Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-11

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fishing and Hunting
Recruitment and Retention
in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-11
Fishing and Hunting
Recruitment and Retention
in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-11
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
February 2007
Jerry Leonard
Division of Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The
conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent official positions of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Jim Greer, Tony Fedler, Mark
Duda, and various staff of the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation for
valuable input on this report.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Introduction .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Report Organization .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Data and Definitions .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Recruitment .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Age of Initiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Trend in Recruitment .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Overall Trend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Trend by Socioeconomic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Participation of Children in 2005 .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hunting Behavior of Males with Children who Hunt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Species Pursued by Male Hunters with Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Regression Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Age of Dropouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Characteristics of Dropouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Trend in Retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Reasons for Quitting .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Inactive Anglers and Hunters in 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Reasons for Quitting by Socioeconomic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Contents
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
The National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (FHWAR) indicates that
fishing participation in the U.S. fell
from 35.6 million in 1991 to 34.1 million
in 2001, and hunting fell from 14.1
million to 13.0 million. The decline in
overall participation is of concern to
those involved with wildlife recreation,
especially considering that the
population of the U.S. increased about
13% over the same period . While it
is clear that participation declined, it
is less clear whether the decline was
attributable to declining recruitment of
new participants, declining retention of
former participants, or both. This report
examines recruitment and retention
using data from the 1991, 1996, 2001, and
soon to be released 2006 FHWAR.
This report sheds light on numerous
questions regarding fishing and hunting
recruitment and retention. What percent
of children living at home have ever been
exposed to fishing? How much did this
percentage change from 1990 to 2005?
How much higher is the percent of boys
exposed to hunting than girls? Do the
hunting practices of fathers with children
at home who engage in hunting differ
from those with children who do not?
At what age do individuals tend to stop
fishing and hunting? How much lower
was retention of anglers and hunters in
2005 compared to 1990? What income
groups had relatively large changes in
retention of anglers and hunters from
1995 to 2005?
Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2004-2005, U.S. Census Bureau.
Report Organization
This report first analyzes recruitment
and then addresses retention. More
specifically, the report is organized as
follows.
Recruitment
Age of Initiation:
The age at which initiation into fishing
and hunting occurs is examined, as well
as differences in age of initiation among
residents of urban and rural areas.
Trend in Recruitment:
The trend in recruitment from 1990
to 2005 is analyzed using information
on the percent of children living at
home who have ever hunted or fished.
Socioeconomic characteristics of
recruitees are incorporated so that
trends can be analyzed for different
population segments.
Introduction
Participation of Children in 2005:
This section examines the characteristics
of sons and daughters residing at home
who participated in fishing and hunting in
2005. Their socioeconomic characteristics
are analyzed as well as the fishing and
hunting activity of their parents.
Hunting Behavior of Males with
Children who Hunt:
This section examines whether male
hunters with children who hunted in 2000
differed with respect to their hunting
behavior than male hunters with children
who did not hunt. Whether male hunters
with children who hunted pursued
different species, hunted on different
types of land, or resided in different
areas than those with children who did
not hunt are all examined.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Retention
Age of Dropouts:
This section examines the age at which
individuals stop hunting or fishing.
Additionally, it examines how the
retention rate changed from 1990 to 2005.
Characteristics of Dropouts
This section examines the relationship
between various socioeconomic
characteristics and the retention rate in
fishing and hunting.
Trend in Retention:
The trend in retention from 1990 to
2005 is analyzed in detail. The trend
analysis incorporates socioeconomic
characteristics to assess trends among
different population segments.
Reasons for Quitting:
This section examines the reasons
why individuals quit participating in
fishing and hunting. Socioeconomic
characteristics are incorporated so that
reasons for quitting can be analyzed for
different population segments.
Data and Definitions
All reported data contained herein are
from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 FHWAR
surveys and preliminary data from the
2006 survey. This report makes extensive
use of data from the screen phase of the
FHWAR surveys because these data are
uniquely suited to examine recruitment
and retention in detail. The 2006 survey
results for participation and expenditures
in 2006 will be available beginning in the
spring of 2007. However, the screen phase
of the 2006 survey is already completed,
so, with qualifications outlined below, this
information can be used for the purposes
of this report.
FHWAR documents are available on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage:
http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/
surveys.html.
The 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006 FHWAR
surveys have the same two-phase
construction. The first is the screen phase
in which the Census Bureau interviews a
sample of households nationwide to locate
individuals who will likely participate in
hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching in
the relevant survey year. The second is
the detail phase in which those selected
as likely anglers, hunters, and wildlife
watchers from the screen phase are given
detailed interviews about their recreation
activities. Data collection for the detail
phase of 2006 survey will be completed in
March 2007.
Screen data from each FHWAR survey
are particularly useful in analyzing
recruitment. To determine individuals
who are likely to participate in
wildlife recreation in the survey year,
respondents were asked questions
about the historical recreation activities
of household members. In most cases,
one adult household member provided
information for all household members
about whether they had ever participated
in wildlife-related recreation and, if so,
what year was their most recent activity.
Because the screen queries respondents
about wildlife recreation activities for
years prior to the detail survey year, one
can ascertain who has ever participated
in hunting or fishing, which is well suited
for indicating exposure or “recruitment”
into the sport.
Data from the screen phase are also
useful in analyzing retention. For
individuals who have participated in
hunting or fishing at some point, there
is information available to indicate the
most recent year in which he or she
participated. This information can be
used to identify individuals who have
effectively dropped out of the sport. In
this report, individuals are considered
active participants if they participated
in the respective activity in at least one
of the three years prior to the detail
survey years of 1991, 1996, 2001, or 2006.
Alternatively, individuals are considered
dropouts from fishing or hunting if they
have fished or hunted at some point in
their lives but did not participate in one
of the three years prior to the detail
survey years of 1991, 1996, 2001, or 2006.
For example, for the 2001 FHWAR, an
individual is considered a dropout from
fishing if she fished at some point in her
life but did not participate in 2000, 1999,
or 1998.
It should be noted that data currently
available from the screen phase of the
2006 FHWAR is preliminary. It is not
final and has not been certified as such
by the Census Bureau, so it could change
some between the time this report is
published and the final data is published
by the Census Bureau. That said, it is
highly unlikely that the data will change
enough to negate the findings in this
report. When the final data is available,
the Fish and Wildlife Service will publish
an errata for this report if necessary.
This report was originally written
without using the preliminary 2006
screen data. However, the benefit of
incorporating the latest data was deemed
by the author to outweigh the risk of
reaching errant conclusions resulting
from using it in its preliminary state.
A reader unwilling to accept the use of
the preliminary data should focus on the
trends from 1990 to 2000. If the reader
wishes to obtain the version of this report
that focuses on the trends from 1990 to
2000, it is available from the author. For
the most part, the conclusions reached
are the same as those contained herein,
but there are a few differences.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Age of Initiation
The curves in Chart 1 display the
cumulative percent of first-time anglers
by age in 2005. The FHWAR screen
contains information about first-time
hunting or fishing experiences for the
year immediately preceding the detail
survey year. Individuals who hunted or
fished in 2005 were asked a follow-up
question about whether it was their first
year to participate. Using the responses
to this question, one can obtain the
distribution of first-time anglers or
hunters by age. These distributions
are displayed in Chart 1 as cumulative
percentages. Displaying the distributions
in this manner helps reveal what age
groups are critical for exposure to
hunting or fishing.
The following should help clarify the
meaning of the cumulative percentage
curves in Chart 1. The line for fishing
indicates that in 2005 19% of all first-time
anglers were under 6 years old ,
59% were 15 or under, and 64% were
20 or under. If the distribution of first-time
anglers and hunters is relatively
consistent year after year, then the
relationship between age and first-time
anglers and hunters in 2005 would
resemble the rate of exposure for all
anglers and hunters. In other words, one
can assert that 64% of all individuals who
have ever participated in fishing were
exposed to it by the time they were 20
years old.
Chart 1 reveals that individuals are
typically exposed to fishing at a younger
age than hunting. 47% of first-time
anglers were 10 years or younger
compared to 18% of first-time hunters.
However, the cumulative percent of
individuals hunting for the first time
increases rapidly through the teenage
The screen does not query the activities
for individuals under 6. The number of
individuals in 2005 who were first-time
anglers before 6 was approximated by
tallying the 6 year old individuals who
participated in 2005 and also indicated it was
not their first time.
Recruitment
years, so roughly two thirds of both first
time anglers and hunters are 20 years of
age or younger.
67% of first-time hunters and 64% of
first-time anglers were 20 years of age
and younger. This finding underscores
the importance of recruitment during the
adolescent years. However, it also means
that about a third of both first time
anglers and first time hunters in 2005
were 21 and over .
It may come as a surprise to
professionals involved with wildlife
recreation that about a third of first time
anglers and hunters were 21 and over.
While adolescence is the most important
time for recruitment, young adults and
the middle aged also provide substantial
numbers of new recruits. While this
The percents of first-time hunters and
anglers over 20 were very similar using
data from the 2001 and 1991 surveys.
Contact the author for results using the
2001 and 1991 data.
finding may be surprising, it is also
probably encouraging to many that new
additions to hunting and fishing need not
necessarily be adolescents.
Additional research not presented here
but obtainable from the author revealed
that half of the first time anglers and
hunters 21 and over were 30 to 45 years
old; close to a quarter of both were 21 to
29; and close to a quarter were over 45.
When compared to the distribution of all
anglers, those that started fishing over
20 had relatively high concentrations
in urban areas, the Pacific region, and
races other than Whites. They also had
a greater concentration of females. The
results for females indicate that they are
often initiated into hunting and fishing at
older ages than males.
The participation curves in Chart 1 can
also be produced for individuals with
different socioeconomic characteristics.
Chart 2 displays the cumulative percent
of first-time hunters for rural and
urban residents separately. Residents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
<6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Age
Fishing
Hunting
Chart 1. Cumulative Percent of First-Time Hunters and Anglers, by Age: 2005
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
of rural areas participate for the first
time at a younger age than residents of
urban areas. 38% of first-time hunters
living in rural areas are 12 or younger,
compared to 26% of first-time hunters
living in urban areas. Research suggests
that those initiated into hunting at
younger ages tend to have higher
levels of dedication to the sport and
tend to be more active hunters later
in life . Consequently, the finding that
individuals in rural areas are more likely
to participate at earlier ages than those in
urban areas is not insignificant.
Chart 3 displays the cumulative percent
of first-time anglers for rural and urban
residents separately. Unlike hunting the
age of initiation into fishing is roughly
the same for urban and rural residents.
Research indicates also that long term
fishing involvement is associated with
early initiation. If urban residents are
more prone to drop out of fishing than
rural residents, the results here suggest
that it is not attributable to differences in
age of initiation.
Trend in Recruitment
Overall Trend
The trend in recruitment from 1990 to
2005 is analyzed using data available
from the screen phase of the FHWAR
surveys. The screens contain information
on whether household members have
ever participated in fishing and hunting.
They also contain information about the
relationship of each household member
to the reference person. The reference
person is the household member who
owns, leases, or rents the residence
that was selected in the sample. Thus,
one can ascertain whether household
members are the spouse, child, or parent
of the reference person. This trend
analysis focuses on children of reference
See the following publications for more
information.
Applegate, J. E. (1977) Dynamics of the
New Jersey sport hunting population.
Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour.
Conf., 42: 103-116.
Applegate, J. E. (1982) A change in the
age structure of new hunters in New
Jersey. Journal of Wildlife Management.,
46: 490-492.
O’Leary, J. T., J. Behrens-Tepper, F.A.
McGuire and F. D. Dottavio. (1987). Age
of first hunting experience: results from
a nationwide recreation survey. Leisure
Sciences., 9: 225-233.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
<6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Urban Area
Rural Area
Chart 2. Cumulative Percent of First-Time Hunters, by Age and Residency: 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
<6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Urban Area
Rural Area
Chart 3. Cumulative Percent of First-Time Anglers, by Age and Residency: 2005
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
persons living at home. Given the ages of
initiation shown in Chart 1, the majority
of new hunters or anglers will be children
living at home. Additionally, restricting
the analysis to only children living at
home improves the comparability of
survey results over time .
Table 1 displays the percentages of
children residing at home who had ever
participated in fishing and hunting by
age cohort in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005.
These percentages represent the rates at
which children were initiated into hunting
and fishing, hence they are referred to as
initiation rates.
The initiation rate for children of any
age declined steadily for both fishing and
hunting from 1990 to 2000. However, the
decline in both levelled off from 2000 to
2005. The fishing initiation rate for any
age children fell from 53% in 1990 to 50%
in 1995 to 42% in 2000 and held steady at
42% in 2005. This pattern remained the
same for the hunting rate: 12% in 1990,
10% in 1995, 8% in 2000, and 8% in 2005.
Trend by Socioeconomic
Characteristics
Tables 2-5 present the trend in the
initiation rate of children living at
home by numerous socioeconomic
characteristics: geographic region of
residence, gender, ethnicity, race, urban
or rural residence, household income,
and residence within metropolitan
statistical areas. Incorporating these
characteristics in the analysis permits a
greater understanding of the population
segments that experienced higher
than average declines. To simplify the
discussion, this section focuses on the
trend for children of any age residing
at home rather than the trend by age
cohorts. Relevant information for trends
analysis by age cohorts is in appendix
tables A-1 and A-2.
For most characteristics, the trend
discussion focuses on the change that
occurred from 1990 to 2005. However,
for metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
and household income in 2005 dollars
Contact the author for an explanation of why
limiting the analysis to children living at
home improves the comparability of survey
results over time.
the discussion addresses the period from
1995 to 2005. Residence within MSAs is
not available in the 1991 survey, so the
analysis is limited to the trend from 1995
to 2005.
MSA designation provides another
way of analyzing participation by
population density different than urban
and rural. “The general concept of a
metropolitan . . . statistical area is that
of a core area containing a substantial
population nucleus, together with
adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration
with that core.”
This report uses the central city
designation to further refine the analysis
by MSA. “The largest city in each
MSA . . . is designated a central city.”
