NSSF - Lapsed Hunters' License Purchasing Behaviors and their Opinions on Messages Encouraging the...

7/31/2019 NSSF - Lapsed Hunters' License Purchasing Behaviors and their Opinions on Messages Encouraging the to Purchas

1/122

LAPSED HUNTERS LICENSE PURCHASINGBEHAVIORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON MESSAGES

ENCOURAGING THEM TO PURCHASE HUNTING

LICENSES

TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS

Conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation byResponsive Management

and the

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

This project is supported by the Hunting Heritage Partnership,a grant program of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.

2009


2/122

LAPSED HUNTERS LICENSE PURCHASINGBEHAVIORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON MESSAGESENCOURAGING THEM TO PURCHASE HUNTING

LICENSES

TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS

2009

Responsive Management National OfficeMark Damian Duda, Executive Director

Martin Jones, Senior Research AssociateTom Beppler, Research Associate

Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research AssociateAndrea Criscione, Research Associate

James B. Herrick, Ph.D., Research AssociateWeldon Miller, Research AssociateJoanne Nobile, Research Associate

Amanda Ritchie, Research AssociateCarol L. Schilli, Research Associate

Tim Winegord, Survey Center ManagerAlison Lanier, Business Manager

130 Franklin StreetHarrisonburg, VA 22801

Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892E-mail: [email protected]

www.responsivemanagement.com


3/122

Acknowledgments

Responsive Management would like to thank Coren Jagnow, Carol Heiser, Tom Wilcox, LeeWalker, and Julia Dixon of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Jodi Valenta

of Mile Creek Communications, LLC; Tammy Sapp; Southwick Associates; and MelissaSchilling of the National Shooting Sports Foundation for their input, support, and guidance on

this project.


4/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This report discusses the results of a telephone survey that was conducted for the National

Shooting Sports Foundation in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland

Fisheries (VDGIF) as part of a larger study regarding messages to encourage lapsed hunters to

purchase a hunting license. The overall project entailed the following:

Identification of lapsed hunters (i.e., to develop the sample for the survey), including

categorizing the lapsed hunters into their various Tapestry segments. (Tapestry

Segmentation is a market segmentation system developed by Environmental Systems

Research Institute, Inc. Tapestry segments are more fully explained in the section of this

report titled An Examination of the Data Regarding Tapestry Segments.) This portion

of the project was completed by Southwick Associates.

A review of VDGIF strategic and marketing plans, a literature review regarding past

research pertinent to the study, an inventory of current VDGIF outreach and educational

activities, and staff interviews. This portion of the project was completed by Tammy

Sapp.

Three focus groups of lapsed hunters (used in part to develop the survey instrument for

the telephone survey that followed). This portion of the project was completed by

Responsive Management.

A telephone survey of lapsed hunters and an analysis of the telephone survey data. This

portion of the project was completed by Responsive Management.

Note that a final report will be produced subsequent to this report with recommendations

and strategies regarding marketing to lapsed hunters.

This report discusses only the results of the telephone survey of lapsed hunters and the analysis

of the telephone survey data. Specific aspects of the telephone survey methodology are

discussed below.

For the survey of lapsed hunters, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium

because of the almost universal ownership of telephones among hunters in Virginia.

Additionally, telephone surveys, relative to mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific


5/122

ii Responsive Management

sampling and data collection, provide higher quality data, obtain higher response rates, are more

timely, and are more cost-effective. Telephone surveys also have fewer negative effects on the

environment than do mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and reduced energy

consumption for delivering and returning the questionnaires.

A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control

over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house

telephone interviewing facilities. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed

cooperatively by Responsive Management, the VDGIF, Southwick Associates, Tammy Sapp,

and Mile Creek Communications. Responsive Management conducted a pre-test of the

questionnaire to ensure proper wording, flow, and logic in the survey.

Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday from

noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. The survey was

conducted in November 2009. Responsive Management obtained a total of 803 completed

interviews of lapsed hunters from Virginia. The software used for data collection was

Questionnaire Programming Language. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive

Management.

