted for almost twenty years with no measurable results.

• Another respondent indicated that any program that does not keep the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, with emphasis on hunting and fishing, at its core or promote their Agency Mission in a specific and measurable manner should be considered for elimination.

• Another respondent suggested that the hunting community efforts should focus on affecting thousands of people, not just tens. Several hunting R&R efforts are well-intentioned, but unrealistic when it costs hundreds or thousands of dollars per participant to implement and they have little or no multiplier effect on that investment.

• One respondent indicated their uncertainty regarding cutting any program until they reviewed the results of the evaluations.

Detailed State Programmatic Information | Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Program


NGO Results

As a precursor to the programmatic R&R assessment, a series of general questions were asked regarding the perceived importance of R&R efforts. Results of these questions are as follows:

NGO’s perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of their organization’s mission (Question 1)Figure 60 reports perceptions of the importance of hunter R&R to the future of nineteen hunter-conservation non-government organizations’ (NGO) missions. Again, this question is largely philosophical, but it does provide a framework for additional discussions on the importance of hunter R&R within the hunting-conservation community.

The bi-modal response is not as strong as that reported for state agencies. However, the responses indicate that the NGO staff who responded to the assessment survey were divided on this question.

Ten NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very important (6) or somewhat important (4) to achieving their mission, while nine NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant to achieving their missions. Again, a speculative explanation for this response is that some NGOs view their missions primarily as conservation/habitat protection or providing member services.

While there is some possibility that the question was misunderstood, it is unlikely since subsequent, similarly-worded questions did not elicit bi-modal responses.

Figure 60 The importance of R&R of hunters to the future of your organization

| NGO Results

0

0

3

7

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Somewhat

Unimportant

Noopinion

Somewhat

Important

Very

Important

Very

Unimportant

q1. The importance of R&R of hunters to the future of your organization:

FrequencyofResponse


NGOs’ perceived integration of R&R efforts into their organizations’ missions . (Question 2)Figure 61 reports on nineteen respondents’ opinions of the integration of R&R efforts into their missions.

Eight NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were very well integrated and another eight reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat integrated into their missions. Two NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were either not integrated much (2) or not at all integrated (1)into their missions. One NGO reported “no opinion.”

None of the NGOs that reported that their efforts were not integrated much into their missions also reported that R&R efforts were very unimportant to achieving their missions.

Figure 61 Our current R&R efforst are integrated into our organization mission

NGOs’ perceived effectiveness of hunter R&R efforts in achieving their organizations’ missions . (Question 3)Figure 62 reports the opinions of respondents on the effectiveness of R&R efforts in achieving their NGOs’ missions.

Two NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were very effective and another eight reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat effective in achieving their missions. Five NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective in achieving their agencies’ missions. No NGO reported that its R&R efforts were very ineffective. Four NGOs reported “no opinion.”

NGO Results |

1

1

1

8

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Notatall

integrated

Not

integrated

much

Noopinion

Somewhat

integrated

Verywell

integrated

q2. Our current R&R efforts are integrated into our organization mission

FrequencyofResponse


Figure 62 Effectiveness of our current R&R efforts to achieve our organization’s mission

NGOs’ perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts . (Question 4)Figure 63 reports on the opinions of NGO respondents on the perceived integration of their hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts.

Because all of the NGOs surveyed were largely hunting organizations, it is not surprising that none of the NGOs reported that their R&R programs were very well integrated or somewhat integrated with angler R&R efforts. Eight NGOs reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not integrated much with their angler R&R efforts and eight reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not at all integrated with their angler R&R efforts. Three NGOs reported “no opinion.”

Figure 63 Our current hunter R&R efforst are integrated with angler R&R programs

| NGO Results

0

2

4

5

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Very

ine2ec45e

Very

e2ec45e

Noopinion

Somewhat

ine2ec45e

Somewhat

e2ec45e

q3. Effectiveness of our current R&R efforts to achieve our organization's

mission:

FrequencyofResponse

0

0

3

8

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Somewhat

integrated

Verywell

integrated

Noopinion

Notatall

integrated

Not

integrated

much

q4. Our current hunter R&R efforts are integrated with angler R&R programs:

FrequencyofResponse


RECOMMENDATIONSAn examination of license sales data has shown that there is considerable overlap between hunter and angler participation. A greater integration and coordination of R&R efforts between these two programs would likely pay dividends.

On the surface, assessing the current integration of hunter and angler R&R efforts does not seem to have much merit. However, the link between hunter participation and angler participation is very strong. The lack of integration between the two appears to reveal an opportunity to expand the reach of the hunting NGO community into new areas and develop new partnerships that may prove mutually beneficial.

NGOs that have established R&R oversight groups . (Question 5)Table 19 provides details on NGOs that have established R&R oversight groups. Eight NGOs indicated that they had created an R&R oversight group to provide direction to their R&R efforts. Of these groups, six included information and education staff; five included administrative staff and four included wildlife biologists and outreach staff, marketing, three included non-organization staff and hunter education staff. Three included others in this oversight group: these included board members, a Communications VP and youth organization representatives.

Table 21 Members of R&R Oversight groups for eight non-governmental organizations who indicated their organization had such an oversight group.

Organization Adm

in.

WL

Biol

ogis

ts

Hun

ter

Educ

atio

n St

aff

Out

reac

h St

aff

Mar

ketin

g St

aff

Info

. & E

d. S

taff

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Sta

ff

Non

-Org

aniz

atio

n St

aff

Oth

ers

Archery Trade Association XDelta Waterfowl X X

National Rifle Association X X X X

National Wild Turkey Federation X X X

Quality Deer Management Association X X X X X

Texas Wildlife Association X X X X X X

SCI X X X X

National Shooting Sports Foundation X X X X X X

Totals 5 4 3 4 3 6 1 3 3

(Others listed included: Board committee, Communications VP, 14 NGO Youth Organizations )

NGOs having separate line-item budget for R&R efforts . (Question 11)Four NGOs indicated that they had a separate line-item in their budget for R&R efforts. Table 22 provides the details. In addition, the results were cross-tabulated to compare NGOs that had R&R oversight groups with those that had separate line-item budgets. As Table 22

NGO Results |


indicates, most NGOs with oversight groups also had separate line-items in their budget. All of the NGOs with separate R&R budgets had oversight groups. However, four NGOs with R&R oversight groups did not have separate R&R line-items in their budgets.

Table 22 Listing of NGOs which indicated they had a hunting R&R oversight group and/or a separate line item in their budget for R&R efforts.

Non-Governmental Organization R&R Oversight Group? R&R Budget?

Archery Trade Association XDelta Waterfowl X X

National Rifle Association X X

National Shooting Sports Foundation X X

National Wild Turkey Federation X X

Quality Deer Management Association – North XSCI X

Texas Wildlife Association XTOTALS 8 4

Numbers and types of specifically dedicated hunter R&R staff reported by NGOs . (Question 8)Table 23 reports the numbers and types of (full-time, part-time, contractors, volunteers, and other) specifically dedicated hunter R&R staff employed by NGOs. Four NGOs reported employing five full-time and more than four part-time staff who are specifically dedicated to hunter R&R. One organization also had volunteers working on hunter R&R.

Table 23 Numbers of types of hunter R&R staff (other than hunter education staff ) in NGOs. (FT = Full-time, PT= Part-time)

Organization

#FT R&R Staff

# PT R&R Staff

# R&R Contractors

# R&R Volunteers

# Other R&R Staff

Archery Trade Association 1Delta Waterfowl 1 1

Texas Wildlife Association 2

National Shooting Sports Foundation 1 >3 >3

Total 5 >4 >3

R&R efforts undertaken by NGOs . (Question 12)Figure 64a identifies R&R efforts undertaken by > 25% but < 50% of NGOs. Figure 64b identifies R&R efforts undertaken by < 25% of NGOs. The survey provided twenty-two forced-choice options from which to select. Results reported in Figure 64 were re-configured to be in descending order and are not listed in the order in which the options were presented in the survey. In addition to the twenty-two forced-choice selections, an open-ended “other” option was also available. Eleven NGOs provided explanations in the “other” category. These are presented as Table 24.

| NGO Results


NGO Results |

Figure 64 R&R efforts undertaken by ≥25% but <50% of reporting NGOs

Figure 64b R&R efforts undertaken by <25% of reporting NGOs

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Approvedhunter

educa6ondeferral

program

Re‐allocatedwildlife

resourcesto

encourageyouthor

family

Establishedurban

seasons

Loweredminimum

agetohunt

Established

appren6celicense

Establishedyouth

licenses

Modifiedseason

structureto

encourageyouthor

familyhunt

Establishedyouth

onlyseasons

UsedHDresearch

todevelopnew

programs

Iystema6cally

implemented

barrier‐reduc6on

programsaimedat

Iystema6cally

implemented

barrier‐reduc6on

programsaimedat

R&R efforts undertaken by <25 of reporting NGOs

JumberoforganiKa6ons

5

5

5

5

6

8

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Marketed

specifichun;ng

opportuni;es

Established

employee

training

orienta;on

Createdoutdoor

TVorradio

programsfor

R&R

Developed

merchandizing

effortsforR&R

Developed

specificinfo

sourcesforR&R

Createdhun;ng

awareness

programs

Other

R&R efforts undertaken by >25% but <50% of reporting NGOs

OumberofOrganiza;ons


Table 24 Other hunter R&R actions taken by reporting NGOs

Other hunter recruitment and retention actions taken by eleven reporting NGOsAs a membership-based organization, our efforts are integrated across business lines but our Field Operations Group has primary responsibility for member recruitment and retention.We financially support the Outdoor Network, which focuses largely on hunter and angler recruitment and retention for children.We produce magazines and seminars.We provide funding for agencies, NGOs and local groups, primarily for youth education.We provide funding for youth camps, mentoring programs and education efforts.Our recruitment and retention is directed toward shooting sports rather than hunter education.We supported Families Afield legislation in numerous states, and created a mentored hunting program.We continue to work throughout Canada to encourage government agencies to do most of the above.We license land for hunting clubs in the southern United States, and have programs targeted at retention of existing clubs, and encourage youth hunting recruitment and hunting opportunities on those lands.We work with state agencies.While we can’t actually implement license or season changes, we lobby for them and are heavily involved in Families Afield.