Other cities within MSAs may also be
counted as central cities “if specified
requirements are met concerning
population size and commuting
patterns.” Residents of central cities
likely experience the greatest population
density and are likely to experience the
Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2002
most “urban” lifestyles. Hence, they
also likely have the least accessibility to
fishing and hunting opportunities. Those
who reside in MSAs but not in a central
city are more likely to reside in outlying
“suburban” areas. Individuals residing
outside MSAs are likely to experience
the least population density and are more
likely to be considered rural residents,
so they likely have the greatest access to
fishing and hunting opportunities.
As for income, the household income
categories available from the surveys
match up closely when applying the level
of inflation that occurs over a ten year
The newest MSA standards as defined by
Office of Management and Budget change
the name from central cities to principal
cities, but this study will stick with the
central city language to be consistent.
Table 1. Initiation Rates* of Children Residing at Home by Age Cohort
2005 2000 1995 1990
Fishing
Age
Any Age 42% 42% 50% 53%
6-9 39% 38% 45% 49%
10-12 46% 46% 55% 57%
13-19 46% 46% 53% 56%
20+ 36% 34% 45% 48%
Hunting
Age
Any Age 8% 8% 10% 12%
6-12 4% 4% 4% 5%
13-19 11% 12% 14% 16%
20+ 11% 13% 16% 20%
* The initiation rate is the percent of children residing at home who have ever participated in hunting
and fishing.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
period . The categories that are available
in the different survey years do not
match up well for the 15 year period of
1990 to 2005. For the period 1990 to 2000,
a similar trend analysis to that presented
here was completed by the author and
can be obtained by request.
Before discussing which population
segments have experienced faster
declines, it should be pointed out that
the decline in fishing and hunting
recruitment exhibited in Tables 2-5 is
nearly universal. Recruitment in both
fishing and hunting is down for nearly
every socioeconomic characteristic.
Understanding the concept of percent
change in the initiation rate is important
to appropriately compare declines
across different population segments.
Tables 2-5 present both the difference
in the initiation rate and the percent
change in the initiation rates over the
periods from 1990 to 2005 or 1995 to
2005. The difference is a measure of
absolute change while the percent
change is a measure of relative change.
A measure of relative change should be
used to compare which segments of the
population experienced the sharpest or
quickest decline in participation.
An example using differences by race
will illustrate the two concepts and
offer a better understanding of why the
use of a relative change is important.
Table 4 indicates that the difference in
the hunting initiation rate from 1990
to 2005 for Whites was –4% and for
Non-Whites was –2%. The difference
is derived by subtracting the initiation
rate in 2005 from that in 1990, which for
Whites is 10% – 14%=–4% and for Non-
Whites is 2% – 4%=–2%. Considering
this absolute decline alone, one would
conclude that hunting initiation among
Whites contracted faster than it did for
Non-Whites. However, this ignores the
fact that in 1990 the initiation rate was
substantially higher among Whites: 15%
versus 4%.
Income information in 1995 was adjusted
to approximate 2005 income levels. The
Consumer Price Index rose 28% from
1995 to 2005. The income categories
from 1995 where increased by 28%,
and then were assigned to the closest
2005 income categories. 1995 income
categories were assigned to the 2005
income categories in the following manner:
Under $20,0001995=Under $25,0002005,
$20,000-$29,9991995=$25,000-$39,9992005,
$30,000-$74,9991995=$40,000-$99,9992005,
$75,000 or more1995=$100,000 or more2005.
Table 2. Fishing Initiation Rate for Children Residing at Home by Selected
Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005
2005 2000 1995 1990
Difference*
1990-2005
Percent
Change
1990-2005
U.S. Total 42% 42% 50% 53% –11% –20%
Geographic Regions
New England 41% 40% 51% 49% –8% –17%
Middle Atlantic 34% 33% 43% 42% –8% –19%
East North Central 47% 45% 50% 57% –10% –17%
West North Central 61% 60% 65% 70% –10% –14%
South Atlantic 41% 40% 49% 49% –8% –16%
East South Central 51% 48% 50% 57% –6% –10%
West South Central 45% 40% 53% 52% –8% –15%
Mountain 45% 51% 59% 64% –19% –29%
Pacific 32% 37% 43% 49% –16% –34%
Gender
Male 49% 50% 59% 62% –13% –21%
Female 35% 33% 39% 42% –7% –18%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 46% 45% 53% 55% –9% –15%
Hispanic 22% 24% 26% 31% –9% –29%
Race
White 47% 46% 55% 58% –11% –19%
Black 23% 20% 23% 27% –4% –15%
Asian 19% 23% 31% 34% –15% –43%
Other 59% 37% 32% 35% 24% 70%
Population Density
Urban Area 38% 38% 45% 48% –10% –21%
Rural Area 56% 52% 60% 63% –7% –11%
Note: The difference is the initiation rate in 2005 minus the initiation rate in 1990, so for U.S. Total it is
given by 42% – 53%, which equals –11%. The percent change in the initiation rate is a measure of relative
change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990. The percent change in the U.S. Total
is given by the expression ((42.1 – 52.5)÷52.5)×100, which equals –20%.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
To appropriately discern whether Whites
or Non-Whites experienced the sharpest
decline in the initiation rate, a measure
of relative change is needed to account
for their initial differences in 1990. This
measure of relative change is contained in
the percent change column. The percent
change for Whites is calculated by the
expression ((0.097–0.144)÷0.144)×100,
which equals –33%, and for Non-Whites
it is given by ((0.023–0.038)÷0.038)×100,
which equals –39%. When the higher
initial starting value is taken into account,
hunting initiation fell relatively more
among Non-Whites.
Chart 4 displays the fishing and hunting
initiation rates in each of the geographic
regions in 1990 and 2005. Charts 5-8
summarize some of the more informative
percent changes in fishing and hunting
initiation displayed in Tables 2-5.
Table 3. Fishing Initiation Rate for Children Residing at Home by Selected
Characteristics: 1995, 2000, and 2005
2005 2000 1995
Difference*
1995-2005
Percent
Change
1995-2005
U.S. Total 42% 42% 50% –8% –15%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 31% NA 34% –3% –10%
$25,000-$39,999 36% NA 46% –10% –21%
$40,000-$99,999 51% NA 56% –5% –9%
$100,000 or More 56% NA 59% –3% –6%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 32% 32% 40% –8% –20%
Inside MSA not in Central City 44% 43% 51% –6% –12%
Outside MSA 52% 53% 59% –8% –12%
*All differences significant at 90% level except the following: Incomes of Under $25,000 and $100,000 or
more.
Note: The difference is the initiation rate in 2005 minus the initiation rate in 1995, so for U.S. Total it is
given by 42% – 50%, which equals –8%. The percent change in the initiation rate is a measure of relative
change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1995. The percent change in the U.S. Total
is given by the expression ((42.1 – 49.7)÷49.7)×100, which equals –15%.
Chart 4. Fishing and Hunting Initiation Rates for Children Residing at Home by Geographic Region: 2005
FL
NM
HI
DE
MD
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
ND
MT
WY
CO
UT
ID
AZ
NV
WA
CA
OR
KY
ME
NY
PA
MI
VT
NH
MA
CT RI
VA
WV
OH
IL IN
NC
TN
SC
MS AL
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
NJ
GA
AK
West
Mountain
45% Fishing
9% Hunting
West
North Central
61% Fishing
15% Hunting
West
South Central
45% Fishing
11% Hunting
East
South Central
51% Fishing
16% Hunting
South
Atlantic
41% Fishing
8% Hunting
East
North Central
47% Fishing
8% Hunting
Middle
Atlantic
34% Fishing
6% Hunting
New
England
41% Fishing
3% Hunting
Pacific
32% Fishing
4% Hunting
Midwest
South
Northeast
10 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
The percent changes in the fishing
initiation rate are similar among most
regions, but a few regions stand out.
The differences among the different
regions can be seen graphically in Chart
5. The downturns in the Mountain and
Pacific regions are particularly sharp.
The declines of –29% and –34% are
substantially higher than the U.S. total.
It is also noteworthy that the Mountain
and Pacific regions stand out for the
decline from 2000 to 2005, as shown
in Table 2. In 2000 the initiation rate
in these regions were 51% and 37%
respectively, and they declined to 45%
and 32%. These are the only two regions
in which the change from 2000 to 2005
was significant. Changing demographics
and rapid urbanization, particularly in the
Mountain states, are likely contributors
to the change.
Table 4. Hunting Initiation Rate of Children Residing at Home by Selected
Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005
2005 2000 1995 1990
Difference*
1990-2005
Percent
Change
1990-2005
U.S. Total 8% 8% 10% 12% –4% –35%
Geographic Regions
New England 3% 5% 5% 7% –4% –55%
Middle Atlantic 6% 6% 7% 9% –3% –33%
East North Central 8% 9% 9% 13% –5% –35%
West North Central 15% 15% 18% 18% –3% –19%
South Atlantic 8% 8% 10% 13% –5% –37%
East South Central 16% 16% 16% 20% –4% –21%
West South Central 11% 11% 14% 17% –6% –33%
Mountain 9% 11% 13% 15% –7% –44%
Pacific 4% 4% 5% 7% –3% –46%
Gender
Male 13% 14% 17% 20% –8% –38%
Female 3% 3% 3% 4% (Z) –9%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 9% 9% 11% 13% –4% –30%
Hispanic 3% 3% 3% 4% –2% –37%
Race
White 10% 10% 12% 14% –5% –33%
Non-White 2% 2% 4% 4% –2% –39%
Population Density
Urban Area 5% 5% 7% 9% –4% –46%
Rural Area 19% 17% 18% 21% –2% –8%
*All differences significant at 90% level except the following: Female.
(Z) = less than 0.5%, but greater than 0.
Note: The difference is the initiation rate in 2005 minus the initiation rate in 1990, so for U.S. Total it is
given by 8% – 12%, which equals –4%. The percent change in the initiation rate is a measure of relative
change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990. The percent change in the U.S. Total
is given by the expression ((8.1 – 12.5)÷12.5)×100, which equals –35%.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 11
As evidenced in Chart 5, changes in the
hunting initiation rate differed more
among regions than the fishing initiation
rate. The decline was particularly
sharp in the Pacific, Mountain, and
New England Regions. Alternatively,
declines in the East South Central and
West North Central regions were much
smaller. The National Reports of the
1991, 1996, and 2001 surveys all indicate
that the West North Central region has
historically had the highest percent of
individuals 16 years of age or older who
participate in hunting. Given that their
recruitment has not declined at as great
a rate as other regions, this trend will
likely continue.
–60%
–50%
–40%
–30%
–20%
–10%
0%
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
West
North
Central
South
Atlantic
East
South
Central
West
South
Central
Mountain Pacific
Fishing Hunting
Chart 5. 1990 to 2005 Percent Change in Fishing and Hunting Initiation Rate of Children
Residing at Home by Geographic Regions
Table 5. Hunting Initiation Rate for Children Residing at Home by Selected
Characteristics: 1995, 2000, and 2005
2005 2000 1995
Difference*
1995-2005
Percent
Change
1995-2005
U.S. Total 8% 8% 10% –2% –19%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 4% NA 7% –3% –42%
$25,000-$39,999 7% NA 11% –4% –36%
$40,000-$99,999 11% NA 11% (Z) –1%
$100,000 or More 9% NA 11% –1% –10%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 4% 4% 6% –2% –39%
Inside MSA not in Central City 8% 8% 8% (Z) –2%
Outside MSA 18% 18% 20% –2% –11%
*All differences significant at 90% level except the following: Incomes of $40,000-$99,999 and $100,000 or
more, Inside MSA Not in Central City, and Outside MSA.
(Z) = less than 0.5%, but greater than 0.
Note: The difference is the initiation rate in 2005 minus the initiation rate in 1995, so for U.S. Total it is
given by 8% – 10%, which equals –2%. The percent change in the initiation rate is a measure of relative
change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1995. The percent change in the U.S. Total
is given by the expression ((8.1 – 10.0)÷10.0)×100, which equals –19%.
12 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Chart 6 shows that the percent change
in fishing initiation from 1995 to 2005
declined more among lower income
groups. The initiation rate among those
with incomes of $100,000 or more was
down the least at –5%. The decline among
those with incomes of under $25,000 was
twice that at –10%, and the decline among
those with income of $25,000-$39,000 was
four times as large at –21%.
Chart 6 also shows a negative correlation
between percent change in hunting
initiation and income. The percent
change in the hunting initiation rate for
those children residing in households
with incomes under $25,000 a year was
–42%, which is more than four times
the magnitude of those with incomes of
$100,000 or more at –10%. The graph
suggests a “threshold” of around $40,000,
below which the decline in hunting
was particularly sharp. This evidence
certainly solicits the question of why
hunting recruitment declined so sharply
for those with under $40,000 of household
income. Are income constraints the
primary concern? Are time constraints
of those in lower income households
the primary concern? These questions
remain for additional research.
From 1990 to 2005 the downturn in
fishing and hunting initiation of children
residing in urban areas was sharper than
that of their rural counterparts. However,
the discrepancy in initiation rates among
urban versus rural residents was greater
for hunting. Chart 7 indicates that the
downturn in hunting initiation in urban
areas was five times as much as that
in rural areas, –46% versus –9%. This
finding could indicate that increased
urbanization in the future will have
greater adverse impacts on hunting than
fishing.
There is also greater discrepancy
in initiation rates for hunting than
fishing by MSA. Chart 8 indicates that
the downturn in fishing initiation is
relatively similar among those who
reside inside MSAs in the central city,
those who reside inside MSAs but not
in the central city, and those who reside
outside MSAs. However, for hunting the
downturn among central city residents is
far greater than those residing in other
areas. Most of the decline in the initiation
rate for hunting in the U.S. from 1995
to 2005 is attributable to the decline for
central city residents.
The percent change in both the fishing
and hunting initiation rates for the
remaining characteristics displayed in
Tables 2-5 are roughly the same, with
the following exceptions. For fishing the
downturn among Hispanics and Asians
was particularly sharp. For hunting
the downturn among males stands out.
Female initiation into hunting remained
relatively constant from 1990 to 2005. In
fact, the downturn for females from 1990
to 2005 is not statistically significant.10
Why the sharp downturn for males and
not females? This is a question that will
remain for further research.