For this report, a nonparametric analysis examined how various responses to the survey related

to behavioral, participatory, and demographic characteristics. Responses for selected questions

were tested by means of z-scores for relationships to behavioral, participatory, and demographic

characteristics. A positive z-score means that the response and characteristic are positively

related; a negative z-score means that the response and characteristic are negatively related.

Throughout this report, findings of the telephone survey are reported at a 95% confidence

interval. For the entire sample of Virginia lapsed hunters that was provided to the research team,

the sampling error is at most plus or minus 3.45 percentage points. Sampling error was

calculated using a sample size of 803 and a population size of 118,713 lapsed hunters that were

provided in the sample.


6/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results iii

HUNTING BEHAVIORS AND PURCHASE OF HUNTING LICENSES

Nearly half of the lapsed hunters in the sample (46%) had hunted on private land in

Virginia in the 2008-2009 season. (Virginia hunting regulations allow hunting on private

land without a license in specific situations.)

The survey asked about hunting anywhere in Virginia in the past 5 years: 32% of all

respondents had hunted all 5 of the past 5 years in Virginia; the median is 4 of the past 5

years.

The median number of days per year that hunters had typically hunted is 10 days.

The majority of respondents (58%) indicate that their amount of hunting in Virginia has

decreased over the past 5 years. Only 9% indicate that it has increased.

The survey also asked about hunting outside of Virginia in the past 5 years: 17% had done

so, most commonly hunting in North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania.

The most commonly hunted species among the lapsed hunters are deer (89%, the top answer

by far), small game/upland game birds (41%), and wild turkey (36%).

The most common hunting companions are friends (38%), the respondents son (20%), the

respondents father (13%), and/or the respondents brother (11%).

The majority of lapsed hunters (89%) are notmembers of a hunt club in Virginia; however,

9% are members of a hunt club in Virginia.

The survey asked about purchasing behaviors over the past 4 years. For each of the hunting

years asked about (starting with the 2004-2005 season through the 2007-2008 season), at

least 57% but no more than 64% had purchased a hunting license.

The most commonly purchased licenses are the Basic Hunting license (78% had

purchased this type) and the Bear, Deer, and Turkey license (70%).

Regarding plans to purchase a hunting license for the 2009-2010 season, 34% indicate being

very likely to do so (along with the 9% who indicated that they had already bought one, this


7/122

iv Responsive Management

makes an anticipated purchase rate of approximately 43% among the sample). On the other

hand, 24% indicate being not at all likely.

Respondents were asked to choose their most important reason for hunting from among four

reasons (for the meat, for a trophy, to be with family and friends, or to be close to nature).

They are fairly evenly divided among three of the answers: 32% did so to primarily be with

family and friends, 32% did so primarily to be close to nature, and 28% did so primarily for

the meat.

Just under a third of lapsed hunters (31%) have been a member of and/or have donated to a

conservation or sportsmans organization other than a hunt club in the past 2 years.

SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH HUNTING IN VIRGINIA, AND

CONSTRAINTS TO HUNTING PARTICIPATION

The overwhelming majority of lapsed hunters (87%) report that they have been satisfied with

their hunting experiences in Virginia over the past 5 years; only 8% say that they have been

dissatisfied.

The survey asked 32 questions about things that may have taken away from respondents

enjoyment of hunting, shown in Text Box 1 on the following page. In examining the results

of things that strongly ormoderately took away from enjoyment of hunting, 8 of the 32 items

stand out above the rest, each with about a third or more of respondents saying that it

strongly or moderately took away from their enjoyment. For the most part, they relate to

time, access, and cost.

Three items are at the top, all related to time; each has at least half of respondents saying

it took away from enjoyment: not having enough time (61%), work obligations (56%),

and family obligations (50%).

In the next tier are five items, with access and costbeing prominent. This tier consists of

the following: having other interests that are more important (42%), not having enough

access to places to hunt (41%), not having enough places to hunt (40%), the cost of

licenses (35%), and the cost of hunting equipment (31%).