The most frequently selected R&R efforts included (NGOs indicating that they undertook these actions are in parentheses): created hunting awareness programs (8); developed specific information resources for recruitment of hunters (6); created outdoor TV/radio programs for recruitment or retention of hunters (5); established employee training/orientation programs [such as BOW, Step-Outside, etc.] (5); and marketed specific hunting opportunities (5).

Additional noteworthy efforts included: systematically implemented barrier-reduction programs aimed at recruiting new hunters (4); systematically implemented barrier-reduction programs aimed at retaining hunters (3); and the use of human dimensions research to develop new programs (3).

Several NGOs noted that they were not empowered to perform many of the suggested actions in the assessment, or that such actions were beyond their scope. However, they often support these actions when taken by state agencies. The “Families Afield” program, which often needed legislative support to be implemented, was cited as an example of a program an NGO could not directly implement, but did actively support. Other examples of support and actions taken include: licensing land for hunting clubs in the southern United States; financially supporting the Outdoor Network, which focuses largely on hunter and angler recruitment and retention for children; creating mentored hunting programs; providing funding for agencies and their programs; creating recruitment and retention programs that are directed toward shooting sports; assisting local clubs and chapters conduct programs aimed at R&R actions; and encouraging government agencies to take the actions identified.

| NGO Results


RECOMMENDATIONA process to identify and reduce the barriers to recruitment and retention should be systematically implemented.

A specific individual (staff, partner, or contractor) should be assigned to coordinate the many recruitment and retention efforts that may be ongoing within any organization. It is critical that someone have this specific responsibility.

Audiences targeted with hunting communications efforts by NGOs . (Question 13)Figure 65 reports the frequency of various communications efforts being implemented by NGOs. The five choices reported in the chart were provided to the participants for selection. Multiple answers were permitted.

Similar to state agencies, NGOs are focusing their communications efforts on existing hunters (presumably current license buyers) and new hunters (presumably new hunter education graduates). To a lesser extent, NGOs are targeting non-traditional participants (7) and lapsed hunters (6) in their communications efforts. Two NGOs are specifically targeting transient hunters (hunters that have moved into their state from another state).

NGOs indicated that they were targeting landowners and legislators as “other” audiences with their communications efforts.

Figure 65 Audiences that NGOs have developed specific communication efforts about hunting

RECOMMENDATIONSEfforts to communicate with existing, new, and recently lapsed hunters should continue. Enhancing efforts to communicate to lapsed hunters is particularly important. These efforts should be carefully monitored to evaluate their effectiveness.

Society’s increasing mobility will likely make future efforts to communicate with transient hunters important. However, these efforts should be enhanced and carefully monitored to determine their success and to inform future efforts.

Sharing change of address information between conservation organizations (and other outdoor magazine subscriptions) and state wildlife agencies may be a worthwhile strategy.

NGO Results |

2

4

6

7

11

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Transient

hunters

Other

Lapsedhunters

Non:tradi;ona<

par;cipants

Newhunters

?@is;nA

hunters

q13. Audiences that NGOs have developed specific communication efforts about hunting

FrequencyofResponse


NGOs which have developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting . (Question 14)Four NGOs indicated that they had developed specific programs to enhance the social support network for hunting. Their responses are listed in Table 25.

Table 25

Ducks Unlimited Most local events are social networking events centered around the hunting/shooting sports.


Our youth program called JAKES, and our Women In The Outdoors programs both address the social aspect of hunting.

Pope and Young Club Our Conservation Achievement Awards include the Stewardship Award, which encourages and recognizes bowhunters and bowhunting groups who by their actions convey a positive, good-citizen image to the hunting and non-hunting public.

Whitetails Unlimited Fundraising banquets and events.

One NGO astutely pointed out that, “Most local events are social networking events centered on the hunting/shooting sports.” Other specific events included: National Wild Turkey Federation’s JAKES; Women in the Outdoors programs; Pope & Young’s Conservation Achievement Awards; and the Stewardship Award, which encourages and recognizes bowhunters and bowhunting groups who by their actions convey a positive, good-citizen image to the hunting and non-hunting public.

RECOMMENDATIONExperts believe that a social support network is critical to advancing a new hunting “recruit” through the awareness/trial stage of initiation to the continuation without support stage. (See NSSF’s Best Practices for Hunting and Shooting Recreation and Retention for detail on the stages new participants go through before adopting a recreational pursuit.) Additional program development, experimental programs, research and programmatic emphasis are needed in this area.

NGO awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states . (Question 15)Table 26 reports results of an open-ended question regarding NGO awareness of youth hunting or shooting clubs in their respective states. Nine NGOs indicated that they were aware of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states. Junior Olympic Archery Development, 4-H Shooting Sports programs, John Glenn Archery Club, National Archery in the Schools Program, Scholastic Clay Target Shooting Program, Future Farmers of America, and National Rifle Association programs were specifically identified.

| NGO Results


Table 26 Awareness of youth hunting and shooting clubs by participant NGOs.

NGO

Archery Trade AssociationNational Rifle AssociationNew Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s ClubsPope and Young ClubRocky Mountain Elk FoundationTexas Wildlife AssociationWhitetails Unlimited, Inc.International Hunter Education Association

National Shooting Sports FoundationTotals = 8

NGO sponsorship of youth hunting and/or shooting clubs in their respective states . (Question 16)Table 27 reports results of an open-ended question regarding NGO sponsorship of youth hunting and/or shooting clubs in their respective states. Nine NGOs indicated that they were sponsors of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective states. 4-H Shooting Sports Programs; local gun and archery youth training programs; National Archery in the Schools Programs; Scholastic Clay Target Programs; mentored duck hunts, Texas Youth Hunting program and other youth hunts; and Greenwing events were specifically identified.Table 27 Sponsorship of youth hunting and shooting clubs by NGOs.

NGO

Archery Trade AssociationDelta Waterfowl

Ducks Unlimited, Inc.


Quality Deer Management Association - North


Texas Wildlife Association

Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Totals = 9

NGOs that participate in hunting related outdoor expos or events . (Question 17)Table 28 reports on the responses provided by NGOs regarding their participation in hunting related outdoor expos or events. Seventeen NGOs answered affirmatively that that participated in hunting related outdoor expos or events.

The primary sponsors of these outdoor expos or events were: the National Wild Turkey Federation (7); local clubs (8); Safari Club International (7); Ducks Unlimited (5); National Rifle Association (5); Quail Unlimited (4); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (3); National Wildlife Federation (2); Mule Deer Foundation (2); and Pheasants/Quail Forever (1). Other

NGO Results |


partners were reported by eight NGOs and included: Wisconsin Outdoor Youth Expo, Quality Deer Management Association, Outdoor Shows, SHOT shows, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Cabela’s, Target Communication’s Deer Classics, FNAWS, Buck-a-rama, Eastern Outdoor Show.

Table 28 NGO partners in outdoor expos or events

NGO

Resource Management Service LLC North American Bear FoundationDelta Waterfowl Pope and Young Club

Ducks Unlimited Quality Deer Management – South

International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) Quality Deer Management – North

Mule Deer Foundation Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

National Rifle Association Texas Wildlife Association

National Wild Turkey Federation Whitetails Unlimited

New Jersey State Federation Sportsmen’s Clubs National Shooting Sports Foundation


NGOs that sponsor access programs . (Question 19)Three NGOs reported that they sponsored access programs. All indicated that they had private lands access programs; two indicated that their programs were for general access; and one had a program that was restricted to youth only.

Table 29 NGOs sponsoring access programs

NGO

National Wild Turkey FederationRocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Whitetails Unlimited

*Note: An extensive access program assessment survey is being conducted. A separate, detailed report will be available on that project.

| NGO Results


Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

A summary of NGO involvement in various R&R programs is presented in Table 30.

Each of these programs is discussed in detail in the following section. However, only the specific NGOs involved in each program-type will be displayed in this table. They will be discussed in aggregate in the specific program sections.

Table 30 NGO program participation for all twelve types of hunting R&R programs.

NGOs Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp.

Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

ls

ATA X X X X 4

Bear Trust Int’l 0

Resource Mgmt. X X 2

Cong. Sportsmen X 1

Delta Waterfowl X X X X X X X 7

Ducks Unlimited X X X X X X 6

IHEA X X 2

Mule Deer Fdn. X X X X X X X 7

NRA X X X X X X X X 8

NWTF X X X X X X X X X 9

NJ Fed Sptsmen X X X X 4

NA Bear Fdn X X 2

Pope & Young X X X X 4

QDMA-S X X X X X 5

QDMA-N X X X 3

RMEF X X X X X X X X X 9

SCI X X X X X X X X X 10

TX Wildlife X X X X X X X X X 9

Whitetails Unlimited X X X X X X 6

NSSF X X X X X 5

Totals 16 10 14 12 6 4 6 8 6 9 10 1 103

Youth Hunts

NGO sponsorship of youth huntsSixteen NGOs indicated that they sponsored youth hunts of some type. See Table 30 for details.

Of these, twelve NGOs reported that they sponsored youth deer hunts; nine NGOs sponsored youth small game and turkey hunts; eight sponsored youth waterfowl hunts; five sponsored youth dove hunts; and three sponsored other youth hunts. Other hunts included: elk, bear, javelina, and feral hogs. See Figure 66.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information |


Figure 66 Types of youth hunts sponsored

Of sixteen NGOs that reported sponsoring youth hunts, ten indicated that the primary purpose of these youth hunts was for hunting recruitment. One NGO indicated that these youth hunts were primarily for hunter retention. Five NGOs indicated that these youth hunts were primarily for both hunter recruitment and retention. See Figure 67.

Figure 67 Purpose of youth hunts

Fourteen NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these youth hunts. See Figure 68 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with the NGOs as partners on youth hunts.

State agencies (10) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring youth hunts. Among the national conservation organizations, the National Wild Turkey Federation (4) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (4) were the most frequent agency partners for youth hunts. These were followed by Ducks Unlimited (3)Mule Deer Foundation (2); Safari Club International (3); Quail Unlimited (2); federal land management agencies (2); and National Rifle Association (1). Local clubs were reported as partners by eight NGOs

Youth Hunts | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

3

5

8

9

9

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Other

Dove

Waterfowl

Turkey

Small game

Deer

Types of Youth Hunts Sponsored

# State Agencies # NGOs

0

1

5

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Neither

Hunter Retention

Both

Hunter Recruitment

Youth Hunt Purpose



and other partners were reported by five NGOs. These included: Quality Deer Management Association; Wildlife Habitat Canada; Ducks Unlimited Canada; provincial governments and wildlife federations; North American Bear Foundation; Bass Pro Shops; and a publishing company.