Participation of Children in 2005
This section examines the characteristics
of sons and daughters residing at home
who participated in fishing and hunting
in 2005. The analysis only includes
households that indicated the presence
of sons and daughters of the reference
person.11
Analysis of participation in 2005 provides
a different perspective on recruitment
10 Not significant at 90% confidence level.
11 The approach of using only households that
indicate the presence of children of the
reference person is obviously not a perfect
representation of the activities of parents
and their children in the U.S. Assuredly,
some households contain children that are
not the son or daughter of the reference
person, and they are excluded from this
analysis due to the limitations inherent in
the data.
than the analysis of the percent who had
ever participated. The primary advantage
of considering 2005 activity alone is the
ability to incorporate details about the
wildlife related recreational activity of
parents.12 This is accomplished by using
a FHWAR household identification
variable in conjunction with the variable
that indicates the relationship of each
member in the household to the person
who owns, leases, or rents the residence.
Analyzing participation in only 2005
also provides additional insight into the
participation of children in a single year,
not whether they have participated over
the course of their lives.
Table 6 shows the percent of sons and
daughters living at home who fished in
2005. Daughters participated at lower
rates than sons, and their participation
rate falls more rapidly as age is
increased. For sons aged 6 to 9, 10 to
12 Here the term parent is used to designate
reference persons and their spouses who
had sons or daughters residing in their
households, which will not necessarily
equate to the fathers and mothers of
children residing at home. There will be
some adult males and females residing
in households with stepchildren. In its
strictest sense, parent refers to fathers and
mothers. However, a broader definition of
parent is one of guardian. In this sense the
reference person and his/her spouse who is
not necessarily the father or mother can be
considered a parent.
–50%
–40%
–30%
–20%
–10%
0%
Under $25,000 $25,000–$39,999 $40,000–$99,999 $100,000 or More
Fishing Hunting
Chart 6. 1995 to 2005 Percent Change in Fishing and Hunting Initiation Rate of Children
Residing at Home by Household Income: 2005 Dollars
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 13
12, 13 to 19, and 20+, the percentages
that participated were 37%, 38%, 34%,
and 22% respectively. The comparable
percentages for daughters were 25%,
26%, 19%, and 11%. The decline of
daughters from 26% to 19% to 11% is
sharper than the decline for sons.
Tables 6 and 7 indicate an increased
probability that a given child will be
either a hunter or angler if they also
participated in wildlife watching. In
accordance with the FHWAR, wildlife
watching is defined as feeding, closely
observing, or photographing wildlife.
Table 6 indicates that 21% of sons who
were not wildlife watchers participated
in fishing, while 59% of those who were
wildlife watchers participated. Similarly,
Table 7 indicates that 16% of wildlife-watching
sons hunted compared to 4.7%
of those who did not13.
Table 6 indicates that children whose
parents participated in wildlife watching
had a higher participation rate in fishing,
where participation rate is defined as the
percentage who participated. 55% of sons
with male parents who wildlife watched in
2005 also fished compared to 25% of those
with male parents who did not. Among
daughters with male parents who wildlife
watched, 37% fished compared to 13% of
those whose male parents did not wildlife
watch. Similarly, 51% of sons and 35% of
daughters fished if their female parents
wildlife watched.
13 These results support a theory posited in
a prior report about why individuals tend
to participate in both wildlife watching
and hunting or fishing. The Relationship
between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and
Anglers found that individuals who had
recently participated in hunting or fishing
had a significantly higher probability of also
participating in wildlife watching than those
who did not. A possible explanation that was
offered was that individuals were probably
exposed to both activities at a young age and
continued to participate in both. The results
in Tables 3 and 4 support this explanation.
–50%
–40%
–30%
–20%
–10%
0%
Urban Area Rural Area
Fishing Hunting
Chart 7. 1995 to 2005 Percent Change in Fishing and Hunting Initiation Rate of Children
Residing at Home by Urban/Rural
–50%
–40%
–30%
–20%
–10%
0%
Inside MSA in
Central City
Inside MSA not in
Central City
Outside MSA
Fishing Hunting
Chart 8. 1995 to 2005 Percent Change in Fishing and Hunting Initiation Rate of Children
Residing at Home by MSA
14 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Table 6. Percent of Sons and Daughters Living at Home who Fished in 2005 by Age Cohort
Daughters Sons
Any Age 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 19 20+ Any Age 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 19 20+
U.S. Total 20% 25% 26% 19% 11% 33% 37% 38% 34% 22%
Geographic Regions
New England 18% 22% 26% 17% 8% 31% 36% 39% 32% 20%
Middle Atlantic 18% 25% 24% 16% 11% 27% 29% 41% 26% 17%
East North Central 23% 30% 30% 23% 9% 40% 46% 45% 42% 27%
West North Central 36% 46% 46% 29% 21% 49% 58% 54% 49% 32%
South Atlantic 19% 23% 21% 20% 9% 34% 37% 44% 34% 23%
East South Central 25% 31% 35% 23% 12% 42% 40% 44% 48% 31%
West South Central 23% 21% 31% 23% 20% 34% 37% 32% 38% 28%
Mountain 20% 22% 31% 19% 6% 30% 31% 38% 29% 20%
Pacific 11% 15% 14% 10% 6% 21% 24% 24% 23% 14%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 22% 29% 30% 21% 11% 36% 42% 43% 38% 24%
Hispanic 9% 8% 12% 10% 9% 15% 14% 17% 16% 14%
Race
White 23% 28% 29% 22% 12% 37% 41% 43% 39% 25%
Black 7% 12% 9% 6% 3% 13% 15% 19% 12% 10%
Asian 9% 12% 15% 7% 5% 15% 19% *16% 9% 17%
Other 35% *42% *33% 35% ** 46% 43% *47% 50% *42%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 13% 14% 15% 14% 7% 22% 21% 23% 25% 16%
$25-$49,999 20% 25% 27% 17% 11% 33% 34% 37% 33% 26%
$50-$74,999 24% 33% 33% 21% 9% 39% 44% 42% 41% 26%
$75,000-$99,999 28% 35% 35% 23% 18% 43% 49% 48% 43% 31%
$100,000 or More 29% 35% 35% 27% 22% 43% 51% 53% 40% 29%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 14% 20% 17% 12% 9% 21% 23% 30% 22% 12%
Inside MSA not in Central City 22% 27% 28% 21% 11% 34% 40% 40% 35% 23%
Outside MSA 25% 26% 34% 24% 13% 47% 51% 49% 48% 38%
Population Density
Urban Area 17% 22% 23% 16% 10% 28% 31% 35% 28% 18%
Rural Area 30% 33% 37% 31% 15% 49% 54% 50% 52% 37%
Wildlife Watching Activities
Not Watcher 12% 14% 14% 12% 7% 21% 21% 23% 23% 17%
Wildlife Watcher 40% 46% 48% 38% 23% 59% 61% 65% 60% 45%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample Size too small to report data reliably.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 15
Table 6. Percent of Sons and Daughters Living at Home who Fished in 2005 by Age Cohort (continued)
Daughters Sons
Any Age 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 19 20+ Any Age 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 19 20+
Male Parent’s Wildlife Watching
Not Watcher 13% 16% 17% 12% 8% 25% 26% 30% 25% 18%
Wildlife Watcher 37% 45% 43% 35% 22% 55% 58% 62% 55% 41%
Female Parent’s Wildlife Watching
Not Watcher 15% 18% 18% 14% 9% 27% 29% 33% 27% 20%
Wildlife Watcher 35% 42% 43% 32% 20% 51% 56% 60% 51% 38%
Male Parent’s Fishing, days
None 5% 7% 6% 4% 2% 11% 11% 13% 12% 9%
1 to 3 49% 61% 50% 47% 29% 67% 69% 74% 66% 51%
4 to 9 53% 56% 64% 50% 40% 77% 78% 85% 77% 65%
10 to 19 54% 66% 62% 50% 39% 77% 78% 79% 74% 76%
20 to 29 65% 63% 77% 61% *57% 86% 89% 92% 83% 82%
30 or more 62% 72% 74% 56% 46% 81% 85% 82% 84% 70%
Female Parent’s Fishing, days
None 9% 11% 13% 9% 4% 22% 24% 26% 23% 16%
1 to 3 71% 79% 74% 67% 51% 75% 69% 85% 75% 67%
4 to 9 75% 80% 84% 75% 55% 88% 88% 95% 88% 80%
10 to 19 77% 80% 81% 77% 63% 86% 88% 78% 90% 82%
20 to 29 74% 68% 84% 77% *67% 93% 93% 96% 92% *92%
30 or more 76% 88% 85% 68% *57% 85% 88% 76% 90% 82%
Marital Status of Parents in Household
Married 22% 26% 26% 21% 12% 35% 38% 41% 36% 25%
Divorced 19% 22% 31% 18% 11% 33% 41% 36% 34% 21%
Never married 11% *15% *16% *10% ** 16% 21% 18% 16% *10%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample Size too small to report data reliably.
Table 7 indicates that children of
wildlife-watching parents also had a
higher participation rate in hunting.
16.4% of sons and 5% of daughters
with male wildlife-watching parents
also participated in hunting. These
percentages compare to 5.3% and 0.8%
of those with male parents who did not
wildlife watch. Similarly, 13.6% of sons
and 4.2% daughters hunted if their
female parents wildlife watched.
Perhaps the most interesting information
in Tables 6 and 7 concern the fishing and
hunting activity of parents with children
who participated. If a male parent did
not participate in any fishing in 2005,
the percentage of sons who participated
was one third the U.S. total for any age
son, which serves as an average. The
percentage of sons who participated with
male parents who did not participate
at least one day was 11%, compared
to the U.S. percentage of 33%. This
indicates that if a boy’s male parent
did not fish at all, he was three times
less likely to fish than the U.S. average.
For daughters the discrepancy is even
greater. Only five percent of daughters
of any age participated in fishing when
their male parents did not. This compares
to a national average that is four times
greater at 20%.
16 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Table 7. Percent of Sons and Daughters Living at Home who Hunted in 2005 by Age Cohort
Daughters Sons
Any Age Any Age 6 to 12 13 to 19 20+
U.S. Total 2.0% 8.2% 4.9% 12.0% 8.0%
Geographic Regions
New England 0.4% 2.6% ** 4.4% *2.8%
Middle Atlantic 1.7% 5.3% ** 8.6% *7.2%
East North Central 2.8% 8.1% *3.2% 12.5% 9.9%
West North Central 4.6% 16.6% 6.6% 26.9% 14.8%
South Atlantic 1.3% 7.3% 5.8% 8.5% 7.9%
East South Central 3.5% 18.3% 13.6% 23.0% 18.0%
West South Central 3.1% 13.4% 11.3% 19.4% *7.8%
Mountain 1.8% 7.3% 4.4% 9.6% 10.0%
Pacific *0.5% 3.6% *1.6% 6.1% *2.9%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 2.4% 9.3% 5.8% 13.8% 8.6%
Hispanic ** 2.6% *1.0% *3.8% *4.1%
Race
White 2.4% 9.9% 6.0% 14.3% 9.7%
Non-White *0.5% 1.8% *0.4% 3.0% *2.4%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 *0.8% 3.1% *1.9% 4.9% *2.6%
$25-$49,999 1.8% 7.8% 4.2% 12.0% 8.6%
$50-$74,999 3.0% 12.4% 7.7% 18.9% 10.3%
$75,000-$99,999 2.6% 11.1% 6.6% 15.5% 13.1%
$100,000 or More 2.7% 9.3% 6.3% 11.5% 11.4%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 0.9% 3.4% 2.3% 5.0% 3.1%
Inside MSA not in Central City 1.8% 7.2% 4.1% 10.5% 7.7%
Outside MSA 4.7% 19.5% 12.2% 27.9% 18.2%
Population Density
Urban Area 0.9% 4.4% 2.4% 6.8% 4.2%
Rural Area 5.7% 20.3% 13.1% 27.4% 20.8%
Wildlife Watching Activities
Not Watcher 0.8% 4.7% 1.9% 7.2% 5.3%
Wildlife Watcher 4.8% 16.0% 9.8% 23.8% 19.8%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 17
Table 7 indicates that activity on the
part of the male parent likely has an
even greater impact on the participation
of children in hunting than fishing.
Less than one half of one percent of
daughters hunted if a male parent in the
household did not. For sons, only 2.9%
hunted if their male parents did not. The
participation rate for sons whose male
parents hunted 1-3 days is eight times the
rate of those whose male parents did not.
These results underscore the importance
of the parental involvement in the
initiation of children into hunting.
For most parental frequency levels,
participation on the part of the female
parents resulted in higher participation
rates of both sons and daughters than
the same level of activity on the part
of the male parents. If a female parent
fished 1 to 3 days 71% of daughters and
75% of sons participated. If a female
parent fished more than 30 days 76% of
daughters and 85% of sons participated.
Similarly, if a female parent hunted 1-9
days, 34.6% of daughters and 63.3% of
sons participated. These results indicate
that if a female parent participated in
Table 7. Percent of Sons and Daughters Living at Home who Hunted in 2005 by Age Cohort (continued)
Daughters Sons
Any Age Any Age 6 to 12 13 to 19 20+
Male Parent’s Wildlife Watching
Not Watcher 0.8% 5.3% 2.6% 7.9% 5.9%
Wildlife Watcher 5.0% 16.4% 9.9% 23.4% 17.6%
Female Parent’s Wildlife Watching
Not Watcher 1.3% 7.0% 4.0% 10.8% 6.6%
Wildlife Watcher 4.2% 13.6% 7.9% 18.8% 16.3%
Male Parent’s Hunting, days
None 0.3% 2.9% 1.0% 4.6% 4.2%
1 to 3 *8.7% 27.1% *17.4% 38.4% 32.3%
4 to 9 7.8% 33.6% 14.5% 45.8% 57.4%
10 to 19 13.4% 46.1% 22.5% 65.9% 40.9%
20 to 29 19.0% 57.0% 40.7% 75.3% 63.6%
30 or more 26.0% 61.2% 49.8% 73.3% *66.7%
Female Parent’s Hunting, days
None 1.3% 6.8% 3.5% 10.3% 7.2%
1 to 9 34.6% 63.3% *54.9% 69.4% *74.2%
10 to 19 *50.0% 63.8% *52.5% *81.5% **
20 or more *37.5% 60.2% ** 82.1% **
Marital Status of Parents in Household
Married 2.2% 9.1% 5.1% 13.3% 9.7%
Divorced 1.9% 7.6% 6.3% 10.7% 4.8%
Never married *0.7% *1.4% ** ** **
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
18 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
fishing or hunting then the children were
even more likely to participate than if
male parents participated14. This implies
that male parents are more likely to
engage in fishing and hunting without
their children. When female parents
go, they are more likely to go with their
children.