8/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results v

As a follow-up to the above list of potential problems, the survey asked respondents to name

the most important reasons that they did not buy a 2008-2009 Virginia hunting license

(although the question followed the above listing, respondents were not limited to the reasons

on the list but could say anything that came to mind). Five reasons stand out above the rest,

all with 10% or more of respondents: hunted on private land (i.e., did not need a license)

(25%), lack of time (25%), work obligations (17%), family obligations (11%), and personal

health (11%).

Text Box 1: Things That May Have Taken Away From Enjoyment of Hunting That

Were Asked About in the Survey

(Did this strongly take away, moderately take away, or not take away from your enjoyment ofhunting?)

What about because you feel you lack skills?What about because you think hunting may be wrong?What about because you have other interests that are more important?What about because you don't have time?What about because you're not interested?What about work obligations?What about family obligations?What about personal health?What about poor behavior of other hunters?What about poor behavior of other recreationists?What about not enough places to hunt?What about not enough access to places to hunt?What about not having anyone to go with?What about fear of injury by another hunter?What about having to travel too far to hunt?What about the cost of hunting equipment?What about the costs of licenses?What about other costs related to hunting, such as gas and lodging?What about other people's negative opinions of hunting?What about harassment by anti-hunters?What about not enough law enforcement officers?What about because you don't want to kill animals?What about too many hunters in the field?What about your concern that hunting might endanger animal populations?What about pollution or litter?

What about not enough game?What about the concern about causing pain to animals?What about complex regulations?What about bag limits or season lengths?What about mandatory hunter education requirements?What about not enough trophy game?What about not enough big bucks?


9/122

vi Responsive Management

Near the end of the survey, those who indicated that they would be not at all likely to

purchase a 2009-2010 Virginia hunting license were asked to name the reasons why. The top

reason is not being required to purchase one: 30% said because they will hunt on private

land. Three other reasons were named by more than 10% of this not at all likely group:

personal health (15%), not being interested (13%), and lack of time (12%).

MOTIVATIONS FOR PURCHASING A HUNTING LICENSE

The survey included 19 questions about potential things that might encourage respondents to

purchase a license, shown in Text Box 2 on the following page. Five of the questions relate

to actions that the state would take (e.g., more specific information about hunting

opportunities in Virginia being made available, having a family license available); the other

questions relate to the respondent being informed about various positive aspects of hunting

and can be thought of as themes that would resonate with them.

The top themes that resonated (i.e., the themes with the highest percentages of

respondents saying that the items would make them very likely to purchase a Virginia

hunting license) are as follows, each with more than a third of respondents saying it

would make them very likely to purchase a license:

o Being reminded that it is important to continue the hunting heritage of this country

(48%).

o Being reminded that hunting helps people relax (43%).

o Being reminded that hunting helps people learn the value of wildlife and natural

resources (42%).

o Being reminded that hunting provides an environmentally friendly source of food

(41%).

o Being reminded that hunting helps people connect with nature (38%).

o Being reminded that purchasing a hunting license helps fund conservation of wildlife

(37%).

o Being reminded that hunting is peaceful (also 37%).

The top action items are:

o Having a family license made available (34%).


10/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results vii

o Being able to attend an outdoors show free with the purchase of a Virginia hunting

license (30%).

A question asked respondents if they support or oppose having the VDGIF provide reminders

to hunters to encourage them to purchase a license: the large majority support doing so

(78%), while only 10% oppose.

Those who indicated that they would be very likely to purchase a 2009-2010 Virginia hunting

license or who said that they had already done so were asked to indicate their primary reason

for buying a license. If they simply said, to hunt, respondents were prompted to be more

specific. Nonetheless, this answer, to hunt, or the related answer, to hunt in Virginia,

remained the top answers. However, excluding those, the top answers are to hunt on public

land in Virginia, to connect with nature/to escape/to relax, to take children hunting, to take an

adult family member hunting, to obtain meat, and to take a friend hunting.

Text Box 2: Things That Would Make Hunters Likely To Purchase a Virginia Hunting

License That Were Asked About in the Survey

(Would this make you very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely to purchase a Virginiahunting license during a year that you otherwise might not?)