Figure 68 Youth hunt partners

Overall, annual participation in these youth hunt programs appears to be fairly substantial. Four NGOs reported that the participation in their youth hunting programs was between 1,001 and 5,000 youths per year. Three NGOs reported participation between 501 and 1,000; three NGOs reported participation between 101 and 500; and five NGOs reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 69.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Youth Hunts

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

5

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12







Quail Unlimited



Ducks Unlimited



Other



Youth Hunt Partners



Figure 69 Youth hunt annual participation

Of fifteen NGOs that sponsor youth hunts, four reported having program manuals and one reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 31 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.

Table 31 List of NGOs with program manuals and evaluationsNGO Program manual Program evaluation

Delta Waterfowl X X1a

NWTF X11

QDMA-N X

RMEF X

Tx Wildlife X X

1 = in progress 1 = expected completion March 2009

a = expected completion summer 2009

Of fifteen NGOs that sponsor youth hunts, one reported having a formal evaluation process in place. One NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 30 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 70 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their youth hunt programs. Two reported using participant numbers; collecting participant contact information; tracking long-term trends; conducting exit evaluations from participants; and conducting longitudinal studies. One NGO measured program demand; tracked hunting licenses sold; monitored the responses received or contacts made; conducted exit interviews with participants; employed formal or informal after-event, follow-up evaluations; tracked reported hunting incidents; tracked hunter-days; and/or employed informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No other evaluation metrics were reported as being used.

Youth Hunts | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

3

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

More than 5,000

101-500

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

0-100

Annual Participants of Youth Hunts



Figure 70 Youth hunt program evaluation metrics

Both NGOs, Delta Waterfowl, which is in the process of formal evaluation development, and Texas Wildlife, which currently has a formal evaluation process, will make their evaluations available to others.

Additional comments were supplied. NWTF added that its youth hunts are sponsored by state or local chapters, and few are sponsored at the national level. Quality Deer Management Association added that it had recently completed its first year of a mentored hunting program so 2009 will be the first full year to promote it. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation indicated that it provides grants for these activities rather than implementing its own program.

Advanced training courses or seminars

NGO sponsorship of advanced training courses or seminarsTen NGOs indicated that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars of some type. See Table 30 for details.

Of these, five NGOs reported that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for deer hunting; four sponsored how-to-hunt seminars; three sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for elk hunting; and two sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for waterfowl hunting and two produced instructional how-to videos; one NGO offered an advanced course on small game hunting. In addition, three NGOs reported that they sponsored advanced training courses or seminars for other outdoor skills, including: turkey hunting success and safety; upland game bird hunting; and bear hunting. See Figure 71.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Advanced Training Courses or Seminars

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5




Other


Responses received







Long-term trends

Enrollment numbers


Demand



Youth Hunt Program Evaluation Metrics



Figure 71 Advanced training courses or seminars by type

Of the ten NGOs that reported sponsoring advanced training courses or seminars, five indicated that the primary purpose of these courses or seminars was both recruitment and retention. Two indicated that these advanced training courses or seminars were primarily for hunter retention and three indicated they were primarily for hunter recruitment. See Figure 72.

Figure 72 Advanced training courses or seminars by purpose

Nine NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these advanced training courses or seminars. See Figure 73 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners in advanced training courses or seminars.

State wildlife agencies (5) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring advanced training courses or seminars. Other partners included: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2); federal land management agencies (2); other state agencies (2); National

Advanced Training Courses or Seminars | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

1

2

2

3

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Small game

Waterfowl

Instructional videos (how-to videos)

Elk

Other

How-to-hunt field courses

Deer

Types of Advanced Training Course Seminars


0

2

3

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neither

Hunter Retention

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Purpose



Wild Turkey Federation (1); National Rifle Association (1); Safari Club International (2); Pheasants/Quail Forever (1); and local clubs (1). The International Hunter Education Association was identified as an additional partner by two NGOs.

Figure 73 Advanced training courses or seminars partners

Overall, annual participation in these advanced training courses or seminars appears to be less than participation reported for youth hunts. One NGO reported that participation in its advanced training courses or seminars was greater than 5,000 individuals per year. Three NGOs reported participation between 1,001 and 5,000 per year. One NGO reported participation between 501 and 1,000; one reported participation between 101 and 500; and three reported participation between 0 and 100. See figure 74.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Advanced Training Courses or Seminars

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


Ducks Unlimited

Quail Unlimited











Other


Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Partners

# State Agencies


Figure 74 Advanced training courses or seminars annual participation

Of the ten NGOs that sponsor advanced training courses or seminars, seven reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 32 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.

Table 32 List of NGOs with program manuals and evaluations

NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

ATA X X

Delta Waterfowl X

IHEA X

NRA X X

NWTF X

NA Bear Foundation X

QDMA-S X

Of the ten NGOs that sponsor advanced training courses or seminars, two reported having a formal evaluation process in place. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 32 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 75 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their advanced training courses or seminars. Two NGOs reported using participant numbers; collecting tracking enrollment numbers; conducting exit evaluations from participants; and/or employing formal or informal after-event, follow-up evaluations. One NGO measured program demand; monitored the contacts made; and/or employed informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No other evaluation metrics were reported as being used.

Advanced Training Courses or Seminars | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

1

1

1

3

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

101-500

501-1,000

More than 5,000

0-100

1,001-5,000

Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Annual Participants



Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Youth Events

Figure 75 Advanced training courses or seminars program evaluation metrics

One NGO that is conducting evaluations will make its evaluations available to others. That NGO is NRA.

The Archery Trade Association added that its “Explore Bowhunting Program” is in the final stages of development. They expect more participants in the coming years and will continue to track progress and metrics with both instructors and students. The National Wild Turkey Federation added that it has produced a CD/DVD on turkey hunting success and safety. This set includes lessons, Powerpoint instruction, tests, a safety and instructional video and shoot/no-shoot video scenarios.

Youth Events

NGO sponsorship of youth eventsFourteen NGOs indicated that they sponsored youth events of some type. See Table 26 for details.

Of these, eleven NGOs reported that they sponsored youth field days; ten sponsored youth seminars; and six sponsored other youth events. See Figure 76. These included: youth camps; youth events at fundraising events; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; mentored hunts; school presentations; annual youth hunt and mentored hunter program; Conservation Legacy Programs; elementary through high school education programs; youth shooting sports activities; national championship rifle and shotgun events; and 4-H National Invitational shooting events.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5


Long-term trends

Responses received








Other

Demand




Enrollment numbers



Advanced Training Courses/Seminars Evaluation Metrics



Figure 76 Youth events by type

Of fourteen NGOs that reported sponsoring youth events, eight indicated that the primary purpose of these youth events was both recruitment and retention. Three states indicated that these youth events were primarily for hunter recruitment. Three others indicated that the primary purpose of these youth events was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 77.

Figure 77 Youth events by purpose

Twelve NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these youth events. See Figure 78 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners for youth events.

State Wildlife agencies (8) and local clubs (6) were identified as the most frequent partners with NGOs in sponsoring youth events. Among other partners, the National Wild Turkey Federation (3); National Rifle Association (3); and federal land management agencies (4) were also frequently reported. These were followed by other state agencies (2); Quail Unlimited (2);

Youth Events | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

6

10

11

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Other

Seminars

Field days

Types of Youth Events


0

3

3

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hunter Retention

Hunter Recruitment

Neither

Both

Youth Events Purpose



other federal agencies (2); Safari Club International (3); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2); Mule Deer Foundation (1); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (1); and Ducks Unlimited (1). Other partners were reported by two NGOs and included: Boy Scouts; 4-H; Future Farmers of America; National Shooting Sports Foundation; and industry and private partners.Figure 78 Youth events partners

Overall, annual participation in these youth events appears to be substantial. Four NGOs reported that participation in their youth events was greater than 5,000 individuals per year and three reported participation in their youth events as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year. Two NGOs reported participation between 501 and 1,000; one reported participation between 101 and 500; and three reported participation between 0 and 100. In addition, one NGO reported a known number of participants as 3.1 million. See Figure 79.Figure 79 Youth events annual participation

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Youth Events

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

6

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Ducks Unlimited





Quail Unlimited


Other







Youth Events Partners


1

2

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

101-500

0-100

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Youth Events Annual Participants



Of fourteen NGOs that sponsor youth events, five reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 33 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

Delta Waterfowl X X12

IHEA

NRA X X

NWTF X

RMEF X

TX Wildlife X X

NSSF X13

1 = expected completion summer 2009

2 = no date given3 = no date given

Of fourteen NGOs that sponsor youth events, two reported having a formal evaluation process in place. Two NGOs reported having a formal evaluation process in development. See Table 33 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 80 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their youth events. The most frequent metrics used were the number of participants (4) and conducting formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback (3) and enrollment numbers (3); tracking demand (2); monitored the responses received (2); and/or conducted formal after-event, follow-up evaluations (2). One NGO monitored contacts made; one reported collecting participant contact information; conducted exit evaluations with participants; used informal after-event, follow-up evaluations; and/or conducted longitudinal studies. No other evaluation metrics were reported as being used.

Figure 80 Youth events program evaluation metrics

Youth Events | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5





Other







Demand

Responses received


Enrollment numbers

Long-term trends



Youth Events Evaluation Metrics

# State Agencies


All three NGOs that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others. Those NGOs are NRA, Texas Wildlife Association and NSSF.

Women’s Events

NGO sponsorship of women’s eventsTwelve NGOs indicated that they sponsored women’s events of some type. See Table 26 for details.

Of these, seven NGOs reported that they sponsored Becoming an Outdoors Woman events; four sponsored Women in the Outdoors events; and five sponsored other women’s events. These included: Women of the Land (originated as a partnership with BOW in Texas); girls’ youth hunts; Women on Target; NRA Women’s Hunts; Women’s Wilderness Escape; women’s shooting events; women-only fundraising events; SCI Sables hunts; and ladies-only hunts. See Figure 81.