Table 8 reveals more information about
the roles that female and male parents
play in the introduction of children to
fishing and hunting. It shows the percent
of children who participated in fishing
and hunting by parental participation.
8% of daughters living at home who
fished in 2005 were from households
without parental participation. 15% of
sons who fished did not have parents
who participated. Similarly, for hunting
8% of daughters and 22% of sons were
from households without parental
participation. Closer inspection of the
data reveals that those children who
participated that did not have parents in
the household who also participated were
older children in their teens and early
twenties. Some also likely had parents or
other relatives who did not reside in the
household who did participate.
Table 8 also indicates that few child
participants were from households where
a female parent fished or hunted when
a male parent did not. 14% of daughters
and 10% of sons who fished were from
households in which only a female parent
participated. This compares to only 4%
daughters and sons who participated in
hunting. Conversely, 33% of daughters
and 42% of sons who fished were from
households in which only the male parent
participated. This compares to 65% of
daughters and sons who hunted.
Also interesting is that the majority of
daughters who fished included a female
parent who participated. 45% were from
households where both parents fished
14 For several categories of parental frequency,
activity on the part of the female parent does
not result in significantly higher participation
rate of children than the same frequency
on the part of the male parent. There is no
significant difference in hunting participation
rate of sons and daughters whose female
parents hunted 20 to 29 days than those
whose male parents hunted 20 to 29 days.
There is no significant difference among sons
whose male versus female parents hunted
30 days or more. Sons whose female parent
fished 10 to 19 days were not significantly
more likely to participate in fishing than
those with fathers who fished 10 to 19 days.
and 14% were from households where
only the female parent participated.
Taken together this indicates that 59%
of all daughters who fished were from
households with a female parent who
fished. 43% of sons were from households
in which a female parent participated.
This likely indicates that activity of the
female parent is more critical to the
participation of daughters in fishing than
sons.
Closer inspection of the data in Tables
6 and 7 reveals that increased avidity
on the part of the male parent had
a different impact on the percent of
children who participated in fishing than
it had on hunting. Chart 9 reveals that
even if the male parent only fished a few
days, the participation rates of children
increased dramatically. When a male
parent in the household fished 1-3 days
the participation rate of sons increased
from 11% to 67% and the rate for
daughters from 5% to 49%.
Although participation rates continue to
climb as the male parent’s fishing days
increase, the changes between each
frequency stage are slight in comparison
to the dramatic change that occurs
between no participation and 1-3 days of
participation. Some activity on the part
of the male parent, even if slight, appears
important to the participation of children.
Chart 10 reveals that the participation
rates of children in hunting are highly
responsive to the participation frequency
of male parents. Increased frequency
of participation of the male parent was
associated with steady and sizeable gains
in the participation rates of children.
When male parents participated 1-3 days,
10-19 days, and 30 or more days, the
participation rate of sons climbed from
27% to 46% to 61%, and the participation
rate for daughters climbed from 9% to
13% to 26%.
A lingering question related to
hunting and fishing among children is
whether their parents’ marital status
affects participation. This issue can be
analyzed using FHWAR data with some
definitional limitations. In the context
of the survey and this analysis, children
are considered to be from divorced
households if the parent with whom
they live was divorced at the time of the
survey. Those children from households
with parents who were divorced prior to
the survey but at the time of the survey
lived with a parent who remarried
are considered to be from married
households. Additionally, children from
divorced households are considered from
single parent households at the time
of the survey provided no other non-marital
cohabitant is considered a parent.
The survey did not determine if other
unmarried cohabitants were present in
the household.
Considering the definitional limitations
described above, Tables 6 and 7 reveal
that there are slight differences in
participation rates of sons and daughters
from married households and divorced
households. However, none of these
differences are statistically significant.15
Lack of a statistical significance means
that there is greater than 10% chance
that the differences shown could have
occurred by chance. This analysis was
also done using data from the 2001
survey. In all but one case the differences
were not statistically significant there
either. The only difference in the
participation rate between any age
children from married versus divorced
households was for daughters fishing.
15 At 90% confidence level.
Table 8. Distribution of Sons and Daughters Living at Home Who Fished and Hunted in
2005 by Parents��� Activity
Fishing Hunting
Daughters Sons Daughters Sons
Without parents who go 8% 15% 8% 22%
Male and female parents both go 45% 33% 23% 10%
Male parent goes; female parent doesn’t 33% 42% 65% 65%
Female parent goes; male parent doesn’t 14% 10% 4% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Days of Activity by Parent
None 1 to 3 4 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or more
Sons
Daughters
Chart 9. Percent of Sons and Daughters Residing at Home who Participated in
Fishing by Male Parents’ Days of Fishing: 2005
Days of Activity by Parent
None 1 to 3 4 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Sons
Daughters
Chart 10. Percent of Sons and Daughters Residing at Home who Participated in
Hunting by Male Parents’ Days of Hunting: 2005
Hunting Behavior of Males with
Children who Hunt
Data from the detail phase and screen
phase of the 2001 FHWAR were merged
to analyze how the hunting practices of
men with children in the same household
who hunted differed from those practices
of men whose children in the household
did not hunt. This analysis cannot be
performed yet with data from the 2006
survey, because the detail phase has
not been completed. The screen data
contains information about households
with children and whether those children
hunted or fished in 2000. The detail data
contains information about the fishing
and hunting activities of individuals
identified as likely hunters and anglers
in the screen phase. Among other things,
the detail data contain information
about the species of game and fish
pursued, type of land used for fishing
and hunting (i.e., public, private, leased),
and expenditures made on fishing and
hunting trips and equipment16.
By merging the detail and screen
data together, one can answer several
questions of interest about whether
the hunting activities of males with
children who hunted differ from those
of males with children who did not hunt.
For example, we can examine whether
male hunters with children who hunted
pursued different species than those with
children who did not hunt. The answer
should provide some insight into species
pursued when introducing a child to
hunting. These species are referred to as
“introductory species.” Additionally, one
can examine whether male hunters with
children who hunted were more prone
to hunt on private land or public land,
whether they were more prone to live in
rural areas or large metropolitan areas,
and whether they were more prone to
have higher incomes.
For the purposes of this section, the
qualifying language “in the household”
has been removed for simplicity. Thus,
“men without children” refers to “men
without children in the household.”
16 It is important to note that activities of
the children are for year 2000 only, and
the activities of those males with children
residing at home are for 2001. Consequently,
there is not perfect comparability between
the children and parent data. It would be
preferable to have data for the parents and
children correspond to the same year of
activity.
20 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Species Pursued by Male Hunters
with Children
Table 9 presents male hunters by species
pursued and whether they had children
who hunted. Beside each column of the
number of hunters is a percent column
that indicates the percent of those
hunters who pursued the species named
by the row. Thus, the second row and
second column indicates that 84% of all
male hunters pursued big game. The
second row and last column indicates that
88% of male hunters pursued big game
if they had children who hunted. The
percent columns permit one to ascertain
if males with children who hunted
pursued a particular species more than
males with children who did not hunt or
those without children.
Comparing the percentages reveals
that men with children who hunted had
relativity high concentrations in species
in which small caliber rifles or shotguns
are used. 27% of men with children who
hunted pursued turkey, compared to 14%
of those with children who did not hunt
and 20% of those without children. 51%
of men with children who hunted pursued
small game, compared to 38% of those
with children who did not hunt and 43%
of those without children. Rabbit and
squirrel are small game species where
the difference between the percent of
men with children who hunted and those
who did not hunt are particularly high.
For squirrel, the percentage of hunters
with children who hunted is more than
double that of those with children who did
not hunt. Men with children who hunted
are also more prone to participate in
migratory bird hunting.
It is perhaps not surprising to find
evidence suggesting that small game
and migratory birds serve important
roles as introductory species to initiate
children into hunting. The weapons
used for these species are probably a
contributing factor. Small caliber rifles
and shotguns are typical firearms of
choice for hunting these species. They
produce recoil levels that children can
more easily accommodate than those
produced by high powered rifles used
in big game hunting. Additionally, these
firearms have relatively low range
compared to high powered rifles, which
Table 9. Parental Status of Male Hunters by Hunting Activity of Children and Species Pursued: 2001
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older. Numbers in Thousands)
All Male
Hunters
Percent
of All
Hunters
Males
without
Children Percent
Males with
Children who
Did Not Hunt Percent
Males with
Children who
Hunted Percent
Total, All Hunters 11,845 100% 7,871 100% 2,439 100% 1,535 100%
Big Game 9,923 84% 6,572 84% 2,000 82% 1,351 88%
Deer 9,371 79% 6,210 79% 1,882 77% 1,280 83%
Elk 831 7% 539 7% 168 7% 123 8%
Bear 340 3% 211 3% 79 3% 50 3%
Turkey 2,330 20% 1,560 20% 352 14% 417 27%
Moose 58 (Z) 38 (Z) *11 (Z) *9 *1%
Other Big Game 449 4% 304 4% 46 2% 99 6%
Small Game 5,114 43% 3,398 43% 930 38% 786 51%
Rabbit 1,968 17% 1,301 17% 328 13% 339 22%
Quail 938 8% 610 8% 208 9% 119 8%
Grouse 949 8% 626 8% 149 6% 174 11%
Squirrel 1,998 17% 1,369 17% 268 11% 360 23%
Pheasant 1,630 14% 1,025 13% 348 14% 257 17%
Other Small Game 481 4% 336 4% 96 4% *49 *3%
Migratory Bird 2,815 24% 1,779 23% 575 24% 461 30%
Geese 970 8% 617 8% 197 8% 156 10%
Duck 1,517 13% 1,031 13% 266 11% 220 14%
Dove 1,362 11% 820 10% 281 12% 261 17%
Other Migratory Bird 206 2% 126 2% *39 *2% *41 *3%
Other Animals 1,005 8% 678 9% 138 6% 189 12%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
(Z) indicates less than 0.5%
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 21
reduces the risk associated with errant
shots that are probably made more often
by children than adults. Another factor
that favors small game and migratory
birds as introductory species is greater
opportunities to shoot these firearms.
There are more chances to take animals
in these forms of hunting, which may
be more interesting and instructive to
children.
Small game hunting has experienced
a decade-long decline in participation.
Total participation in small game
hunting was 7.6 million in 1991, fell to
6.9 million in 1996, and then fell again to
5.4 million in 2001. The decline in small
game hunting comprised the largest
portion of the decline in all hunting
from 14.1 million participants in 1991 to
13.0 million participants in 2001. Given
the importance of small game as an
introductory species, this trend could
indicate a declining exposure of children
to hunting.
The 1996 and 2001 FHWARs can be
used to ascertain who experienced the
sharpest decline in small game hunting:
male hunters without children, those with
children who did not hunt, or those with
children who hunted. Chart 11 presents
the percentage decline in small game
participants from 1996 to 2001. Small
game hunting had the sharpest decline
among those males with children who did
not hunt, and it declined the least among
males with children who hunted.
The relatively slight decline among
males with children who hunted is likely
another indicator of the importance of
small game as introductory species. It
could be that factors related to hunting
quality or availability had a negative
impact on the number of small game
hunters from 1996 to 2001. Perhaps
access to small game hunting areas
diminished or there were fewer animals
or less desirable animals to pursue. A
number of factors could have contributed
to the decline in small game hunting.
However, whatever factors contributed to
the overall decline, apparently they had
less impact on hunters for whom small
game hunting is particularly important:
males with children who participated.
Regression Analysis
Table 9 clearly indicates that male
hunters with children who hunted had
relativity high concentrations in species
in which small caliber rifles or shotguns
are used. However, the descriptive
statistics in Table 9 don��t tell the whole
story. They do not reveal the independent
effect each characteristic has on the
likelihood of having children who hunted,
nor do they permit an assessment of
whether the apparent relationship
occurred by chance. Besides the species
pursued, other characteristics also
appear to have a relationship with the
likelihood of having children who hunted.
For example, male hunters who resided
in rural areas were more likely to have
children who hunted than those who
resided in urban areas.
By using regression analysis the
independent effect of each characteristic
on the likelihood of having children
who hunted can be isolated and the
significance of the relationship can be
determined. Additionally, regression
permits assessment of whether the
correlations of the different variables
with likelihood of having children who
hunted are significant. In other words it
permits an assessment of the probability
that the relationship occurred by chance.
Logit regression is appropriate for
situations where the dependent variable
has two possible values, which is the case
here: some male hunters had children
who hunted and others had children who
did not hunt. Hence, the only hunters
included in the regression are those
with children present in the household.
Results of the regression analysis are
summarized here. Details are shown in
Appendix B.
When controlling for other factors that
also have a relationship with likelihood
of having children who hunted, several
small game species have a significant
impact on participation. The likelihood
a male hunter had a child that hunted
increases significantly if the male hunter
pursued squirrel or grouse. The increase
is particularly high if the male parent
pursued squirrel. These results support
the notion that squirrel and grouse often
serve as introductory species in hunting.
One small game species, quail, actually
has a significant negative impact on the
likelihood of male parents having children
who hunted. A complete explanation
for why male parents who hunted quail
would be less likely to have a child at
home who hunted remains elusive. One
explanation may be that quail hunting
often occurs in club settings or other
settings where one is likely to go hunting
with several friends. In such a setting it
may not be appropriate to bring along
novice hunters who lack a high degree
of gun proficiency and awareness of the
activities of other hunters. Alternatively,
male hunters who lack companionship
of their children may be more likely to
participate in the ‘buddy’ hunting nature
of quail hunting.
There are a couple of non-small game
species associated with a significant
increase in the likelihood of having
children who participated. Male parents
who pursued turkey and dove were
–50%
–45%
–40%
–35%
–30%
–25%
–20%
–15%
–10%
–5%
0%
Males without
Children
All Male Small
Game Hunters
Males with Children
who Did Not Hunt
Males with Children
who Hunted
Chart 11. Percent Decline in the Number of Male Small Game Hunters from 1996 to 2001
22 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
also more likely to have a child who
hunted. The result for turkey hunting
is particularly encouraging because it
expanded through the nineties. In 1991
there were 1.2 million turkey hunters
who pursued turkey 13.5 million days.