What about just having more specific information about hunting opportunities in Virginia made available?What about being reminded that hunting is important for wildlife management?What about being reminded that hunting is important for the conservation of land and natural resources?What about being reminded that hunting is important for the conservation of wildlife?What about being reminded that purchasing a hunting license helps fund conservation of wildlife?What about being reminded that hunting provides an environmentally friendly source of food?What about being reminded that you can hunt elk in Virginia?What about being reminded that it is important to continue the hunting heritage of this country?

What about being reminded that hunting helps people learn the value of wildlife and natural resources?What about being reminded that hunting helps people relax?What about being reminded that hunting helps people connect with nature?What about being reminded that hunting is peaceful?What about being reminded that hunting is important to your family?What about being reminded that you can bond with family and friends while hunting?What about being reminded about the thrill or excitement you get from hunting?What about if a family hunting license was available in Virginia?What about being able to attend an outdoors show free with the purchase of your Virginia hunting license?What about receiving a reminder about when hunting seasons for specific species will start?What about receiving a reminder to purchase your license?


11/122

viii Responsive Management

REACTIONS TO WORDS, PHRASES, AND MESSAGES AS THEY RELATE TO

HUNTING

The survey presented respondents with 36 words or short phrases, shown in Text Box 3

below. Respondents were asked to indicate if the word/phrase had a positive association

with hunting, a neutral association, or a negative association with hunting.

In this list, 8 of the 36 words/phrases had at least 90% of respondents making a positive

association: connect to nature (96%), quality time (94%), fun (94%), get away from it all

(93%), relaxing (92%), memories (91%), excitement (91%), and heritage (90%).

The survey presented respondents with 28 messages that might encourage them to purchase a

hunting license; these are shown in Text Box 4 on the following page. For each message, the

survey asked respondents if the message would be very effective, somewhateffective, ornot

at all effective at getting them to buy a Virginia hunting license.

Three of the messages stand out, each with at least half of respondents saying it would be

very effective:

o

Make memories. Take someone special hunting. (54%)o Hunting - protect the heritage, protect the environment. (54%)

o Hunting bonds family. Share the experience. (50%)

Six more messages rank above the rest, all with 44% or more saying it would be very

effective at getting them to buy a Virginia hunting license:

o Connect to nature, hunt Virginia. (47%)

Text Box 3: Words and Phrases That Were Asked About in the Survey

(Does this have a positive, negative, or neutral association with hunting?)

Conserve Friends Quality timeEnvironment Relaxing Connect to natureEconomical Tradition The basicsFamily Stewardship PreserveActive Manage ProtectThrill Outdoor lifestyle ExpensiveHeritage Conservation funding Memories

Natural Organic FunQuality Investment ExcitementConservation Roots EscapeEnvironmentally friendly Peaceful Wildlife managementInexpensive Get away from it all Healthy


12/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results ix

o Hunters, the original stewards of the land. (46%)

o Hunting connects family and friends. (46%)

o Buy a license, take a friend, make memories. (45%)

o Purchase a Virginia hunting license and help conserve wildlife. (44%)

o Connect with nature, connect with family. Hunt Virginia. (44%)

Text Box 4: Messages Presented to Respondents in the Survey(Do you think this message would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective atgetting you to buy a Virginia hunting license during a year that you otherwise might not?)

Get outside, hunt Virginia. Only a license away.Buy your license, help conserve the environment.Hunters, the original stewards of the land.Make memories. Take someone special hunting.Buy your license today, plan your trip today. Visit www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting.Hunting is a source of quality, naturally replenished food.Hunting - big game, big fun, big benefits. Hunt Virginia. Buy your license.Hunting is an investment with many returns.Buy your license, help conserve habitat.Life is short. Break free and go hunting.Buy a license, take a friend, make memories.Unwind the time, hunt Virginia.Hunting provides healthy, organic meat, no hormones or chemicals.Hunting - protect the heritage, protect the environment.Hunting - it's our nature.Purchase a Virginia hunting license and help conserve wildlife.

Need a break? Peace awaits you in Virginia's outdoors. Go hunting.Hunting bonds family. Share the experience.