Figure 81 Women’s events by type

Of twelve NGOs that reported sponsoring women’s events, six indicated that the primary purpose of these women’s events was both recruitment and retention. Four indicated that these women’s events were primarily for hunter recruitment. One indicated that the primary purpose of these women’s events was for hunter retention and one indicated it was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 82.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Women’s Events

4

5

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Women in the Outdoors

Other

Becoming an Outdoors

Woman

Types of Women's Events



Figure 82 Women’s events by purpose

Nine NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these women’s events. See Figure 83 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with women’s events.

State wildlife agencies (6) and local clubs (5) were identified as the most frequent partners with NGOs in sponsoring women’s events. Other partners included: National Wild Turkey Federation (3); other state agencies (3); Safari Club International (3); National Rifle Association (2); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (1); Quail Unlimited (1); Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (1). Other partners were reported by one NGO and included: Bass Pro Shops; Cabela’s; Federal; Winchester; Remington; Dick’s Sporting Goods; and Foxy Huntress.

Figure 83 Women’s events partners

Women’s Events | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

1

1

4

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Women's Events Purpose


0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Ducks Unlimited


Quail Unlimited




Other








Women's Events Partners



Overall, annual participation in these women’s events appears to be fairly substantial. Two NGOs reported participation in their women’s events was greater than 5,000 per year; three reported participation between 1,001 and 5,000; three reported participation between 501 and 1,000 per year; one reported participation between 101 and 500; and three reported participation between 0 and 100. See figure 84.

Figure 84 Women’s events annual participation

Of twelve NGOs that sponsor women’s events, three reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 34 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

NRA X X

NWTF X X

RMEF X

TX Wildlife X

Of twelve NGOs that sponsor women’s events, three reported having a formal evaluation process in place. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 34 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 85 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their women’s events. The most frequent metrics used were the number of participants; collecting participant contact information; and tracking enrollment numbers, with three NGOs reporting use of these metrics. Two NGOs reported monitoring the contacts made and/or the responses received; conducting exit evaluations from participants; and/or conducting informal after-event, follow-up evaluations. One NGO conducted exit interviews with participants; used informal or formal after-event, follow-up evaluations; conducted formal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; conducted longitudinal studies; and/or tracked demand. No other evaluation metrics were reported as being used.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Women’s Events

1

2

3

3

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

101-500

More than 5,000

0-100

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

Women's Events Participants



Figure 85 Women’s events program evaluation metrics

Two NGOs, NRA and Texas Wildlife Association, that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others.

Family Events

NGO agency sponsorship of family eventsSix NGOs indicated that they sponsored family events of some type. See Table 30 for details.

Of these, five NGOs reported that they sponsored field day family events; three sponsored family seminar events; and one sponsored other family events. These included “conservation evening” events. See Figure 86.

Figure 86 Family events by type

1

3

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Other

Seminars

Field Days

Types of Family Events


0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Long-term trends




Other

Demand







Responses received





Enrollment numbers

Women's Events Evaluation Metrics



Of six NGOs that reported sponsoring family events, three indicated that the primary purpose of these family events was both recruitment and retention. Two NGOs indicated that these family events were primarily for hunter recruitment; and one NGO indicated that the primary purpose of these family events was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 87.

Figure 87 Family events purpose

Four NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these family events. See Figure 88 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with family events.

State wildlife agencies (3); other state agencies (2); and local clubs (2) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring family events. Among other partners, federal land management agencies (1); other federal agencies (1); and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (1) were specifically reported. No other partners were identified.

Figure 88 Family events partners

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Family Events

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Ducks Unlimited


Quail Unlimited









Other




Family Events Partners

#State Agencies # NGOs

0

1

2

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Family Events Purpose



Overall, annual participation in these family events appears to be modest. One NGO reported participation in its family events was greater than 5,000 participants per year. Three NGOs reported participation between 1,001 and 5,000 per year and two NGOs reported participation between 101 and 500. See Figure 89.

Figure 89 Family events annual participation

Of six NGOs that sponsor family events, two reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 35 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

NRA X X

RMEF X

Of six NGOs that sponsor family events, one reported having a formal evaluation process in place. No NGOs reported that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 35.

The evaluation metrics used by NRA included the number of participants; and formal and informal follow-up, after-event evaluations. No other measures were reported as evaluation metrics. See Figure 90.

Family Events | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

1

2

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

0-100

501-1,000

More than 5,000

101-500

1,001-5,000

Family Events Participants



Figure 90 Family events program evaluation metrics

The NRA will make their evaluation of their family events available to others.

Industry/Corporate Events

NGO sponsorship of Industry/Corporate EventsFour NGOs indicated that they sponsored Industry/Corporate Events of some type. See Table 30 for details.

One NGO that reported sponsoring industry/corporate events indicated that the primary purpose of these industry/corporate events was for both recruitment and retention. Three indicated that these events were for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 91.

Figure 91 Industry/Corporate Events by purpose

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Industry/Corporate Events

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2


Enrollment numbers

Demand

Long-term trends


Responses received









Other




Family Events Evaluation Metrics


0

0

1

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Hunter Recruitment

Hunter Retention

Both

Neither

Industry/Corporate Events Purpose



Two NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these industry/corporate events. See figure 91 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with industry/corporate events.

Figure 92 Industry/Corporate Events partners

One NGO reported that it partnered with National Wild Turkey Federation; National Rifle Association; and/or Safari Club International. Two NGOs reported that they had other partners for these industry/corporate events. These partners included the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and corporate clients.

Annual participation in these industry/corporate events was reported as greater than 5,000 participants per year by one NGO and between 501 and 1,000 by another NGO. Two NGOs reported participation between 101 and 500. See figure 93.

Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5





Ducks Unlimited

Quail Unlimited









Other

Industry/Corporate Events Partners



Figure 93 Industry/corporate events annual participation

Of four NGOs that sponsor industry/corporate events, none reported having a program manual. No NGO reported that they were in the process of developing a program manual.

Of four NGOs that sponsor industry/corporate events, none reported having a formal evaluation process in place.

The Archery Trade Association added that its program was an income generator and introduced influential people to the sport of archery.

Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program

NGO sponsorship of Non-traditional Participant Recruitment ProgramSix NGOs indicated that they sponsored non-traditional participant recruitment programs of some type. See Table 30 for details.

Of these, four reported that they sponsored non-traditional participant recruitment programs for people with disabilities; three reported that they had a program developed for veterans; one reported that it had a program developed for Hispanics and/or African-Americans; and two reported that they had programs developed for other non-traditional participants. These non-traditional participants included: university/college students and all people living in a community (through the Community Archery Programs). See Figure 94.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program

0

0

1

1

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0-100

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

More than 5,000

101-500

Industry/Corporate Events Participants



Figure 94 Non-traditional participant by type

Five NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these non-traditional participant programs. See Figure 95 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with these non-traditional participant programs.

State wildlife agencies (5); National Wild Turkey Federation (3); local clubs (2); federal land management agencies (3); other state agencies (3); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2); National Rifle Association (1); Safari Club International (2); other federal agencies (2); and Quail Unlimited (1) were identified as the most frequent partners of the NGOs in sponsoring non-traditional participant programs. Other partners were reported by two NGOs and included: Cabela’s; Bass Pro Shops; Sportsman’s Warehouse; Dick’s Sporting Goods; Realtree; Mossy Oak; Winchester; Leupold; and local and regional parks and recreation departments.

Figure 95 Non-traditional participant program partners

Non-traditional Participant Recruitment Program | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

1

1

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Native American

Asian

Hispanic

African-American

Other

Veterans

Disabled

Types of Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Activities


0

0

0

0

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ducks Unlimited




Quail Unlimited






Other





Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Partners



Overall, annual participation in these non-traditional participant programs appears to be modest. Two NGOs reported participation as being greater than 5,000 individuals per year; two NGOs reported participation between 101 and 500; and two NGOs reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 96.

Figure 96 Non-traditional participant program participation

Of six NGOs that sponsor a non-traditional participant program, three reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 36 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

ATA X

NWTF X X

RMEF X

TX Wildlife X

Of six NGOs that sponsor a non-traditional participant program, two reported having a formal evaluation process in place. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing an evaluation process. See Table 36 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 97 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their non-traditional participant programs. The most frequent metrics used were the number of participants; enrollment numbers; contacts made; and informal follow-up, after event evaluations, with two NGOs reporting use of these metrics. One NGO reported collecting participant contact information; monitoring demand; tracking hunting licenses sold; conducting exit evaluations and/or exit interviews with participants; and/or conducting informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. One NGO reported using the type of activity, property ownership, and demographic data for evaluation metrics.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Non-Traditional Participant Programs

0

0

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

101-500

0-100

More than 5,000

Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Participants



Figure 97 Non-traditional participant program metrics

Both NGOs, ATA and NWTF, that are conducting evaluations will make their evaluations available to others.

The Archery Trade Association reported that it is in the process of collecting all data possible in each Community Archery Program and will make results available to everyone.

Camp Programs

NGO sponsorship of camp programsEight NGOs indicated that they sponsored a camp program of some type. See Table 30 for details.

All eight NGOs reported that they sponsored youth camps, three reported that they sponsored scout and/or 4-H camps and two reported that they sponsored church camps, one NGO reported that it sponsered a family camp. One NGO reported that it sponsored the Texas Brigades youth leadership camps for high school youths. See Figure 98.

Camp Programs | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Long-term trends

Responses received






Demand






Other


Enrollment numbers



Non-Traditional Participant Recruitment Evaluation Metrics



Figure 98 Camp programs by type

Of eight NGOs that reported sponsoring camp programs, three indicated that the primary purpose of these camp programs was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters and three indicated they were for both recruitment and retention. Two indicated that the primary purpose of these camps was both recruitment and retention and another two indicated that these camps were primarily for hunter recruitment. See Figure 99.

Figure 99 Camp programs by purpose

Eight NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these camp programs. See Figure 100 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with these camp programs.

State Wildlife agencies (7) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring camp programs. This was followed by other state agencies (3); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (3); and local clubs (3). Among other partners, National Wild Turkey Federation (2); federal land management agencies (2); Ducks Unlimited (2); Safari Club

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Camp Programs

1

1

2

3

3

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Family

Other

Church

Scout

4-H

Youth

Types of Camp Programs


0

2

3

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Hunter Retention

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Neither

Camp Programs Purpose




International (2); National Wildlife Federation (1); other federal agencies (1); Mule Deer Foundation (1); Quail Unlimited (1); and National Rifle Association (1) were identified. No other partners were reported.