This increased to 2.5 million hunters
and 23.2 million days by 2001. Provided
turkey is a viable introductory species,
these increases could indicate a rising
genre of hunting in which recruiting is
likely on the rise. Perhaps turkey hunting
could counter the decline in recruits
resulting from contraction in small
game hunting.
Besides species hunted, other factors
also have significant relationships
with the likelihood of male hunters
having children who hunted. The most
important17 is the number of days the
male parent hunts. Not surprising, the
higher number of days a male parent
hunted, the higher the likelihood of
having a child who hunted.
Several factors related to the availability
of hunting opportunities significantly
increased the likelihood of having
children who hunted. Male parents who
hunted on private land were significantly
more likely to have children who hunted
than those who only hunted on public
land. All other things equal, those
constrained to hunt only on public land
may find taking children along more
difficult or risky than those who have
access to private land.
Higher incomes are also associated with a
significantly higher increase in likelihood
of having children who hunted. All other
things equal, higher incomes could
increase the number of opportunities in
which hunters could afford to take their
children along.
Residents of rural areas are significantly
more likely to have children who
participated than residents of urban
areas with one million people or more.
Interestingly, there is no statistically
significant difference between residents
of rural areas and urban areas of less
than one million people.
17 In this context “most important” means that
it explains the largest amount of variation in
likelihood of having children who hunt.
Hispanic male parents who hunted had
a lower likelihood of having children
who hunted than Non-Hispanics.
Interestingly, the race of hunters was not
significant.
Lastly, male parents who hunted on
leased land were significantly less likely
to have children who hunted than those
who hunted on land that was not leased.
Hunting leases are often made by a
group of individuals with a landowner.
The group often comprises friends or
colleagues so, as in the case of quail
hunters, leased land may not be an
appropriate place for the tutelage of an
inexperienced hunter. Another possible
explanation, however, is that those who
lease land with friends and colleagues
may lack the company of others from
within the family.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 23
Retention
Having analyzed information available
from the FHWAR concerning
recruitment, it is now time to shift gears
and see what information it contains
about retention of individuals in fishing
and hunting. As discussed above,
individuals are no longer considered
active anglers or hunters if they did not
participate in the activity for three years
prior to the detail survey years 1991,
1996, 2001, or 2006. Thus, individuals
who did participate in one of the three
years prior to these survey years are
considered active anglers or hunters.
For example, for the 2001 FHWAR, an
individual is considered a dropout from
fishing if she had fished at some point in
her life but did not participate in 2000,
1999, or 1998.
In this section “remained active” refers
to participation in fishing or hunting in
one of the three years prior to a survey.
The “retention rate” is the percent of
individuals who have participated in
fishing or hunting at some point and have
remained active in the respective activity.
Age of Dropouts
Information from the FHWAR is
useful in discerning the percent of the
population who previously participated
in fishing and hunting and have remained
active in at least one of three years prior
to the survey year. These percentages
can be calculated and graphed for
individuals of different ages. These
graphs serve as “dropout curves”
that indicate ages where quitting is
particularly acute. The dropout curves
for fishing and hunting from the 1991 and
2006 FHWARs are displayed in Charts 12
and 13.
Fishing retention declines rapidly
through the teenage years, levels out
from the early twenties through the early
forties, declines at a fairly constant rate
from the early forties until the early
sixties, and declines rapidly beyond the
age of 68. From the early forties until 61,
the retention rate, which is the percent
active within the three prior years,
decreases about three percent a year.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
<10
14 to 16
20 to 22
26-28
32-34
38-40
44-46
50-52
56-58
62-64
68-70
74-75
1990 2005
Chart 12. Percent of Anglers Still Active* by Age: 1990 and 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
<10
14 to 16
20 to 22
26-28
32-34
38-40
44-46
50-52
56-58
62-64
68-70
74-75
1990 2005
Chart 13. Percent of Hunters Still Active* by Age: 1990 and 2005
* Individuals who participated in one of the three years prior to the 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988) and 2006
(2005, 2004, 2003) surveys.
* Individuals who participated in one of the three years prior to the 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988) and 2006
(2005, 2004, 2003) surveys.
24 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Hunting retention also decreases rapidly
through the teenage years; but, unlike
fishing, after the age of 25 the retention
rate for hunting declines rather steadily
until 75 years of age. In both the 1990
and 2005 Surveys, there was no level
period for hunting retention. Apparently,
individuals quit participating at a rather
steady progression.
From 1990 to 2005, the fishing retention
rate decreased for all age individuals,
which is indicated by the line for 2005 in
Chart 12 lying below that for 1990. For
hunting, the retention rate declined for
individuals under 35 years of age, but for
those 35 and over the retention rate for
hunting is about the same.
Characteristics of Dropouts
Tables 10-13 present the retention
rate by socioeconomic characteristics.
Incorporating the socioeconomic
information yields a better understanding
of the “types” of individuals who are
more likely to quit fishing. The discussion
here focuses on changes in the retention
rate for individuals of any age, but tables
A-3 and A-4 in the appendix can be used
to analyze changes among different age
cohorts.
In 2005 the retention rate for fishing
among different geographic regions
reveals that anglers in the West North
Central region had the highest retention
rate at 63%18. This is not surprising since
it is the region that historically has the
highest participation rate in fishing. The
retention rate was lowest in the Pacific
region19, which indicates that individuals
who were exposed to fishing at some
point were more likely to quit fishing in
the Pacific region than in other regions
of the U.S. Also, perhaps not surprising,
females had a lower retention rate than
males, and urban residents had a lower
retention rate than rural residents.
Among females of any age, 49% remained
active in 2005, which compares to
62% of males. 54% of urban residents
remained active compared to 66% of rural
residents.
18 The retention rate is significantly higher
(90% level) in the West North Central than
all other regions except East and West
South Central.
19 The retention rate is significantly lower (90%
level) in the Pacific than all other regions.
Table 10. Fishing Retention Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2005 2000 1995 1990
Difference*
1990-2005
Percent
Change
1990-2005
U.S. Total 57% 60% 61% 65% –8% –13%
Geographic Regions
New England 54% 56% 59% 62% –8% –13%
Middle Atlantic 54% 57% 59% 62% –9% –14%
East North Central 60% 60% 63% 65% –5% –7%
West North Central 63% 66% 66% 67% –3% –5%
South Atlantic 59% 63% 62% 69% –10% –14%
East South Central 61% 65% 65% 70% –9% –13%
West South Central 61% 61% 64% 70% –9% –13%
Mountain 53% 58% 60% 64% –11% –17%
Pacific 49% 52% 53% 60% –11% –19%
Gender
Male 62% 65% 67% 71% –9% –12%
Female 49% 51% 52% 57% –8% –14%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 57% 59% 61% 65% –8% –12%
Hispanic 58% 66% 65% 70% –12% –17%
Race
White 58% 60% 61% 66% –8% –12%
Black 52% 53% 57% 61% –9% –15%
Other 49% 58% 62% 67% –18% –27%
Population Density
Urban Area 54% 56% 58% 62% –9% –14%
Rural Area 66% 67% 67% 72% –6% –9%
*All differences significant at 90% level.
Note: Retention rates for fishing are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in fishing who
were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988) or 2006 (2005, 2004, 2003)
Surveys. The difference is the retention rate in 2005 minus the retention rate in 1990, so for all the U.S.
the difference in retention in hunting is given by 57% – 65%, which equals –8%. The percent change in the
retention rate is a measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990.
The percent change for all the U.S. from fishing is given by the expression ((0.571 – 0.653)÷0.653)×100,
which equals –13%.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 25
Tables 10 and 11 show some results that
are probably less expected, such as those
for ethnicity and income. The fishing
retention rate is relatively similar for
all income levels, but it is highest for
those with incomes of $40,000 or more
and lowest for those with incomes under
$25,000. This could indicate that costs
associated with fishing are a deterrent to
participation among those in the lowest
income strata. It is important to note that
the costs associated with fishing are not
limited to equipment, licenses, fuel, etc.
Costs also include those associated with
spending time in leisure activities such as
fishing and not working.
It is noteworthy that Hispanics don’t
drop out at a faster rate than Non-
Hispanics. In 2005 the retention rate was
about the same for Hispanics and Non-
Hispanics at 58% and 57% respectively.
In 2000 the retention rate was higher for
Hispanics at 66%, which compares to 59%
for Non-Hispanics20. These data support
the conclusion that lower participation
rates among Hispanics are more likely
the result of lower recruitment rates.
20 The retention rate of Hispanics is
significantly higher at 95% level than
Non-Hispanics.
Table 11. Fishing Retention Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1995, 2000, and 2005
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2005 2000 1995
Difference
1995-2005
Percent
Change
1995-2005
U.S. Total 57% 60% 61% –4% –6%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 51% NA 53% –2% –4%
$25,000-$39,999 56% NA 61% –6% –9%
$40,000-$99,999 62% NA 65% –3% –5%
$100,000 or More 62% NA 64% –2% –3%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 49% 53% 55% –6% –11%
Inside MSA not in Central City 58% 60% 61% –3% –4%
Outside MSA 64% 65% 68% –4% –5%
*All differences significant at 90% level except the following: those with incomes Under $25,000 and
$100,000 or More.
NA= Not Available
Note: Retention rates for fishing are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in fishing who
were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 1996 (1995, 1994, 1993) or 2006 (2005, 2004, 2003)
Surveys. The difference is the retention rate in 2005 minus the retention rate in 1996, so for all the U.S.
the difference in retention in hunting is given by 57% – 61%, which equals –4%. The percent change in the
retention rate is a measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990.
The percent change for all the U.S. from fishing is given by the expression ((0.571 – 0.610)÷0.610)×100,
which equals –6%.
26 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Tables 12 and 13 present hunting
retention rates. Among different
geographic regions, the West North
Central had the highest retention21.
Like fishing, the participation rate in the
West North Central is also the highest
for hunting. Also similar to fishing, the
Pacific region had the lowest hunting
retention rate. However, the difference
between the retention rates among
the Pacific and other regions is greater
for hunting than for fishing. Also not
surprising, given their lower participation
rates, females had a lower retention rate
than males.
Like anglers, hunters with incomes under
$25,000 had the lowest retention rate.
The highest retention occurs among
individuals with incomes of $40,000-
$99,999.
Residents of urban areas had lower
retention rates than those in rural
areas. This suggests that the higher
participation rate for hunting in
rural areas is not only due to higher
recruitment but also to higher retention.
Trend in Retention
The trend in fishing and hunting
retention can be analyzed in detail by
examining changes in the retention
rate over time and incorporating
socioeconomic information. Just as in the
analysis of recruitment, the concept of
a percent change in the retention rate is
also useful in discerning trends.
The difference in the retention rates
from 1990 to 2000 is also useful. The
differences can be used to approximate,
with some qualifications, the total
number of additional active anglers
and hunters there would have been in
2000 if the retention rate had remained
unchanged from 1990 to 2000. Generally,
the screen data is considered more
reliable for percentage estimates than
for participation levels because of the
potential for bias associated with recall
of more than one year of activity, which
is required for screen interviews but
not for detail interviews. Consequently,
participation numbers should be viewed
as ballpark estimates only; additional
research would be required to refine
these approximations.
21 The retention rate in the West North
Central Region is significantly higher at 95%
level than all but three other regions: Middle
Atlantic, East North Central, and West
South Central.
Table 12. Hunting Retention Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2005 2000 1995 1990
Difference*
1990-2005
Percent
Change
1990-2005
U.S. Total 43% 43% 45% 49% –7% –14%
Geographic Regions
New England 38% 41% 45% 46% –8% –18%
Middle Atlantic 47% 49% 50% 54% –7% –13%
East North Central 47% 47% 49% 50% –3% –7%
West North Central 50% 51% 53% 52% –2% –3%
South Atlantic 40% 40% 40% 48% –8% –17%
East South Central 46% 48% 51% 55% –9% –17%
West South Central 47% 46% 49% 54% –7% –13%
Mountain 36% 42% 45% 50% –14% –28%
Pacific 27% 28% 33% 36% –9% –25%
Gender
Male 44% 46% 48% 51% –7% –14%
Female 33% 32% 33% 38% –5% –14%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 42% 43% 45% 49% –7% –14%
Hispanic 45% 43% 45% 53% –8% –15%
Race
White 43% 44% 46% 50% –7% –13%
Non-White 33% 33% 39% 41% –8% –19%
Population Density
Urban Area 35% 36% 39% 43% –8% –18%
Rural Area 53% 53% 54% 59% –5% –9%
*All differences significant at 90% level except the following: West North Central Geographic Region.
Note: Retention rates for hunting are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in fishing who
were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988) or 2006 (2005, 2004, 2003)
Surveys. The difference is the retention rate in 2005 minus the retention rate in 1990, so for all the U.S.
the difference in retention in hunting is given by 43% – 49%, which equals –7%. The percent change in the
retention rate is a measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990.
The percent change for all the U.S. from fishing is given by the expression ((0.425 – 0.493)÷0.493)×100,
which equals –14%.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 27
For fishing, Table 10 indicates that
the retention rate for individuals 16
years and older in 2005 was 8% lower
than in 1990. Data from the screen
survey indicates that in 2005, 102
million individuals 16 and over had ever
participated in fishing. Of this 102 million,
58 million are considered active anglers
because they participated from 2003-
2005. If 8% more of those who had ever
participated remained active sometime
from 2003-2005, then the number of
active anglers in 2005 could have been
as high as 66 million. If the retention
rate for hunting had not decreased, the
number of individuals considered active
hunters could have been 21.5 million
instead of 18.5 million. This does not
mean that 66 million people will fish
or 21.5 million will hunt in the detail
phase survey year of 2006, since persons
considered active for purposes of this
report were only required to participate
in one of the three prior years. The
number of people considered active
anglers and hunters will, realistically,
always be higher than the number
who actually hunt or fish in a single
specific year.
The percent changes in retention rates
for fishing and hunting that occurred
from 1990 to 2000 and 1995 to 2005 are
shown in Tables 10-13. These percent
changes reveal several interesting details
about which groups of individuals have
experienced the least decrease in fishing
and hunting retention.