Hunting season only comes once a year - don't miss it.Hunt Virginia and reduce your carbon footprint with a local, organic source of meat.Hunting - make memories, fund conservation. Buy a license.Connect to nature, hunt Virginia.Purchase a Virginia hunting license and help manage wildlife.Hunting connects family and friends.Hunting - pass on the tradition. It starts with a license.Big game, big fun. Hunt Virginia. [or Small game, big fun. Hunt Virginia.]*Connect with nature, connect with family. Hunt Virginia.Life is short, don't miss the hunting season. Buy your license today.

*This message used the term, Big game, for hunters who indicated that they hunted bear, deer, elk, or wild turkey in thespecies question earlier in the survey; the message used the term, Small game, for hunters who did not hunt any of the biggame species andwho indicated hunting for fox, raccoon, small game, and/or waterfowl. All remaining respondents (those

who hunted some other species or who answered Dont know to the species question) were randomized between Biggame and Small game.


13/122

x Responsive Management

PERSONAL LIFESTYLE DATA

The survey asked questions about personal lifestyle choices that relate to characteristics of

Tapestry segments (note that Tapestry Segmentation is more fully explained in the

following section; it is essentially a marketing system that categorizes all parts of the country

into various marketing segments called Tapestry segments). For this analysis, all of the

respondents were assigned to the Tapestry segment in which their residence is located.

Specific characteristics are conjectured to be associated with each Tapestry segment. For

each Tapestry segment, respondents identified as being in that segment were asked questions

about a characteristic of that segment, and some respondents identified as being notin that

Tapestry segment were asked the same questions about the characteristic associated with the

segment. A comparison was then made of those within the segment versus those outside of

the segment. In other words, those respondents within the Tapestry segment should answer

in the affirmative regarding the characteristic more often than those outside the Tapestry

segment. This was done to test the validity of the characteristics conjectured to be associated

with the Tapestry segment.

In the first question along these lines, respondents were presented a list of eight behaviors

(e.g., reading the Sunday paper, listening to country music on the radio or TV) and were

asked if the behaviors were true for them. Presumably, the percentage exhibiting the

behavior should be greater among those who are in that identified Tapestry segment

versus those who are not in that Tapestry segment. Of the eight behaviors in this

question, three show statistically significant differences between the two groups:

subscribes to satellite TV (67% of those in the Tapestry segment that supposedly includes

this behavior versus 49% of those notin the Tapestry segment) (p < 0.001), has four or

more TVs in the household (51% of those in the segment; 33% of those not in the

segment) (p < 0.01), and has high-speed Internet access (60% versus 43%) (p < 0.01).

All other differences between the groups are notstatistically significant.

Following the above question, the survey had 12 additional questions that delved into

Tapestry segment characteristics. For 8 of the 12 questions, those whose Tapestry

segment includes the characteristic more often have the characteristic when compared to

those who are notwithin that Tapestry segmentin other words, the Tapestry segment

description is accurately predicting the more common presence of the characteristic;


14/122


15/122

xii Responsive Management

differences between surveyed median income and predicted income ranged from approximately

$10,000 to $22,000.

Regarding education levels, ESRIs Tapestry Segmentation gives a fairly accurate assessment

of education levels for many segments. The Salt of the Earth segment (Virginia lapsed hunters

largest segment) is predicted to have about two-fifths of its population having attended some

college. This aligns well with the survey results of 41%. In addition, ESRI reports about one-

seventh of the population in the Salt of the Earth segment as having a bachelors or graduate

degree. This is slightly lower than the survey results of 21%. On the other hand, about one-third

of Sophisticated Squires (another top Tapestry segment of lapsed hunters in Virginia) are

predicted to have a bachelors or graduate degree, with an additional one-third having attended

college. In the telephone survey results, only 23% of lapsed hunters in this segment possessed a

bachelors or graduate degree, although an additional 32% had some college experience without

having earned a bachelors degree. In general, education levels in the survey data appear to be

fairly close to the predicted Tapestry segment.

The Tapestry Segmentation system uses 11 categories to describe how urban or rural an area

is; the telephone survey used 4 categories. Therefore, the 11 Tapestry categories were

categorized into the 4 categories used by the survey. The analysis found that the telephone

survey results closely match the Tapestry Segmentation predictions on this characteristic,

thereby validating the Tapestry Segmentation system regarding urban-rural residency.