Figure 100 Camp programs program partners

Overall, annual participation in these camp programs appears to be fairly substantial. Two NGOs reported participation of greater than 5,000 individuals per year. Two NGOs reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year; one reported participation between 501 and 1,000; one reported participation between 101 and 500; and two reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 101.

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Other


Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited






Camp Programs Partners



Figure 101 Camp programs annual participation

Of eight NGOs that sponsor camp programs, four reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 37 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

NRA X

RMEF X

TX Wildlife X X

NSSF X

Of eight NGOs that sponsor camp programs, one reported having a formal evaluation process in place.

Evaluation metrics used by Texas Wildlife Association included tracking number of participants; collecting participant contact information; monitoring demand; tracking enrollment numbers; tracking long-term trends; monitoring contacts made and responses received; conducting exit evaluations with participants; conducting formal and informal follow-up, after-event evaluations; conducting formal and informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback; and conducting longitudinal studies. See Figure 102.

1

1

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

101-500

501-1,000

0-100

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Camp Programs Participants



Figure 102 Camp programs evaluation metrics

Texas Wildlife Association is willing to make their evaluations available to others.

Mentoring Programs

NGO sponsorship of mentoring programsSix NGOs indicated that they sponsored mentoring programs of some type. See Table 26 for details.

Three NGOs reported that they were the prime sponsors of their mentoring programs. In addition, two reported that their mentoring programs were agency sponsored; one reported that it sponsored mentoring programs with Big Brothers or Big Sisters; and one NGO reported that it sponsored a “Master Hunter” mentoring program. NGOs also reported that they sponsored mentoring programs for: ladies; university and college students; Boy Scouts; Youth Hunter Education Challenge; women’s hunts; JAKES hunts; and Quality Deer Management Association’s organizational mentoring hunting program. See Figure 103.

Mentoring Programs | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2





Other



Enrollment numbers

Demand

Long-term trends


Responses received







Camp Programs Evaluation Metrics



Figure 103 Mentoring programs by type

Of six NGOs that reported sponsoring mentoring programs, five indicated that these mentoring programs were for both hunter recruitment and retention. One NGO reported that the primary purpose of these mentoring programs was for hunter recruitment. See Figure 104.

Figure 104 Mentoring programs by purpose

Two NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these mentoring programs. See Figure 105 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners in these mentoring programs.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Mentoring Programs

1

1

2

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Master Hunter

Partnership w/other org. (e.g. Big Brother/Big Sister)

Agency sponsored

Other

Types of Mentoring Programs


0

0

1

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Hunter Retention

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Both

Mentoring Programs Purpose



Figure 105 Mentoring programs partner

Local clubs (2) and state wildlife agencies (1) were identified as the only partners of NGOs in sponsoring mentoring programs.

Overall, for the number of programs, annual participation in these mentoring programs appears to be fairly substantial. Two NGOs reported participation of greater than 5,000 individuals per year; two reported participation between 101 and 500; and two NGOs reported participation between 0 and 100. See Figure 106.

One NGO indicated that its mentoring program was less than a year old, but expected participation to be more than 100.

Figure 106 Mentoring programs annual participation

Mentoring Programs | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5




Ducks Unlimited


Quail Unlimited







Other



Mentoring Programs Partners


0

0

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

501-1,000

1,001-5,000

0-100

101-500

More than 5,000

Mentoring Programs Participants



Of six NGOs that sponsor mentoring programs, three reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 38 for a list of states with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

NRA X X

QDMA-S X X1a

QDMA-N X

1 = expected completion summer 2009a = expected completion in 2009

Of six NGOs that sponsor mentoring programs, one reported having a formal evaluation process in place. One NGO indicated that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 38.

Figure 107 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their mentoring programs. The most frequent metrics used were participant numbers; tracking demand; conducting exit evaluations with participants; conducting exit interviews with participants; and/or conducting informal follow-up, after-event evaluations, with two NGOs reporting use of these metrics. One NGO reported monitoring responses received and/or contacts made; conducting formal follow-up, after-event evaluations; and/or conducting informal qualitative evaluations based on participant feedback. No NGO reported using other measures as evaluation metrics.

Figure 107 Mentoring programs program evaluation metrics

One NGO, NRA, reported that they would make their evaluations available to others.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Mentoring Programs

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5


Long-term trends






Other

Enrollment numbers


Responses received



Demand





Mentoring Programs Evaluation Metrics




NGO sponsorship of shooting sports programsNine NGOs indicated that they sponsored shooting sports programs of some type. See Table 26 for details.

Of these, eight NGOs reported that they sponsored a 4-H Shooting Sport Program, five sponsored a National Archery in the Schools program, and four sponsored Step Outside Programs and/or National Archery in the Schools Programs. Three NGOs sponsored the Scholastic Clay Target Program and/or a National Rifle Association shooting sports program. Four NGOs sponsored other types of shooting sports programs which included: local, regional, and national shoots, as well as Boy Scouts programs.

Figure 108 Shooting sports programs by type

Of eight NGOs that reported sponsoring shooting sports programs, four indicated that these shooting sports programs were for both hunter recruitment and retention. Three indicated that the primary purpose of these shooting sports programs was for neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. One NGO indicated that the primary purpose of these shooting sports programs was for hunter retention and one indicated that the primary purpose was for hunter recruitment. See Figure 109.

3

4

4

5

5

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NRA shooting sports program

Scholastic Clay Target

Other

National Archery in the Schools

Step Outside (NSSF)

4-H Shooting Sports

Types of Shooting Sports Programs



Figure 109 Shooting sports programs by purpose

Eight NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these shooting sports programs. See Figure 110 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners in these shooting sports programs.

State wildlife agencies (6) and local clubs (4) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring shooting sports programs. Among other partner organizations, other state agencies (3); federal land management agencies (3); and the National Wild Turkey Federation (1) were identified. Other partners were reported by four NGOs. These partners include: National Shooting Sports Foundation, U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, Boy Scouts, industry, local schools, and parks and recreation departments.

Figure 110 Shooting sports programs partners

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Camp Programs

1

1

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Hunter Recruitment

Hunter Retention

Neither

Both

Shooting Sports Programs Purpose


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

3

4

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


Ducks Unlimited

Quail Unlimited











Other


Shooting Sports Programs Partners



Overall, annual participation in these mentoring programs appears to be fairly substantial. Five NGOs reported that participation was greater than 5,000 individuals each year. One NGO reported participation between 501 and 1,000 and two NGOs reported participation between 101 and 500 participants. See Figure 111. NSSF reported a known number of participants as 3.1 million.

Figure 111 Shooting sports programs annual participation

Of nine NGOs that sponsor shooting sports programs, four reported having program manuals. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual. See Table 39 for a list of NGOs with program manuals.


NGOProgram manual

Program evaluation

ATA Xa

NRA X X

RMEF X

Whitetails Unlimited X

NSSF X

a = we’ll always be evaluating

Of nine NGOs that sponsor shooting sports programs, one reported having a formal evaluation process in place. One other NGO indicated that it was in the process of developing a formal evaluation process. See Table 39 for a list of NGOs with evaluation programs.

Figure 112 reports the frequency of metrics used by NGOs in evaluating their shooting sports programs. Two NGOs reported using the number of participants; collecting enrollment numbers; monitoring demand; conducting exit evaluations with participants; conducting exit interviews with participants; conducting informal after-event, follow-up evaluations and/or conducting formal after-event, follow-up evaluations. One NGO collected participant contact information; tracked responses received; and /or tracked hunting licenses sold. No NGO reported using other measures as evaluation metrics.


0

0

1

2

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0-100

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

101-500

More than 5,000

Shooting Sports Programs Participants



Figure 112 Shooting sports programs evaluations metrics

Both NGOs, ATA and National Rifle Association, that are conducting evaluations of their shooting sports programs are willing to make their evaluations available to others.

Outdoor Expos or Events

NGO sponsorship of outdoor expos or eventsTen NGOs indicated that they sponsored outdoor expos or events of some type. See Table 30 for details.

Of ten NGOs that reported sponsoring outdoor expos or events, five indicated that these outdoor expos or events were for both hunter recruitment and retention; two indicated that the primary purpose of these outdoor expos or events was for hunter retention; and two reported that the primary purpose of these outdoor expos or events was for recruitment of hunters. One NGO reported that the primary purpose of these outdoor expos or events was neither recruitment nor retention of hunters. See Figure 113.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Outdoor Expos or Events

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Long-term trends







Other


Responses received



Enrollment numbers

Demand





Shooting Sports Programs Evaluation Metrics



Figure 113 Outdoor expos or events by purpose

Ten NGOs indicated that they had partner organizations for these outdoor expos or events. See Figure 114 for the frequencies that various organizations were involved with NGOs as partners with these outdoor expos or events.

State wildlife agencies (8); National Wild Turkey Federation (5); Ducks Unlimited (3); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (3); other state agencies (3); federal land management agencies (3); and local clubs (3) were identified as the most frequent partners of NGOs in sponsoring outdoor expos or events. Among other organizations, Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever (2); Quail Unlimited (2); National Rifle Association (2); and Safari Club International (2); and National Wildlife Federation (1) were also important partners for outdoor expos or events. Other partners were reported by four NGOs. These included: universities, BASF, Inc., Monsanto, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Wild Sheep Foundation, and Quality Deer Management Association.

Outdoor Expos or Events | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

1

2

2

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neither

Hunter Recruitment

Hunter Retention

Both

Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Purpose



Figure 114 Outdoor expos or events partners

Overall, annual participation in these mentoring programs appears to be substantial. Four NGOs reported that participation was greater than 5,000 individuals each year. Three NGOs reported participation as between 1,001 and 5,000 per year and one NGO reported participation between 101 and 500 per year. See Figure 115.

Figure 115 Outdoor Expos or Events annual participation

Of ten NGOs that sponsor outdoor expos or events, two reported having program manuals. Those NGOs were Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Texas Wildlife Association. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing a program manual.

Detailed NGO Programmatic Information | Outdoor Expos or Events

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

5

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9




Quail Unlimited






Ducks Unlimited



Other



Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Partners


0

0

1

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

0-100

501-1,000

101-500

1,001-5,000

More than 5,000

Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Participants



Of ten NGOs that sponsor outdoor expos or events, only Resource Management LLC reported having a formal evaluation process in place.