Those with higher incomes experienced
the least decrease in fishing retention
from 1995 to 2005. The percent changes
indicate that the decline in retention
was slowest among those with incomes
of $100,000 or more. The decline in
retention among those with incomes of
$25,000-$39,999 was about three times
greater than those with incomes of
$100,000 or more. These results support
a conclusion that costs associated with
fishing were likely a contributor to
reduced fishing participation.
There are other interesting results
with respect to fishing retention.
Fishing retention declined the most in
the Mountain and Pacific regions. The
retention rate declined more among
residents of urban areas than rural areas.
Lastly, the retention decline among
central city MSA residents was twice
that of the both MSA residents who don’t
live in a central city and those who live
outside MSAs (Table 11).
For hunting, those with lower incomes
experienced the largest decrease in
the retention rate, and similar to the
change in the initiation rate discussed
above, $40,000 appears to be a threshold.
The retention rate for individuals
with incomes under $25,000 decreased
from 34% in 1995 to 31% in 2005. This
represents a percent change in the
retention rate of –9%. Additionally, the
percent change for those with incomes of
$25,000-$39,999 was –14%. The change in
the hunting retention rate among those
with incomes of $40,000 or more was
appreciably less. For those with incomes
of $100,000 there was no decline in the
retention rate, and the slight decline for
those with incomes of $40,000-$99,999
is not statistically significant. Data for
both hunting recruitment and retention
suggest that cost considerations may well
have constrained hunting participation
from 1995 to 2005.
The decrease in hunting retention rates
by geographic regions was sharpest in
the Mountain and Pacific states. As with
fishing, the West North Central region
experienced the smallest decrease in
retention. In fact, with a percent change
of only –3%, one could say that retention
was virtually identical in 1990 and 2005.
The percent change in the retention rate
in the East North Central region was also
half the national average of –14%.
The sizable difference between the East
and West North Central regions and
the rest of the country spurs additional
questions. Were there regulatory
practices in these two regions that made
a difference in retaining hunters? Was the
difference due to greater accessibility of
quality hunting areas? Was the difference
related to the species pursued with
greater frequency in these areas?
Table 13. Hunting Retention Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1995, 2000, and 2005
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2005 2000 1995
Difference
1995-2005
Percent
Change
1995-2005
U.S. Total 43% 43% 45% –3% –6%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 31% NA 34% –3% –9%
$25,000-$39,999 41% NA 47% –7% –14%
$40,000-$99,999 48% NA 49% –1% –3%
$100,000 or More 47% NA 47% (Z) (Z)
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 32% 35% 37% –6% –15%
Inside MSA not in Central City 42% 41% 43% –1% –2%
Outside MSA 51% 52% 55% –4% –7%
*All differences Significant at 90% level of significance except the following: Incomes of Under 25,000,
$40,000-$99,999, $100,000 or more, and Inside MSA Not in Central City.
NA= Not Available
(Z) = less than 0.5%.
Note: Retention rates for hunting are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in fishing who
were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 1996 (1995, 1994, 1993) or 2006 (2005, 2004, 2003)
Surveys. The difference is the retention rate in 2005 minus the retention rate in 1995, so for all the U.S.
the difference in retention in hunting is given by 43% – 45%, which equals –6%. The percent change in the
retention rate is a measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the initial rate in 1990.
The percent change for all the U.S. from fishing is given by the expression ((0.425 – 0.493)÷0.454)×100,
which equals –6%.
28 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Reasons for Quitting
Inactive Anglers and Hunters in 2001
As discussed above, the purpose of the
screen phase of the FHWAR is to identify
individuals who are likely to participate
in fishing or hunting during the survey
year. These sample persons are then
administered the detail phase questions
about their activities and expenditures
at three different times during the
survey year.
Since many sample persons were selected
on the basis of their “likelihood” of
participating, some people selected for
detail interviews do not end up hunting,
fishing, or both during the survey year.
In the last round of detail interviews in
the 2001 survey, these individuals were
asked why they did not participate.
This section analyzes their answers to
better understand why individuals stop
participating.
The universe of individuals addressed
in this section is quite different from
that analyzed in the “Age of Dropouts,”
“Characteristics of Dropouts,” and
“Trend in Retention�� sections for
the following reasons. First, those
sections address all individuals in the
U.S. because a random sample of all
households answered the screen phase
questions. However, the detail phase only
includes people who were considered
likely anglers or hunters, so we only
have answers to these questions for this
segment of the U.S. population.
Second, some individuals were selected
on the basis of their expected fishing
activity alone without consideration
of whether they would participate in
hunting. Consequently, a substantial
portion of expected anglers queried
why they did not participate in hunting
reported something similar to “not a
hunter and did not intend to go.” A similar
story is true for hunting. In an attempt
to eliminate those who were not deemed
viable participants, sample persons
who reported “not an angler and did
not intend to go fishing” are eliminated
from the analysis of why individuals did
not go fishing. Those who are analyzed
are referred to as “probable” anglers in
Tables 14 and 16. Alternatively, sample
persons who reported that they were not
hunters and did not intend to go hunting
are eliminated from the analysis of why
individuals did not go hunting. Those who
are analyzed are referred to as “probable”
hunters in Tables 15 and 17. This
approach allows us to focus on reasons
reported by viable or likely participants.
In Tables 14 and 15 individuals 16 years
of age and older who did not participate
are grouped into two categories
depending on how many years they were
inactive: inactive for three years or less
and inactive for more than three years.
The distinction is intended to distinguish
between those who are probably more
and those probably less likely to return
to the activities and is consistent with the
prior discussion of retention.
Table 14 shows that the reasons reported
for not fishing in 2001 were similar for
sample persons who were inactive three
years or less and those inactive more
than three years. Those inactive three
years or less reported not enough time
at a higher rate than those inactive more
than three years, 49% compared to 42%.
Those inactive three years or less had
a lower percentage reporting health/
disability than those inactive more than
three years, 10% compared to 14%.
Among probable hunters inactive three
years or less and inactive more than
three years, response frequencies were
notably different for a few of the cited
reasons (Table 15). Those inactive for
longer said family or work obligations
less often, 38% compared to 46%. Those
inactive for longer cited health/disability
as a reason more often, 22% compared to
14%. At 8% Cost is apparently a greater
issue for those who have been inactive for
three years or less. School is a greater
issue among those inactive for a shorter
period of time, 8% compared to 3%.
Reasons for Quitting by Socioeconomic
Characteristics
A question of interest is whether the
reasons reported for not fishing or
hunting differ among individuals with
different socioeconomic characteristics.
For example, among those with higher
incomes, one would expect that citing
“not enough money/cost too much” would
be less common given their additional
available income to pursue hunting
or fishing. Tables 16 and 17 show the
percentage of individuals with different
socioeconomic characteristics citing their
reasons for not fishing and hunting. To
maximize the number of observations
available for the different cells, the
distinction between inactive three years
or less and inactive more than three
years is not repeated. Otherwise, many
of the cells would not have enough
observations to report the data reliably.
Table 16 presents reasons why
individuals did not participate in
fishing. The regions of the country are
grouped differently than in the prior
sections of the report in an effort to pool
observations. The regions are composed
as follows: New England and Middle
Atlantic comprise the North East; East
and West North Central comprise the
Midwest; East and West South Central
along with South Atlantic comprise the
Table 14. Reasons Probable Anglers Did Not Fish: 2001
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older Administered Detail Interview)
Years Inactive
3 or Less More than 3
Not Enough Time 49% 42%
Family or Work 37% 36%
School 6% 5%
Not Enough Money/Cost Too Much 5% 3%
Health/Disability 10% 14%
No One to Fish With 4% 6%
Place Related 2% 1%
Regulation Related (Z) **
Other 14% 15%
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
(Z) indicates less than 0.5%.
Note: Probable Anglers represent a segment of the population that were selected for the detailed interview
phase and did not report that they were not anglers.
Note: Place Related includes responses citing Not Enough Places/Access to Places, Places Too Crowded,
Don’t Know Where to Go, and Not Enough Fish. Regulation Related includes responses citing Catch
Limits Too Restrictive and Length of Fishing Season Too Restrictive.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 29
South; Mountain and Pacific comprise
the West. There is not much variation in
reported reasons for not fishing among
different geographic regions.
The reasons reported by gender were
also quite similar with the only notable
difference being that a higher percentage
of males reported not enough time as a
reason.
The results for Non-Hispanics versus
Hispanics are interesting because
of the rapid growth in the Hispanic
population in recent years and likely
continued growth in the near future.
Increased participation by Hispanics will
likely be necessary to keep the overall
participation rate in fishing near its
current level, especially in certain regions
of the US. Hispanics were more likely to
report not enough time, family or work,
and cost as reasons for not participating.
4% of Non-Hispanics reported cost as a
reason for not participating, compared
to 10% of Hispanics. Hispanics were less
likely to report health/disability as a
reason.
The results by income are also
interesting. Those with household
incomes of $40,000 or more were more
likely to report not enough time and
family or work as reasons, while those
with incomes under $40,000 were more
likely to report cost and health/disability
as reasons. Those with incomes less than
$40,000 cited cost as a reason at more
than twice the rate of those with incomes
of $40,000 or more: 7% compared to 3%.
19% of those with incomes under $40,000
cited health/disability, which is more than
three times the percent of those with
more income at 6%. The higher percent
reporting health/disability among those
with incomes of less than $40,000 is
undoubtedly related to the large number
of elderly in this category.
Not surprisingly, the results by age reveal
that school is the primary reason for those
16-24 years old, and health/disability is
the primary reason for those 65 and over.
For the primary child-rearing years of
25-54, not enough time was the primary
reason cited. Interestingly, for those
years in which one is most likely to have
adolescent children, 34-54, no one to fish
with was less of a concern than it was for
other age groups.
Other noteworthy results include the
following. Non-Whites were more likely
to report cost and disability as reasons
for not fishing. Those residing in urban
areas and those residing in the central
cities of MSAs were slightly more likely
to report cost as a reason, while those
residing in rural areas and those outside
MSAs were more likely to report health/
disability. Those with less than four years
of college were more likely to report
school, cost, and health/disability as
reasons.
The results for probable hunters are
presented in Table 17. Probable hunters
in most of the regions were fairly similar
in their responses, but those in the West
do appear to distinguish themselves.
They were less likely to say not enough
time and health/disability and were more
likely to cite cost and no one to hunt with.
The reasons reported by gender were
also quite similar with the only notable
difference being that a higher percentage
of males reported not enough time as a
reason.
Other noteworthy results for hunting
include the following. Hispanics were
more likely than Non-Hispanics to report
not enough time and family or work and
less likely to report health/disability.
Whites were less likely to report not
enough time. Those residing in urban
areas and central cities of MSAs were
more likely to cite cost, while those
residing in rural areas and outside MSAs
were more likely to cite health/disability.
Those with less than four years of college
cited school, cost, and health/disability at
greater rates than those with four years
of college or more.
For hunting the results by age and
income are similar to those for fishing.
School is cited as a reason by 32% of
those 16-24, which is substantially higher
than those in other age groups. Health/
disability is cited by 65% of those 65
and over. Those with incomes of $40,000
or more were more likely to report not
enough time and family or work. Those
with incomes under $40,000 were more
likely to report cost and health/disability.
Those with incomes under $40,000 cited
cost at more than twice the rate and
health/disability at more than three times
the rate as those with incomes of $40,000
or more.
Table 15. Reasons Probable Hunters Did Not Hunt: 2001
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older Administered Detail Interview)
Years Inactive
3 or Less More than 3
Not Enough Time 44% 43%
Family or Work 46% 38%
School 8% 3%
Not Enough Money/Cost Too Much 8% 5%
Health/Disability 14% 22%
No One to Hunt With 3% 4%
Place Related 2% 3%
Regulation Related 2% (Z)
Other 7% 8%
(Z) indicates less than 0.5%.
Note: Probable Hunters represent a segment of the population that were selected for the detailed interview
phase and did not report that they were not hunters.
Note: Place Related includes responses citing Not Enough Places/Access to Places, Places Too Crowded,
Don’t Know Where to Go, and Not Enough Game. Regulation Related includes responses citing Bag
Limits Too Restrictive, Length of Hunting Season Too Restrictive, Did Not Draw License in Lottery.
30 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Table 16. Why Quit?—Probable Anglers Not Active in 2001 by Socioeconomic Characteristics
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older )
Not
Enough
Time
Family
or Work School Cost
Health/
Disability
No One to
Fish With
Place
Related
Regulation
Related Other
U.S. Total 47% 37% 6% 4% 11% 4% 2% (z) 14%
Geographic Regions
North East 46% 34% 4% 2% 11% 3% 2% 1% 19%
Midwest 50% 35% 5% 3% 10% 4% 1% ** 16%
South 45% 39% 6% 5% 13% 4% 2% ** 11%
West 49% 38% 6% 6% 9% 5% 3% 1% 15%
Gender
Male 50% 37% 6% 5% 11% 4% 2% (z) 12%
Female 44% 37% 4% 4% 11% 5% 2% 1% 17%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 47% 37% 5% 4% 11% 4% 2% 0% 14%
Hispanic 56% 41% 7% 10% 5% 5% ** ** 11%
Race
White 47% 37% 5% 4% 11% 4% 2% 1% 15%
Non-White 50% 35% 6% 7% 14% 6% 2% ** 10%
Annual Household Income
Under $40,000 42% 33% 5% 7% 19% 5% 2% ** 13%
$40,000 or More 51% 40% 6% 3% 6% 3% 2% (z) 15%
Population Area
Urban Area 48% 37% 6% 5% 9% 5% 2% (z) 15%
Rural Area 45% 37% 5% 3% 15% 3% 1% 1% 13%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 52% 36% 5% 7% 10% 6% 2% ** 13%
Inside MSA not in Central City 47% 39% 5% 4% 10% 4% 2% 1% 15%
Outside MSA 45% 35% 6% 4% 15% 4% 2% ** 14%
Education
Less than 4 years of college 46% 37% 7% 5% 13% 4% 2% 0% 13%
4 years of college or more 51% 38% 2% 2% 6% 5% 2% 0% 18%
Age
16-24 42% 17% 52% ** ** 7% ** ** 10%
25 to 34 54% 46% 2% 4% 2% 4% 1% ** 12%
35 to 44 52% 42% 1% 5% 5% 3% 2% 1% 14%
45 to 54 51% 38% 2% 5% 9% 3% 2% ** 16%
55 to 64 41% 36% ** 3% 19% 4% 2% ** 15%
65+ 23% 15% ** 2% 49% 8% 2% ** 17%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
(Z) indicates less than 0.5%.