In addition to demographic and socioeconomic information, each Tapestry segment includes a

Preferences section that is usually a few paragraphs. Hobbies, recreational activities, personal

interests, and other unique characteristics are given to create a portrait of the population in each

Tapestry segment. Responsive Management reviewed the 13 Tapestry segments that

predominated in the sample and created questions from common themes found in the

Preferences sections.

Each question developed to explore the characteristics was asked of all of the respondents within

that segment associated with the characteristic and some respondents not in that segment. Rates


16/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xiii

of having the characteristic were compared between respondents in that segment versus

respondents not in that segment. For all but three characteristics, the differences between the

groups (those in the segment versus those not in the segment) were notstatistically significant, as

shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Tapestry Questions

Tapestry Question Pearson Chi-Sq. P-Value

1) Sunday paper p = 0.228

2) Country music p = 0.607

3) Auto racing p = 0.544

4) Satellite TV p < 0.001*

5) Four or more TVs p < 0.01*

6) High speed Internet p < 0.01*

7) Personal computer p = 0.631

8) Separate freezer p = 0.526

9) Power tool use p = 0.365

10) Riding lawnmower p = 0.307

11) American-made vehicle p = 0.924

12) Motorcycle ownership p = 0.246

13) Treadmill ownership p = 0.825

14) Home improvement project p = 0.879

15) Garden p = 0.585

16) Golf p = 0.594

17) Catalog or telephone purchase p = 0.054

18) Eating out more on weekends p = 0.32119) Life insurance p = 0.551

20) Political views p = 0.524*Denotes being statistically significant

For satellite TV use, ownership of four or more TVs, and having high speed Internet, a

correlation exists between the characteristic (as determined in the survey) and the Tapestry

segment. As the remaining 17 p-values show, there is nota correlation between a characteristic

being mentioned in the Tapestry segment and the prevalence of the characteristic in those people

identified as being in that segment. It should be noted that the survey sample included only

lapsed hunters and thus may not be representative of that Tapestry segment as a whole.

The conclusion of this aspect of the research is that ESRIs Tapestry Segmentation can be a

useful tool in identifying certain demographic and socioeconomic data for a region. In the


17/122

xiv Responsive Management

analysis, the predicted information for education, income, and residential area matched fairly

well with the survey data. However, the predicted information did notmatch most other data in

the survey. Individuals interested in hunter marketing would be wise, therefore, to use caution

when reading the Preferences of households living in a given segment. In short, the

researchers found little correlation between the preferences given in the Tapestry segment and

those of the respondents in the survey, although it is important to note that the Tapestry segments

were designed from data that included the entire U.S. population and not solely hunters.

Nonetheless, as the preeminent marketing segmentation system, ESRIs Tapestry

Segmentation is increasingly being used by fish and wildlife departments to market to hunters

and anglers. Users should be aware of the strengths and limitations of Tapestry Segmentation

when tailoring their messages to the desired audience.

AN EXAMINATION OF TARGET MARKETS

As part of the analysis, Responsive Management explored potential target markets of lapsed

hunters. Two questions in particular were examined to help characterize those hunters who

could be persuaded to buy a Virginia hunting license. The first question was the number of

previous seasons the respondent had bought a hunting license. The question asked each

respondent to indicate all of the previous four hunting seasons in which he/she had purchased a

Virginia hunting license. The results of the question were then simplified to show how many of

the previous four seasons before 2008-2009 the respondent had purchased a license.

Respondents were then grouped into one of two groups: those who had purchased a license 1 or

2 years in the past 4 years and those who had purchased a license 3 or 4 years in the past 4 years.

The second question of interest was the likelihood of purchasing a 2009-2010 Virginia hunting

license. Respondents could answer Very likely, Somewhat likely, Not at all likely, or

Dont know. The Dont know respondents were eliminated, and the remaining three

selections were examined in a nonparametric analysis to see if the groups that gave that

particular answer were closely associated with any demographic characteristics.