Figure 116 reports the metrics used by Resource Management LLC in evaluating its outdoor expo or event. These include: the number of participants; collecting participant contact information; tracking enrollment numbers; and conducting informal after-event, follow-up evaluations.

Figure 116 Outdoor expos or events program evaluation metrics

No evaluations of outdoor expos or events were available from NGOs.

Additional information on outdoor expos or events was reported by the National Wild Turkey Federation, which sponsors a program called Wild Turkey Woodlands; and Bear Trust International, which sponsors hunting seminars targeted at hunting club members.

Other Hunter Recruitment or Retention Programs

NGO sponsorship of other hunter recruitment or retention programsNational Wild Turkey Federation indicated that it sponsored another hunter recruitment or retention program. This sponsorship was for the “Families Afield” program.

National Wild Turkey Federation reported that these programs were for both hunter recruitment and retention.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, and U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance were other partner organizations reported by National Wild Turkey Federation for this other hunter recruitment or retention program.

Other Hunter Recruitment and Retention Programs | Detailed NGO Programmatic Information

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2


Enrollment numbers

Demand

Long-term trends


Responses received









Other




Hunting Related Outdoor Expos or Events Evaluation Metrics



Overall, annual participation in this program appears to be substantial. National Wild Turkey Federation reported that participation was greater than 5,000 each year.

National Wild Turkey Federation reported that it did not have a program manual or formal evaluation process in place for this other hunter recruitment or retention program.

Additional Ideas for Recruitment or Retention Programs

Five NGO assessment survey respondents indicated that they had additional ideas for recruitment and retention programs. These ideas included:

• Simplify the current hunting and fishing regulations. One respondent viewed complicated regulations as a real barrier to recruitment of hunters and fishermen.

• Increase efforts to promote shooting safety classes in public and private schools along with environmental education.

• Teach woodsmanship skills in recruitment and retention programs and focus these programs on small game hunting. Woodsmanship skills are lacking in many new hunters and an immediate focus on big game hunting may be hurting recruitment and retention efforts (and this suggestion came from a big game organization).

• Increase efforts aimed at opening more private land to hunter access One respondent indicated that some recruitment and retention programs should be eliminated. They suggested eliminating any program without a rigorous evaluation component.

Discussion

This Assessment Survey asked detailed questions regarding twelve different program-types. We recognize that there is considerable overlap among the program-types which the survey addressed. However, this overlap was consciously retained so that we could cover the broadest array of programs by allowing participants to define each of the program-types.

While there was considerable overlap among the program-types that the survey addressed, it appears that cumulative nation wide recruitment and retention efforts are substantial. State wildlife agencies reported, in aggregate, that they were involved in 313 program-types. NGOs reported that they were involved in 102 program-types. Program-types are the cumulative number of programs of all types being conducted by either state agencies or NGOs.

It should be noted that many of these program–types involve multiple partners so the realized total of program–types is less than the aggregate total. State wildlife agencies reported having partners in 247 of the 313 program types, and NGOs reported having partners in 84 of 102 program types. Many partners serve in greater than one program-type, but all are involved in some manner and add to the cumulative activity level. In addition, many of these programs have multiple events associated with the program, so the cumulative activity appears to be even more substantial. Table 40 and Table 41 contain details and programmatic summaries for these programs.


Tabl

e 40

Prog

ram

Sum

mar

y for

Sta

te Ag

encie

s.

Stat

e Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Stat

e Pu

rpos

e%

Part

ners

Stat

e Pr

og

Man

ual

Perc

ent

with

M

anua

lsSt

ate

Eval

uatio

nPe

rcen

t Ev

alua

ted

Yout

h H

unts

4731

-Bot

h 14

-Rec

1-

Ret

1-

Nei

ther

3710

2

in p

roce

ss21

.3%

4.

3%11

5

in p

roce

ss23

.4%

10

.6%

Adv

ance

d Tr

aini

ng35

15-B

oth

4-Re

c 10

-Ret

5-

Nei

ther

238

22.9

%

11

1 in

pro

cess

31.4

%

2.9%

Yout

h Ev

ents

3923

-Bot

h 10

-Rec

2-

Ret

3-N

eith

er

337

1 in

pro

cess

17.9

%

2.6%

8 4

in p

roce

ss20

.5%

10

.3%

Wom

en’s

Even

ts42

27-B

oth

11-R

ec

0-Re

t 4-

Nei

ther

3510

1

in p

roce

ss23

.8%

2.

4%21

2

in p

roce

ss50

.0%

4.

8%

Fam

ily E

vent

s20

12-B

oth

4-Re

c 1-

Ret

3-N

eith

er

154

0 in

pro

cess

20.0

%

0%6

3 in

pro

cess

30.0

%

15.0

%

Indu

stry

Cor

pora

te E

vent

s2

2-Bo

th

0-Re

c 0-

Ret

0-N

eith

er

11

0 in

pro

cess

50.0

%

0%1

0 in

pro

cess

50.0

%

0%

Non

-Tra

ditio

nal P

artic

ipan

t Re

crui

tmen

t Eve

nts

11N

/A9

2 0

in p

roce

ss18

.2%

0%

2 0

in p

roce

ss18

.2%

0%

| Discussion


Stat

e Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Stat

e Pu

rpos

e%

Part

ners

Stat

e Pr

og

Man

ual

Perc

ent

with

M

anua

lsSt

ate

Eval

uatio

nPe

rcen

t Ev

alua

ted

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

2415

-Bot

h 6-

Rec

0-Re

t 3-

Nei

ther

219

0 in

pro

cess

37.5

%

0%12

1

in p

roce

ss50

.0%

4.

2%

Men

torin

g Pr

ogra

ms

2310

-Bot

h 10

-Rec

1-

Ret

2-N

eith

er

146

1 in

pro

cess

26.0

%

4.3%

4 4

in p

roce

ss17

.8%

17

.8%

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts P

rogr

ams

3219

-Bot

h 10

-Rec

1-

Ret

2-N

eith

er

2719

0

in p

roce

ss59

.4%

0%

102

in

proc

ess

31.3

%

6.2%

Out

door

Exp

os

and

Even

ts29

24-B

oth

3-Re

c 0-

Ret

2-N

eith

er

264

0 in

pro

cess

13.8

%

0%8

2 in

pro

cess

27.6

%

6.9%

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

97-

Both

0-

Rec

1-Re

t 1-

Nei

ther

60

0 in

pro

cess

0%

0%5

1 in

pro

cess

55.5

%

11.1

%

Tota

ls

313

185-

Both

72

-Rec

17

-Ret

26

-Nei

ther

61.7

%-B

oth

24.0

%-R

ec

5.7%

-Ret

8.

7%-N

eith

er

247

80

5 in

pro

cess

Ave

rage

25

.5%

99

26 in

pro

cess

Ave

rage

41

.3%

Discussion |


Tabl

e 41 P

rogr

am S

umm

ary f

or N

GO

s

NG

O

Part

icip

atio

nN

GO

Pur

pose

NG

O

Part

ners

NG

O P

rog

M

anua

lPe

rcen

t with

M

anua

lsN

GO

Ev

alua

tion

Perc

ent

Eva

luat

ed

Yout

h H

unts

165-

Both

10

-Rec

1-

Ret

0-N

eith

er

144

1 in

pro

cess

25.0

%

6.3%

1 1

in p

roce

ss

6.3%

6.

3%

Adv

ance

d Tr

aini

ng10

5-Bo

th

3-Re

c 2-

Ret

0-N

eith

er

97

0 in

pro

cess

70.0

%

0%2

0 in

pro

cess

20.0

%

0%

Yout

h Ev

ents

148-

Both

3-

Rec

0-Re

t 3-

Nei

ther

125

0 in

pro

cess

35.7

%

0%2

2 in

pro

cess

14.3

%

14.3

%

Wom

en’s

Even

ts12

6-Bo

th

4-Re

c 1-

Ret

1-N

eith

er

93

0 in

pro

cess

25.0

%

0%3

0 in

pro

cess

25.0

%

0%

Fam

ily E

vent

s6

3-Bo

th

2-Re

c 0-

Ret

1-N

eith

er

44

0 in

pro

cess

33.3

%

0%1

0 in

pro

cess

16.7

%

0%

Indu

stry

Cor

pora

te E

vent

s4

1-Bo

th

0-Re

c 0-

Ret

3-N

eith

er

20

0 in

pro

cess

0%

0%0

0 in

pro

cess

0%

0%

Non

-Tra

ditio

nal P

artic

ipan

t Re

crui

tmen

t Eve

nts

6N

/A5

3 0

in p

roce

ss50

.0%

0%

2 0

in p

roce

ss

33.3

%

0%

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

83-

Both

2-

Rec

0-Re

t 3-

Nei

ther

84

0 in

pro

cess

50.0

%

0%1

0 in

pro

cess

12.5

%

0%

| Discussion


NG

O

Part

icip

atio

nN

GO

Pur

pose

NG

O

Part

ners

NG

O P

rog

M

anua

lPe

rcen

t with

M

anua

lsN

GO

Ev

alua

tion

Perc

ent

Eva

luat

ed

Men

torin

g Pr

ogra

ms

65-

Both

1-

Rec

0-Re

t 0-

Nei

ther

23

0 in

pro

cess

50.0

%

0%1

1 in

pro

cess

16.7

%

16.7

%

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts P

rogr

ams

94-

Both

1-

Rec

1-Re

t 3-

Nei

ther

84

0 in

pro

cess

44.4

%

0%1

1 in

pro

cess

11.1

%

11.1

%

Out

door

Exp

os

and

Even

ts10

5-Bo

th

2-Re

c 2-

Ret

1-N

eith

er

102

0 in

pro

cess

20.0

%

0%1

10.0

%

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

11-

Both

0-

Rec

0-Re

t 0-

Nei

ther

10

0 in

pro

cess

0%

0%0

0 in

pro

cess

0%

0%

Tota

ls10

246

-Bot

h 28

-Rec

7-

Ret

15-N

eith

er

47.9

%-B

oth

29.2

%-R

ec

7.3%

-Ret

15

.6%

-Nei

ther

8437

1

in p

roce

ssA

vera

ge

34.1

%15

5

in p

roce

ss

Ave

rage

17

.9%


In view of the substantial number of nation wide recruitment and retention programs and the considerable effort they represent, it is sobering to consider that hunting license sales continue to decline. This conclusion points to a continuing need to better understand what efforts the general hunting community is making to halt the decline in participation and how well those efforts are working. This continuing need extends well beyond the scope of this assessment.