Note: Probable Anglers represent a segment of the population that were selected for the detailed interview phase and did not report that they were not anglers.
Note: Place Related includes responses citing Not Enough Places/Access to Places, Places Too Crowded, Don’t Know Where to Go, and Not Enough Fish.
Regulation Related includes responses citing Catch Limits Too Restrictive and Length of Fishing Season Too Restrictive.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 31
Table 17. Why Quit?—Probable Hunters Not Active in 2001 by Socioeconomic Characteristics
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Not
Enough
Time
Family
or Work School Cost
Health/
Disability
No One to
Hunt With
Place
Related
Regulation
Related Other
U.S. Total 43% 41% 5% 6% 19% 4% 3% 1% 8%
Geographic Regions
North East 42% 38% 6% 4% 21% 3% ** ** 9%
Midwest 47% 41% 4% 5% 20% 3% 2% ** 8%
South 43% 41% 5% 6% 20% 3% 2% ** 6%
West 39% 42% 4% 8% 17% 6% 3% 2% 9%
Gender
Male 44% 40% 5% 7% 19% 4% 3% 1% 8%
Female 40% 45% 2% 5% 19% 5% ** ** 8%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 43% 41% 5% 6% 20% 4% 3% 1% 8%
Hispanic 46% 49% ** ** 12% 0% ** ** **
Race
White 43% 41% 5% 6% 19% 4% 2% 1% 8%
Non-White 50% 39% ** ** 18% ** ** (Z) 4%
Annual Household Income
Under $40,000 34% 33% 5% 10% 31% 4% 3% 1% 9%
$40,000 or More 52% 48% 5% 4% 10% 3% 2% 1% 7%
Population Area
Urban Area 44% 42% 4% 7% 16% 5% 3% 1% 9%
Rural Area 43% 39% 5% 5% 24% 2% 2% ** 6%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 45% 37% 5% 7% 19% 8% 3% 1% 7%
Inside MSA not in Central City 44% 43% 4% 6% 16% 3% 3% ** 9%
Outside MSA 42% 40% 5% 6% 24% 3% 2% 2% 6%
Education
Less than 4 years of college 40% 40% 5% 7% 22% 4% 3% 1% 8%
4 years of college or more 54% 44% 2% 4% 11% 5% 2% ** 8%
Age
16-24 51% ** 32% ** ** ** (Z) ** **
25 to 34 58% 47% 4% 8% 4% 4% ** ** 5%
35 to 44 49% 51% 3% 7% 9% 2% 2% ** 8%
45 to 54 50% 45% ** 7% 13% 4% 2% ** 9%
55 to 64 36% 40% (Z) 5% 24% 4% 7% ** 10%
65+ 15% 14% (Z) ** 65% 6% ** ** 10%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
(Z) indicates less than 0.5%.
Note: Probable Hunters represent a segment of the population that were selected for the detailed interview phase and did not report that they were not hunters.
Note: Place Related includes responses citing Not Enough Places/Access to Places, Places Too Crowded, Don’t Know Where to Go, and Not Enough Game.
Regulation Related includes responses citing Bag Limits Too Restrictive, Length of Hunting Season Too Restrictive, Did Not Draw License in Lottery.
32 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Throughout the decade of the nineties
there was a downturn in fishing and
hunting participation that concerned
many natural resource managers and
organizations interested in the future
of these activities. Data from the 1991,
1996, 2001, and 2006 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation (FHWAR) reveal
that the declines in participation were
attributable to both declining recruitment
and retention.
The decline in recruitment in fishing
and hunting occurred among age groups
particularly important to those activities.
About 10% fewer 6 to 19 year-olds living
at home had ever fished in 2005 compared
to those who had ever fished in 1990. The
percent of 13 to 19 year olds who had
ever hunted fell from 16% in 1990 to 11%
in 2005.
The downward trend in recruitment was
particularly sharp for some. From 1995
to 2005 the fishing initiation rate declined
twice as fast for children residing in
households with incomes under $40,000
than those in households with incomes
of $100,000 or more. The downturn in
hunting initiation among those with
incomes less than $40,000 was even more
pronounced. In 1995 7% of children
residing in households with incomes
under $25,000 had hunted at some point
in their lives, but by 2005 the share had
fallen to 4%. Similarly, 11% of children
from households with incomes of $25,000-
$39,999 had hunted in 1995, and in 2005
the share fell to 7%. Over the same time
period there was virtually no decline for
children in households with incomes of
$40,000 or more.
Fishing and hunting recruitment was
down sharply among residents of the
Pacific and Mountain regions from 1990
to 2005. For hunting, New England
also stands out for a particularly sharp
decline. Interestingly, these regions were
also the only ones that had significant
downturns in fishing or hunting initiation
rates from 2000 to 2005.
Summary
Data from the FHWAR also suggests
that retention in both fishing and hunting
was on the decline between 1990 and
2005. In 1990, 65% of all individuals who
had ever fished in their lives remained
active, which is defined as participation
within the three years prior to the survey.
By 2005, this percentage fell to 57%.
Similarly, in 1990 49% of all individuals
who had ever hunted had participated in
the three years prior to the survey; by
2005 this percentage fell to 43%.
As with recruitment, certain segments of
the population experienced particularly
sharp decreases in retention. For
fishing, the retention rate decreased
sharply in the Pacific and Mountain
regions and among households with
incomes $25,000-$39,999. The retention
rate among individuals with incomes of
$25,000-$39,999 declined about twice as
fast as that of individuals with household
incomes of $100,000 or more.
For hunting, the retention rate was down
sharply among households with incomes
under $40,000. From 1995 to 2005 the
retention rate among households with
incomes under $25,000 and $25,000-
$39,999 fell 3% and 7% respectively. This
decline contrasts with virtually no decline
among individuals in households with
incomes of $40,000 or more.
For both fishing and hunting the
declines in the retention rates were
particularly sharp among residents of
urban areas and central city residents
of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA).
This is particularly true for hunting.
The hunting retention rate in urban
areas declined from 43% to 35%, which
compares to a decline in rural areas from
59% to 53%. In 1995 the retention rate
among central city MSA residents was
37% and fell to 32% in 2005. This decline
was more than twice as much as that for
non-central city MSA residents and those
who lived outside MSAs.
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 33
FHWAR data offer some clues that
may be useful in improving overall
recruitment and retention. Fishing
and hunting are familial activities, with
children’s activities heavily influenced
by the participation of parents within
the household. If retention of parents in
fishing and hunting can be improved, it is
likely that initiation of children can also
be improved.
While the survey data reveals that
adolescence is an important time for
recruitment, it also indicates that young
and middle-aged adults also provide a
substantial number of new recruits. At
least a third of both first time anglers
and hunters were over 20 years old.
While this finding may be surprising, it is
also encouraging that new recruits into
hunting and fishing are not only children.
Regarding hunting, data suggest that
small game hunting has a particularly
important role in the initiation of
children. Perhaps this suggests that
programs intended to increase or
improve small game hunting would
encourage adults to initiate their children
into hunting at greater rates than they
currently do.
The cost of both fishing and hunting
has been an issue to those with lower
incomes. It is important to note that
the costs associated with fishing and
hunting are not limited to equipment,
licenses, fuel, etc. Costs also include those
associated with spending time in leisure
activities and not working. Perhaps
initiatives aimed at reducing the cost
associated with fishing or hunting would
be effective. However, an underlying
question here is how effectively those
interested in increasing hunting and
fishing can affect the costs involved.
Certainly many costs will be out of their
control such as food, fuel, and lodging.
For both fishing and hunting the West
North Central region experienced
the least decrease in recruitment and
retention. Perhaps there is something
to be learned from this discovery. Do
fish and wildlife agencies in this region
have practices that could be applied
elsewhere? Are fisheries and hunting
areas managed any differently? Do
they have different forms of outreach
to promote fishing and hunting? It may
just be that areas to fish and hunt are
more plentiful or that there has been
less urbanization, but maybe there
is something that can be replicated
elsewhere.
In recent years public agencies and
private organizations have accelerated
efforts to improve recruitment and
retention in fishing and hunting. The
FHWAR was not designed to ascertain
the impact that these programs have
had in recent years. Nevertheless, it is
at least encouraging that the pace of
decline in recruitment and retention
that occurred throughout the Nineties
did not continue over the period 2000 to
2005. For the U.S. as a whole, initiation of
children in fishing and hunting remained
unchanged over this period. Additionally,
retention of individuals in hunting
remained unchanged. Unfortunately,
the most recent data indicates that the
fishing retention rate did continue to
decline from 2000 to 2005. However, it
has not continued at the rapid pace of
decline of the early Nineties. Hopefully,
these findings foretell a better decade of
hunting and fishing participation trends
than that experienced in the Nineties.
34 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Appendix
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 35
Table A-1. Percent of Sons and Daughters Residing at Home Who Have Ever Participated in Fishing by Age Cohort
2005 2000 1995 1990
Any Age 6-9 10-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-9 10-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-9 10-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-9 10-12 13-19 20+
U.S. Total 42% 39% 46% 46% 36% 42% 38% 46% 46% 34% 50% 45% 55% 53% 45% 53% 49% 57% 56% 48%
Geographic Regions
New England 41% 37% 43% 45% 36% 40% 39% 49% 40% 32% 51% 45% 59% 54% 47% 49% 46% 54% 52% 46%
Middle Atlantic 34% 32% 38% 38% 29% 33% 29% 39% 37% 26% 43% 40% 51% 45% 38% 42% 38% 47% 46% 40%
East North Central 47% 47% 52% 49% 40% 45% 40% 50% 51% 35% 50% 47% 58% 52% 44% 57% 55% 61% 61% 51%
West North Central 61% 61% 67% 62% 49% 60% 55% 69% 61% 54% 65% 68% 69% 67% 52% 70% 69% 75% 72% 64%
South Atlantic 41% 38% 47% 44% 35% 40% 38% 43% 43% 33% 49% 44% 53% 52% 45% 49% 44% 52% 53% 46%
East South Central 51% 46% 52% 57% 43% 48% 41% 53% 53% 44% 50% 44% 54% 55% 47% 57% 53% 60% 58% 55%
West South Central 45% 37% 48% 50% 44% 40% 39% 40% 45% 35% 53% 45% 59% 56% 50% 52% 47% 58% 57% 46%
Mountain 45% 39% 51% 49% 37% 51% 40% 53% 58% 50% 59% 52% 62% 62% 57% 64% 57% 67% 68% 61%
Pacific 32% 27% 33% 38% 28% 37% 33% 39% 43% 31% 43% 35% 47% 47% 42% 49% 44% 52% 51% 49%
Gender
Male 49% 46% 52% 53% 44% 50% 43% 55% 55% 44% 59% 51% 63% 65% 57% 62% 56% 65% 67% 59%
Female 35% 32% 39% 39% 26% 33% 32% 37% 36% 23% 39% 38% 48% 41% 29% 42% 42% 48% 44% 35%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 46% 44% 51% 50% 39% 45% 41% 50% 49% 36% 53% 48% 59% 56% 46% 55% 52% 60% 59% 50%
Hispanic 22% 17% 25% 24% 22% 24% 21% 25% 28% 21% 26% 21% 25% 26% 30% 31% 26% 33% 34% 32%
Race
White 47% 43% 50% 51% 41% 46% 42% 51% 50% 38% 55% 50% 62% 59% 50% 58% 54% 62% 61% 53%
Black 23% 21% 25% 25% 19% 20% 14% 21% 24% 18% 23% 23% 22% 22% 25% 27% 19% 27% 32% 27%
Asian 19% 19% 25% 21% 14% 23% 24% 26% 26% 17% 31% 24% 35% 36% 26% 34% 34% 36% 35% 33%
Other 59% 55% 62% 64% 50% 37% 29% 27% 48% 36% 32% 24% 35% 35% 36% 35% 31% 37% 36% 35%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 31% 26% 31% 36% 29% NA NA NA NA NA 34% 34% 38% 35% 30% NA NA NA NA NA
$25,000-$39,999 36% 32% 40% 38% 33% NA NA NA NA NA 46% 39% 53% 49% 45% NA NA NA NA NA
$40,000-$99,999 51% 49% 55% 53% 45% NA NA NA NA NA 56% 50% 62% 60% 48% NA NA NA NA NA
$100,000 or More 56% 51% 60% 58% 54% NA NA NA NA NA 59% 54% 65% 61% 57% NA NA NA NA NA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 32% 29% 36% 36% 27% 32% 27% 36% 37% 25% 40% 36% 43% 43% 37% NA NA NA NA NA
Inside MSA not in Central City 44% 42% 48% 48% 39% 43% 40% 47% 46% 36% 51% 45% 58% 53% 46% NA NA NA NA NA