Clearly, hunter recruitment activities and hunter retention activities are, by their application, different. One is designed to generate new participants while the other is designed to keep current participants. Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion between these terms and their associated activities. In some regards, the hunting community refers to recruitment and retention synonymously and has not yet recognized their unique natures and challenges.

This confusion is, to some extent, documented in the responses to the question regarding the primary purpose of the program-types. Sixty-two percent of cases for state agencies and 48% of cases for NGOs, respondents indicated that their programs were for both hunter recruitment and hunter retention. States reported that 24% of their program-types were specifically for hunter recruitment and only 6% were specifically for hunter retention.

NGO responses indicate a similar pattern: 29% indicated that their program–types were specifically for hunter recruitment and 7% were specifically for hunter retention (Note: these totals do not add up to 100% because not all respondents answered these questions.)

The authors caution readers not to become too focused on these precise numbers. While it is clear that some program-types may be applied for both recruitment and retention processes, it is equally clear that many programs would likely benefit from a more targeted approach to achieve specific goals. The entire hunting community would likely benefit from well-thought-out and clearly articulated goals and objectives in which they invest.

While developing clearly articulated goals and objectives is not easy, it appears to be a critical near-term step in addressing long-term hunting license sales.

Applying a more targeted approach to these various program-types logically leads to an examination of the planning process used to develop these program-types. The NSSF’s Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention is an excellent resource to use to develop a more targeted approach to achieve specific goals.

In addition, it appears that little focused effort is being devoted to retention programs. In the earlier discussion it was noted that hunter retention was the primary purpose of 6% of the state program-types and 7% of the NGO program-types. Strategists working in this area (See Recruitment and Retention Research Highlights, published on the www.huntingheritage.org web site) believe that efforts aimed specifically at retaining existing hunters are critical to stem the near-term loss of licensed hunters that not only pay for agency programs but also serve as the mentors of the next generation of hunters.

Again, it is critical for the hunting community to understand that hunter recruitment activities and hunter retention activities are, by their application, different. Specific programs need to be developed that target the inherent difficulties of these activities in order to successfully overcome them. Clear thinking about the nature of the problems that are faced is a vital precursor to successful solutions.

| Discussion


This assessment did not specifically ask whether programs had specific goals and objectives. Instead, it used a surrogate question that asked whether the program had a program manual. The assumption was that having a program manual would reflect a whole host of planning, goal-setting, and other “program-thinking.” Identifying which programs had program manuals would also help the hunting community identify resources that could be potentially shared among the community to help build stronger programs. Of the 313 state program-types that submitted information, 80 had program manuals.

See Table 42 for details on the frequency of state program manuals by program-type (arranged by AFWA region). The frequency of state program manuals by program–type also is displayed in Figure 117.

Table 42 State agencies within AFWA regions by program manuals for program types.

Midwest Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CO X X X 3

IL X X X 3

IN X X X X 4

IA X X X 3

KS 0

KY 0

MI X 1

MN X1 X X X1 X 5

MO X X X X X X X X 8

NE X X X 3

ND X X 2

OH X X 2

SD 0

WI X X 2

TOTALS 5 2 4 6 1 0 1 2 5 9 1 0 36

Discussion |


Northeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Re

late

d Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CT 0

DE 0

ME 0

MD 0

MA X X 2

NH X 1

NJ 0

NY X1 X 2

PA X X 2

RI X 1

VT X X X 3

WV 0

TOTALS 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 11

Southeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Re

late

d Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL 0

AR X 1

FL X X X 3

GA X 1

LA 0

MS 0

NC X 1

OK X 1

SC X X X X X 5

TN X 1

TX X X X X X X X 7

VA 0

TOTALS 3 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 20

| Discussion


Western Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Pr

ogra

ms

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Re

late

d Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X 4

AZ X1 X1 X X X X X 7

CA X 1

HI X X X 3

ID 0

MT 0

NV 0

NM 0

OR 0

UT X 1

WA 0

WY X X 2

TOTALS 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 2 0 18

Overall Counts Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Pr

ogra

ms

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Re

late

d Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

10 8 7 10 4 1 2 9 6 19 4 0 80

Overall, approximately 25% of the state program-types were guided by program manuals. This ranges from approximately 14% for outdoor expos and events to approximately 37% for camp programs. However, there are two exceptions that are noteworthy: 59% of the thirty-two state-sponsored Shooting Sports programs reported having program manuals and one of the two (50%) state-sponsored industry/corporate events reported having a program manual.

Every state program-type had at least one program manual to provide program guidance and seven programs had new program manuals under development. See Table 42 for details on the frequency of state program manuals by program-type. The frequency of state program manuals by program–type also is displayed in Figure 117.


Figure 117 State program manuals by program-type

Several states are notable in their development of program manuals. Those states are Missouri with eight manuals, and Texas and Arizona, each with seven manuals.

NGO program-types that had a program manual were generally more likely to have several manuals developed for that particular program-type. This may be a function of NGOs’ use of volunteers to coordinate and implement many of their program activities. However, this explanation is purely speculative. Several NGO program-types did not report having any program manuals to guide their activities. Of 103 NGO program-types that submitted information, thirty (i.e. 29%) had program manuals. One additional program has a program manual in progress. The frequency of NGO program manuals ranged from 0 to 66% for Family Events. See Table 43 for details on the frequency of NGO program manuals by program-type. The frequency of NGO program manuals by program–type also is displayed in Figure 118.

| Discussion

0

1

2

4

4

7

8

8

9

11

12

19

0 5 10 15 20

Other Programs

Industry Events

Non-traditional Recruitment Programs

Family Events

Hunting-related Expos

Mentor Programs

Advanced Training

Youth Events

Camp Programs

Women's Events

Youth Hunts


Number of States


Table 43 NGOs by program manuals for program types

NGOs Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Hun

ting

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

ls

ATA X 1


Resource Mgmt. 0

Cong. Sportsmen 0

Delta Waterfowl X X X 3

Ducks Unlimited 0

IHEA X 1

Mule Deer Fdn 0

NRA X X X X X X X 7

NWTF X1 X X X X 5

NJ Fed Sptsmen 0

NA Bear Fdn X 1

Pope & Young 0

QDMA-S X X 2

QDMA-N X X 2

RMEF X X X X X X X X 8

SCI 0

TX Wildlife X X X X X 5

Whitetails Unlimited X 1

NSSF X X 2

Totals 5 7 5 3 2 0 3 4 3 4 2 0 38

1=Expected date of completion of March 2009.

Discussion |


Figure 118 NGO program manuals by program-type

Two NGOs are notable in their development of program manuals. Those NGOs are Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation with eight program manuals and National Rifle Association with seven program manuals.

The apparent lack of clearly stated goals and objectives also makes evaluation of the program outcomes extremely difficult. Of 313 state program-types that submitted information, 112 (35%) reported having an evaluation process. An additional twenty-four program-types reported that they were in the process of developing evaluation processes. Overall, approximately one-third of all state program-types are evaluated in some manner. This ranges from approximately 5% for women’s events to approximately 18% for non-traditional participant recruitment events. See Table 44 for details on the frequency of state program evaluations by program-type. The frequency of state program evaluations by program–type also is displayed in Figure 119.

| Discussion

0

0

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Industry Events

Other Programs

Family Events


Mentor Programs

Non-traditional recruitment Programs

Women's Events

Camp Programs


Youth Events

Youth Hunts

Advanced Training

Number of Program

Manuals


Table 44 State agencies within AFWA regions by evaluations for program types

Midwest Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Re

late

d Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CO X X 2

IL 0

IN X X X X1 4

IA X 1

KS 0

KY 0

MI X X 2

MN X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 6

MO X X X X X 5

NE X1 X X X X1 X 6

ND X X X X 4

OH X 1

SD X X 2

WI X X 2

TOTALS 3 2 5 7 4 0 0 1 4 4 3 2 35

Northeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

lCT 0

DE X 1

ME X 1

MD X X X X 4

MA X1 X X X 4

NH X 1

NJ X 1

NY X X X 3

PA X 1

RI X1 X 2

VT X X X X X 5

WV X 1

TOTALS 5 5 1 6 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 24

Discussion |

(A 1 indicates that the program manual or formal evaluation is in progress and is not yet competed.)


Southeast Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL 0

AR X1 X 2

FL X X X 3

GA X X X X 4

LA X X X1 3

MS 0

NC X 1

OK X1 X X1 3

SC X1 X1 X X1 X X1 X 7

TN 0

TX X X X X X X X X X 9

VA X 1

TOTALS 4 1 3 7 2 0 0 4 1 5 4 2 33

Western Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X X X 6

AZ X X X X X1 X1 X 7

CA X X 2

HI X X X X X X 6

ID X 1

MT X 1

NV X 1

NM X 1

OR X1 X1 X X1 X1 X 6

UT 0

WA X 1

WY X 1

TOTALS 4 4 3 3 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 33

Overall Counts Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

16 12 12 23 9 1 3 13 8 12 10 6 125

| Discussion


Discussion |

Figure 119 State programs by program evaluation

Several states are notable in their development of program evaluations. Those states are Texas with nine manuals, Arizona with seven, and Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska and Oregon each with six manuals.

NGO program-types appear to be less likely to have evaluations than state program-types. Of the 103 NGO program-types that submitted information, fourteen (13%) had evaluations of some type. No NGO reported that it was in the process of developing evaluation processes. The frequency of NGO evaluations ranged from 0 to 33% for non-traditional participant recruitment events. See Table 45 for details on the frequency of NGO program evaluations by program-type. The frequency of NGO program evaluations by program–type also is displayed in Figure 120.

1

2

6

8

9

10

12

12

12

13

16

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

Industry Events

Non-traditional Recruitment Programs

Other Programs

Mentor Programs

Family Events


Advanced Training


Youth Events

Camp Programs

Youth Hunts

Women's Events

Number of States


| Discussion

Table 45 NGOs by evaluations for program types.

NGOs Yout

h H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

Yout

h Ev

ents

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-trad

ition

al

Recr

uit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rela

ted

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

ls

ATA X X X14 3


Resource Mgmt. X 1

Cong. Sportsmen 0

Delta Waterfowl X1 X12 2

Ducks Unlimited 0

IHEA 0

Mule Deer Fdn 0

NRA X X X X X X 6

NWTF X X 2

NJ Fed Sptsmen 0

NA Bear Fdn 0

Pope & Young 0

QDMA-S X13 1

QDMA-N 0

RMEF 0

SCI 0

TX Wildlife X X X X 4

Whitetails Unlimited 0

NSSF X12 1

Totals 2 2 4 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 20

1= Expected completion of summer 2009, 2=no date given, 3=Expected completion in 2009, 4= we’ll always be evaluating


Figure 120 NGO programs by program evaluation

Several NGOs are notable in their development of evaluations. Those NGOs are National Rifle Association with six program evaluations and Texas Wildlife Association with four program evaluations.

Evaluation metrics used are displayed in Figure 121. As this figure depicts, most of the metrics employed measure program outputs rather than program outcomes. Generally, these measures are valuable in monitoring participation and response rates, but do not capture behaviors or after-event participation. As a result, it is difficult to determine which programs are successful in actually recruiting new hunters or retaining existing hunters. Clearly stating program goals and objectives and then designing a process to determine how well they were achieved is a critical first step for both program planning and program evaluation.

Additional effort to determine outcomes from these programs also appears to be a critical near-term step in developing effective recruitment or retention programs. Additional easy-to-use and cost-effective tools may need to be developed to assist the hunting community in this effort.

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Industry Events

Other Programs

Camp Programs

Family Events


Advanced Training

Mentor Programs

Non-traditional recruitment Programs


Youth Hunts

Women's Events

Youth Events

Number of Evaluation

Processes


Figure 121 Cumulative Count of use of Evaluation Metrics by NGOs and State Agencies (combined)

In addition to the need for improved planning and evaluation, it appears that additional effort toward developing programs for non-traditional participant recruitment programs and mentoring may be needed. Eleven states and six NGOs indicated that they sponsored programs for non-traditional participant recruitment programs, and nine states and seven NGOs sponsored mentoring programs. As the ethnic and racial demographics of the United States increasingly diversify, the development of programs that connect these groups to natural resources and outdoor recreational opportunities will be critical to mid- and long-term strategies aimed at increasing hunter participation.

Encouraging and developing programs that provide mentoring opportunities for new hunters, regardless of their age, are also critical near-term strategies that need additional emphasis.

The need to exchange information regarding which agencies and organizations are conducting programs, who their partners are, and how well their programs are working also remains critical. In some cases, knowledge about what their own agency or organization is doing does not appear to be readily available to people who are knowledgeable about recruitment and retention activities. The authors suspect that this knowledge gap within agencies and organizations is much greater than it appears, and is symptomatic of a general lack of awareness of the critical nature of the need to recruit and retain hunters.

| Discussion

8

9

10

16

25

31

37

39

39

40

40

42

50

70

73

83

87

135

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


Longitudinal (long-term)

studies

Other

Reported hunting incidents

(accidents)

Qualitative evaluations

based on participant

Qualitative evaluations

based on participant

Follow-up evaluations -

formal

Follow-up evaluations -

informal


Exit interviews with

participants

Long-term trends

Contacts made

Responses received

Participant contact

information

Demand

Exit evaluations from

participants

Enrollment Numbers


Number of programs that use


Conclusions

• There is considerable effort being directed toward hunter recruitment and retention issues. The effectiveness of all this activity is another matter and cannot be determined in most cases.

• The exact nature of this effort needs greater examination. Planning is underway to capture this level of program detail.

• In order to improve the effectiveness of these programs, clearer thinking and improved program planning will likely be needed. Specific programs will need to be developed that target the inherent challenges that hunter recruitment and hunter retention individually present in order to successfully overcome them.

• The hunting community likely will need to be much more strategic in determining desired program outcomes and how to measure the success of those outcomes. To accomplish this, the community will likely have to change its approach to the entire concept of recruitment and retention. This will also likely mean that the community can no longer afford to conduct programs just for the sake of “doing something.”

• Overall, only 25% of state program-types and 34% of NGO program-types have program manuals to guide their activities, and only 35% of state program-types and 18% of NGO program-types have evaluation processes in place that measure their effectiveness. Significant improvements in both of these areas will likely improve program effectiveness.

• Most programs would likely benefit from incorporating the NSSF’s Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention as a resource for developing a more targeted approach to achieve specific program goals.

Recommendations

ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONSSystematically implement a process within agencies to identify and reduce the barriers to hunter recruitment and retention. This effort should involve both agency and external partners in the NGO community. This should be a perpetual effort rather than a one-time review.

Assign a specific individual (staff, partner, or contractor) to coordinate the many recruitment and retention efforts that may be ongoing within the agency or organization. It is critical that someone have this specific responsibility.

Improve efforts to communicate with new, existing, and recently lapsed hunters. Enhancing efforts to communicate to lapsed hunters is particularly important. These efforts should be carefully monitored to evaluate their effectiveness. As baby-boomers age, encouraging existing hunters NOT to lapse will become increasingly important. Some states are researching predictive models to identify hunters most likely to lapse, and then marketing to them specifically.

Allow a reasonable amount of time for these programs to incorporate what they have learned from their evaluations into their future programs so that each succeeding program-cycle can be more effective than the last program-cycle. Communications and marketing programs often require multiple years to become successful. A key to programmatic success is establishing the


internal feedback loop that consciously designs and uses the results of the program evaluation to improve the program. Programs that are not showing a reasonable return on investment should be considered for elimination.

Improve efforts to communicate with transient hunters. Society’s increasing mobility will likely make these efforts even more important in the future.

Develop additional programs to enhance the social support networks that are critical to advancing a new hunting “recruit” through the “awareness/trial” stage of initiation through the “continuation without support” stage.

Establish state-level recruitment and retention oversight groups. Ideally, these groups would include a broad cross-section of agency staff in addition to non-agency staff.

Additional program development is also needed for mentoring programs and programs to attract non-traditional participants.

Develop line-items within agency/organization budgets specifically to address recruitment and retention efforts. These budgets should be tracked, and R&R programs should be evaluated against budget expenditure as a measure of their successes.

Pose specific questions to program sponsors regarding the goals, objectives, program planning processes, and means of evaluation as part of the process to determine willingness to sign-on as a partner or participant.

Improve integration and coordination between hunter and angler recruitment and retention programs. Examination of license sales data has shown that there is considerable participation overlap between these two groups. This recommendation is not limited to state agencies. Improving integration between the two participant groups may present opportunities to expand the reach of the hunting NGO community as well.

Continue to develop the National Hunting Heritage Strategic Plan. In addition, an element of this plan should be the creation of a national Web site where details regarding specific programs can be posted and shared.

PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONSDevelop specific, separate goals and objectives for hunter recruitment and hunter retention programs. The more specific these goals and objectives, the easier it will be to measure the success of the program.

Improve the planning of recruitment and retention programs by using resources such as National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention as a planning guide. Plans should be reviewed, updated and improved on an annual basis.

Develop improved, easy-to-use evaluation processes for existing programs.

Measure both outputs and outcomes to determine program effectiveness. Effective evaluations are best designed during the planning process by initially setting measurable objectives.

| Recommendations


Coordinate and integrate hunting and fishing recruitment and retention efforts as much as possible. It is likely that coordinated/piggybacked messages will be more cost-effective as well as achieve a greater market penetration.

Improve the hunting community’s ability to share information regarding R&R program efforts and effectiveness.

Recommendations |


Appendix B. State Agencies’ Hunter Education Staff by AFWA region

Table 40 Numbers of types of hunter education (HE) staff (other than hunter recruitment and retention) in state agencies, by region. (FT = Full-time, PT= Part-time)

Midwest Region

State #FT HE Staff

# PT HE Staff

# HE Contractors

# HE Volunteers

# Other HE Staff

Colorado 3 0 0 >3 0Illinois >3 0 0 >3 0

Indiana 2 0 0 0 0

Iowa >3 0 0 >3 >3

Kansas 3 >3 0 >3 0

Kentucky >3 0 0 >3 0

Michigan >3 >3 0 >3 0

Minnesota 0 >3 0 >3 0

Missouri 2 >3 0 >3 0

Nebraska 2 0 0 >3 0

North Dakota 1 1 0 0 0

Ohio 1 0 0 >3 0

South Dakota 1 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin >3 2 0 0 >3

Region Totals >30 >15 0 >30 >6

Northeast Region

State #FT HE Staff

# PT HE Staff

# HE Contractors

# HE Volunteers

# Other HE Staff

Connecticut 3 2 0 3 0Delaware 2 0 0 0 0

Maine 1 >3 2 >3 0

Maryland 3 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts >3 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire 3 2 0 0 0

New Jersey >3 0 0 0 0

New York >3 >3 0 >3 0

Pennsylvania 3 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 1 2 0 >3 0

Vermont 2 2 0 >3 0

West Virginia >3 >3 0 >3 0


| Appendix B


Southeast Region

State #FT HE Staff

# PT HE Staff

# HE Contractors

# HE Volunteers

# Other HE Staff

Alabama >3 2 0 0 0Arkansas 2 >3 0 >3 0

Florida >3 0 2 >3 0

Georgia 1 2 0 >3 0

Louisiana >3 0 0 0 0

Mississippi >3 0 1 >3 0

North Carolina >3 0 0 >3 0

Oklahoma 1 1 0 0 0

South Carolina >3 0 0 0 0

Tennessee >3 1 0 >3 0

Texas >3 0 0 >3 2

Virginia >3 0 0 >3 0


Western Region

State #FT HE Staff

# PT HE Staff

# HE Contractors

# HE Volunteers

# Other HE Staff

Alaska >3 1 0 >3 0Arizona 2 0 0 0 0

California >3 1 0 >3 0

Hawaii >3 0 0 >3 0

Idaho 2 >3 0 >3 0

Montana 2 >3 1 >3 0

Nevada 0 >3 0 0 0

New Mexico 3 0 >3 0 0

Oregon 2 0 0 >3 0

Utah 2 1 0 >3 0

Washington >3 2 0 0 0

Wyoming 1 0 0 0 0

Region Totals >26 >14 >4 >21 0

Appendix B |

Documents

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey …huntingheritage.org/.../files/hunting_recruitment_retention_report.pdfRecruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | Page 1 Introduction