Outside MSA 52% 47% 54% 56% 46% 53% 48% 56% 58% 44% 59% 57% 66% 61% 52% NA NA NA NA NA
Population Density
Urban Area 38% 35% 42% 41% 32% 38% 35% 42% 42% 31% 45% 41% 50% 48% 42% 48% 44% 52% 52% 45%
Rural Area 56% 51% 57% 60% 51% 52% 48% 56% 56% 46% 60% 56% 68% 62% 51% 63% 60% 67% 66% 56%
NA= Not Available
36 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Table A-2. Percent of of Sons and Daughters Residing at Home Who Have Ever Participated in Hunting by Age Cohort
2005 2000 1995 1990
Any Age 6-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-12 13-19 20+ Any Age 6-12 13-19 20+
U.S. Total 8% 4% 11% 11% 8% 4% 12% 13% 10% 4% 14% 16% 12% 5% 16% 20%
Geographic Regions
New England 3% 1% 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 8% 5% 1% 5% 11% 7% 3% 9% 13%
Middle Atlantic 6% 1% 8% 10% 6% 2% 9% 8% 7% 1% 12% 11% 9% 1% 11% 15%
East North Central 8% 3% 12% 13% 9% 3% 13% 14% 9% 3% 12% 16% 13% 5% 18% 20%
West North Central 15% 6% 23% 18% 15% 7% 23% 21% 18% 6% 26% 34% 18% 7% 26% 32%
South Atlantic 8% 5% 9% 11% 8% 3% 11% 12% 10% 3% 12% 18% 13% 5% 16% 20%
East South Central 16% 11% 20% 17% 16% 8% 21% 25% 16% 7% 22% 25% 20% 10% 25% 31%
West South Central 11% 7% 16% 12% 11% 7% 14% 15% 14% 9% 19% 18% 17% 9% 22% 25%
Mountain 9% 4% 11% 16% 11% 3% 16% 24% 13% 3% 18% 27% 15% 6% 22% 30%
Pacific 4% 2% 6% 5% 4% 2% 6% 8% 5% 2% 7% 9% 7% 3% 9% 12%
Gender
Male 13% 6% 17% 17% 14% 6% 19% 21% 17% 6% 23% 27% 20% 8% 27% 31%
Female 3% 2% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 4% 3% 5% 5%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 9% 5% 13% 12% 9% 4% 13% 14% 11% 4% 15% 17% 13% 6% 18% 21%
Hispanic 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 2% 3% 7% 4% 2% 5% 8%
Race
White 10% 5% 13% 13% 10% 4% 14% 15% 12% 4% 16% 19% 14% 6% 19% 23%
Non-White 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 6% 4% 2% 5% 6%
Annual Household Income (2005 dollars)
Under $25,000 4% 2% 6% 7% NA NA NA NA 7% 2% 11% 14% NA NA NA NA
$35,000-$39,999 7% 4% 10% 11% NA NA NA NA 11% 5% 15% 21% NA NA NA NA
$40,000-$99,999 11% 6% 15% 15% NA NA NA NA 11% 4% 16% 17% NA NA NA NA
$100,000 or More 9% 5% 12% 14% NA NA NA NA 11% 4% 14% 18% NA NA NA NA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 4% 2% 5% 5% 4% 2% 6% 6% 6% 2% 8% 12% NA NA NA NA
Inside MSA not in Central City 8% 4% 10% 11% 8% 3% 10% 12% 8% 3% 10% 13% NA NA NA NA
Outside MSA 18% 9% 24% 25% 18% 8% 25% 26% 20% 8% 27% 32% NA NA NA NA
Population Density
Urban Area 5% 2% 7% 7% 5% 2% 7% 9% 7% 2% 9% 12% 9% 4% 11% 15%
Rural Area 19% 10% 25% 25% 17% 8% 23% 25% 18% 7% 24% 29% 21% 8% 28% 34%
NA= Not Available
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 37
Table A-3. Retention Rate* of Hunters by Age and Selected Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005
2005 2000 1995 1990
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
U.S. Total 43% 74% 55% 50% 43% 33% 20% 43% 76% 59% 53% 40% 31% 18% 45% 79% 60% 51% 43% 34% 20% 49% 79% 62% 52% 44% 35% 21%
Geographic Regions
New England 38% 73% 46% 46% 42% 32% 16% 41% 82% 57% 50% 38% 29% 20% 45% 83% 62% 50% 43% 35% 22% 46% 82% 58% 46% 41% 32% 23%
Middle Atlantic 47% 71% 62% 59% 48% 36% 25% 49% 82% 61% 60% 41% 39% 26% 50% 88% 57% 58% 47% 39% 21% 54% 85% 66% 55% 48% 40% 27%
East North Central 47% 76% 63% 54% 51% 35% 22% 47% 85% 66% 60% 41% 31% 20% 49% 81% 63% 56% 45% 32% 21% 51% 81% 65% 53% 43% 33% 21%
West North Central 50% 76% 64% 56% 54% 39% 24% 52% 84% 71% 62% 47% 37% 21% 53% 84% 71% 59% 48% 38% 25% 52% 81% 66% 58% 44% 40% 19%
South Atlantic 40% 74% 54% 46% 37% 32% 16% 40% 70% 55% 49% 37% 30% 17% 40% 75% 53% 44% 39% 31% 16% 48% 78% 60% 49% 44% 33% 20%
East South Central 46% 76% 59% 57% 45% 34% 22% 48% 84% 66% 52% 44% 32% 18% 51% 81% 65% 56% 44% 34% 25% 55% 85% 69% 58% 50% 36% 26%
West South Central 47% 80% 53% 57% 43% 39% 25% 46% 78% 56% 50% 46% 34% 20% 49% 72% 66% 54% 46% 34% 24% 54% 75% 63% 60% 49% 41% 26%
Mountain 36% 62% 50% 40% 38% 26% 16% 42% 70% 53% 47% 44% 30% 16% 45% 79% 56% 46% 42% 38% 21% 50% 75% 61% 53% 44% 38% 22%
Pacific 27% 63% 40% 32% 27% 23% 10% 28% 51% 43% 42% 23% 19% 11% 33% 67% 45% 36% 35% 28% 12% 36% 66% 46% 40% 35% 24% 14%
Gender
Male 44% 74% 58% 53% 45% 35% 22% 46% 78% 62% 55% 42% 34% 20% 48% 81% 62% 53% 45% 35% 21% 52% 81% 64% 54% 46% 37% 23%
Female 33% 72% 43% 39% 31% 22% 8% 32% 65% 44% 41% 28% 16% 11% 33% 63% 46% 37% 28% 24% 13% 38% 66% 51% 42% 33% 24% 12%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 42% 74% 56% 50% 43% 33% 20% 44% 77% 60% 53% 40% 31% 19% 45% 79% 60% 51% 43% 34% 20% 49% 79% 62% 52% 44% 35% 21%
Hispanic 45% 61% 53% 49% 44% 40% 15% 43% 64% 44% 52% 36% 25% 8% 45% 72% 55% 45% 33% 33% 25% 53% 64% 58% 60% 42% 35% 24%
Race
White 43% 74% 57% 51% 44% 33% 20% 44% 77% 59% 54% 40% 32% 19% 46% 79% 61% 51% 43% 34% 20% 50% 79% 62% 53% 45% 35% 21%
Non-White 33% 66% 41% 43% 28% 28% 17% 33% 61% 50% 38% 29% 22% 14% 39% 78% 49% 42% 37% 25% 14% 41% 67% 54% 43% 34% 32% 21%
Annual Household Income (2000 dollars)
Under $25,000 31% 61% 44% 42% 31% 26% 15% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 34% 66% 43% 48% 28% 30% 19% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$25,000-$39,999 41% 68% 54% 55% 36% 34% 17% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 47% 73% 65% 51% 39% 37% 22% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$40,000-$99,999 48% 78% 59% 49% 49% 35% 26% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 49% 82% 62% 52% 45% 35% 19% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$100,000 or More 47% 81% 58% 51% 44% 35% 28% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 47% 85% 58% 47% 44% 34% 21% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 32% 65% 38% 35% 33% 27% 13% 35% 63% 51% 40% 30% 21% 14% 37% 67% 54% 38% 35% 25% 15% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Inside MSA not in Central City 42% 74% 56% 50% 42% 31% 18% 41% 77% 56% 51% 36% 29% 17% 43% 77% 55% 48% 39% 33% 16% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Outside MSA 51% 77% 69% 60% 51% 41% 26% 52% 83% 68% 64% 51% 40% 23% 55% 87% 71% 63% 54% 39% 27% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Population Density
Urban Area 35% 65% 48% 42% 36% 26% 14% 36% 68% 52% 45% 32% 22% 14% 39% 73% 54% 41% 37% 28% 16% 43% 73% 55% 44% 37% 29% 17%
Rural Area 53% 84% 70% 61% 53% 43% 28% 53% 87% 69% 63% 49% 42% 26% 54% 85% 71% 63% 50% 41% 25% 59% 87% 73% 64% 54% 43% 28%
NA= Not Available
Note: Retention Rate is the percent of individuals who have ever hunted that participated in the three years prior to 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988), 1996, 2001, or 2006 Surveys
38 Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005
Table A-4. Retention Rate* of Anglers by Age and Selected Characteristics: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005
2005 2000 1995 1990
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Any
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
U.S. Total 57% 69% 65% 67% 58% 50% 33% 60% 73% 69% 69% 58% 51% 35% 61% 73% 71% 69% 59% 51% 36% 65% 76% 73% 72% 64% 55% 39%
Geographic Regions
New England 54% 65% 61% 62% 56% 45% 27% 57% 71% 62% 66% 59% 47% 31% 59% 71% 68% 68% 55% 45% 35% 62% 73% 69% 67% 60% 47% 36%
Middle Atlantic 54% 63% 63% 66% 52% 44% 31% 57% 74% 67% 65% 54% 51% 30% 59% 73% 66% 69% 57% 46% 31% 62% 75% 69% 68% 59% 47% 38%
East North Central 60% 74% 67% 68% 60% 53% 34% 60% 73% 70% 68% 57% 51% 37% 63% 71% 72% 71% 61% 52% 37% 65% 75% 72% 70% 65% 54% 37%
West North Central 63% 75% 70% 73% 65% 59% 38% 66% 81% 78% 78% 62% 53% 42% 66% 75% 73% 75% 67% 58% 39% 67% 75% 77% 74% 64% 63% 39%
South Atlantic 59% 72% 66% 71% 60% 54% 33% 63% 72% 71% 74% 62% 58% 38% 62% 74% 73% 70% 60% 52% 40% 69% 80% 78% 74% 67% 59% 43%
East South Central 61% 72% 73% 65% 63% 53% 40% 65% 76% 80% 71% 65% 55% 37% 65% 78% 77% 71% 62% 58% 41% 70% 83% 79% 77% 68% 60% 40%
West South Central 61% 72% 70% 72% 59% 52% 38% 61% 78% 73% 72% 58% 49% 36% 64% 72% 78% 68% 63% 56% 36% 70% 82% 80% 77% 68% 58% 42%
Mountain 53% 63% 63% 62% 54% 43% 28% 58% 71% 67% 64% 58% 48% 33% 60% 74% 69% 68% 57% 53% 35% 64% 74% 72% 69% 60% 54% 40%
Pacific 49% 61% 52% 57% 51% 42% 27% 52% 67% 60% 61% 50% 42% 26% 54% 70% 59% 61% 55% 45% 29% 60% 69% 67% 68% 60% 52% 32%
Gender
Male 62% 74% 68% 70% 63% 56% 40% 65% 78% 72% 73% 64% 58% 42% 67% 79% 75% 74% 65% 57% 45% 71% 82% 78% 77% 70% 61% 46%
Female 49% 62% 60% 62% 49% 39% 23% 51% 64% 66% 63% 49% 39% 24% 52% 63% 64% 62% 50% 41% 25% 57% 68% 68% 65% 55% 47% 29%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 57% 69% 65% 67% 58% 50% 33% 59% 73% 69% 68% 58% 51% 35% 61% 73% 71% 69% 59% 51% 36% 65% 76% 73% 72% 64% 55% 39%
Hispanic 58% 66% 63% 65% 51% 46% 27% 66% 73% 70% 72% 59% 52% 32% 65% 69% 73% 66% 57% 57% 34% 70% 77% 73% 71% 66% 64% 37%
Race
White 58% 70% 66% 68% 58% 50% 33% 60% 74% 71% 70% 58% 51% 35% 61% 74% 71% 70% 59% 51% 36% 66% 77% 74% 72% 64% 55% 39%
Black 52% 61% 55% 57% 53% 47% 35% 53% 62% 56% 59% 55% 46% 35% 57% 60% 62% 62% 59% 53% 40% 61% 71% 63% 67% 61% 56% 38%
Other 49% 60% 54% 55% 48% 37% 23% 58% 65% 64% 58% 54% 56% 38% 63% 70% 69% 63% 63% 48% 38% 67% 69% 71% 72% 65% 58% 39%
Annual Household Income (2000 dollars)
Under $25,000 51% 68% 68% 65% 49% 45% 27% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 70% 72% 62% 52% 45% 32% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$25,000-$39,999 56% 65% 64% 68% 54% 47% 37% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 61% 71% 71% 68% 63% 53% 37% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$40,000-$99,999 62% 71% 66% 68% 60% 53% 41% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 65% 75% 71% 70% 61% 55% 41% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$100,000 or More 62% 69% 64% 68% 61% 53% 44% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 64% 75% 68% 70% 60% 53% 40% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inside MSA in Central City 49% 59% 57% 58% 48% 41% 25% 54% 68% 61% 62% 51% 42% 29% 55% 69% 64% 62% 51% 47% 32% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Inside MSA not in Central City 58% 71% 66% 68% 59% 50% 34% 60% 74% 69% 68% 58% 51% 34% 61% 71% 71% 69% 60% 49% 33% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Outside MSA 64% 76% 76% 75% 65% 59% 39% 65% 78% 81% 79% 63% 56% 40% 68% 81% 81% 77% 68% 58% 43% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Population Density
Urban Area 54% 66% 61% 63% 54% 45% 29% 56% 70% 65% 65% 55% 46% 31% 58% 70% 69% 65% 55% 49% 33% 62% 74% 70% 68% 61% 52% 35%
Rural Area 66% 78% 78% 75% 66% 59% 43% 67% 81% 82% 78% 63% 59% 43% 67% 79% 76% 78% 68% 56% 42% 72% 83% 82% 78% 70% 63% 47%
NA= Not Available
Note: Retention Rate is the percent of individuals who have ever hunted that participated in the three years prior to 1991 (1990, 1989, 1988), 1996, 2001, or 2006 Surveys
Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 39
Table A-5. Logit Regression Explanatory Variables
USDAYS_H Continuous variable for the number of days spent hunting by the male parent of a child residing at home
INCOME Ordinal variable with 10 levels, treated as continuous
Under $10,000
$10-$19,999
$20-$24,999
$25-$29,999
$30-$34,999
$35-$39,999
$40-$49,999
$50-$74,999
$75-$99,999
$100,000 or More
HISPANIC Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate ethnicity
Not Hispanic
Hispanic
MSA_URBAN Nominal variable with 3 levels to indicate population density of residence
Rural
Urban with less than one million residents
Urban with greater than or equal to one million residents
PUBLIC Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual hunted on private or public land
Hunted on at least some private land
Hunted only on public land
LEASE Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual leased hunting land
Did not lease hunting land
Leased hunting land
SPECIES_SQUIRREL Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual hunted squirrel
Did not hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_TURKEY Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual hunted turkey
Did not hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_QUAIL Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual hunted quail
Did not hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_GROUSE Indicator variable with 2 values to indicate whether individual hunted grouse
Did not hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_DOVE Indicator variable wit