In that nonparametric analysis, z-score testing revealed an association between the group that

purchased licenses only 1 or 2 years and the group answering Not at all likely to purchasing a


18/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xv

2009-2010 Virginia hunting license (p < 0.01). On the other hand, hunters who had purchased

licenses 3 or 4 years were associated with answering Very likely to purchasing a 2009-2010

license (p < 0.01). This suggests that lapsed hunters who have lapsed only once (i.e., have

missed only one season) are more likely to re-enter the fold and purchase another license,

relative to those lapsed hunters who have missed more seasons. Conversely, after several years

of not hunting, it appears to become more difficult to convince lapsed hunters to purchase a

license and start hunting again.

Respondents who purchased a license only in 1 or 2 of the 4 years before 2008-2009 were

positively associated with having children (p < 0.05). Those respondents who had children were

positively associated with answering Strongly or Moderately to the question that asked if not

having enough time took away from hunting enjoyment (p < 0.05).

Respondents who hunted 3 or 4 of the 4 years before 2008-2009 had a positive association with

having no children (p < 0.05). In addition, this group had positive associations with four

messages (p < 0.05 for each one):

Purchase a Virginia hunting license and help conserve wildlife. Hunting bonds family. Share the experience. Hunting season only comes once a year - don't miss it.

Hunt Virginia and reduce your carbon footprint with a local, organic source of meat.

Finally, those who hunted 3 or 4 of the 4 years before 2008-2009 had a positive association with

the Exurbanites Tapestry segment (p < 0.01).

Respondents who reported being Very likely to buy a hunting license for the 2009-2010 season

had positive associations with 16 hunter messages (p < 0.001 to p < 0.05):

Buy your license, help conserve the environment.

Hunters, the original stewards of the land. Hunting is a source of quality, naturally replenished food. Hunting is an investment with many returns. Buy your license, help conserve habitat. Hunting - protect the heritage, protect the environment. Hunting - it's our nature. Purchase a Virginia hunting license and help conserve wildlife. Need a break? Peace awaits you in Virginia's outdoors. Go hunting.


19/122

xvi Responsive Management

Hunting bonds family. Share the experience. Hunting season only comes once a year - don't miss it. Hunt Virginia and reduce your carbon footprint with a local, organic source of meat. Hunting - make memories, fund conservation. Buy a license. Hunting - pass on the tradition. It starts with a license.

Big/small game, big fun. Hunt Virginia. Connect with nature, connect with family. Hunt Virginia.

In addition, respondents who reported being Very likely to buy a hunting license for the

2009-2010 season were more likely to be in the Heartland Communities Tapestry (p < 0.05) and

to have hunted in 3 or 4 of the seasons before 2008-2009 (p < 0.01).

Respondents who answered that they were Somewhat likely to purchase a 2009-2010 hunting

license were positively associated with the education level Some college or an associate's

degree (p < 0.05). This was the only association for this group.

Respondents who answered that they were Not at all likely to purchase a 2009-2010 hunting

license had several associations. They were strongly associated with having at most a high

school diploma (p < 0.01). In addition, they were positively associated with having a household

income of less than $40,000 per year (p < 0.05). They were also associated with the Salt of the

Earth Tapestry (p < 0.05). As mentioned before, this group of respondents was also positively

associated with having purchased a Virginia hunting license only 1 or 2 years in the 4 years

preceding the 2008-2009 season (p < 0.01).

A DISCUSSION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS

ON COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

A final part of this report discusses some of the implications of the survey research regarding

marketing messages. The data suggest the following:

DO consider using the top three messages (or variations of the messages using similar

themes, phrases, and words) rated by respondents as very or somewhat effective at getting

them to buy a hunting license during a year that they otherwise might not. These three

messages were the top three messages among those rated very effective, as well as the top three


20/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xvii

messages (ranked in a slightly different order) when ratings ofvery and somewhateffective were

combined, and they were at the bottom of the ranking by not at all effective.

Make memories. Take someone special hunting.

Hunting protect the heritage, protect the environment.

Hunting bonds family. Share the experience.

DO use messages and outreach materials that incorporate the passing on the hunting

heritage theme. All of the top three messages rated as very orsomewhateffective overall

(discussed above) pertain to the passing on the hunting heritage theme. Two of the top three

messages focus on the hunting heritage, and the third is a blended theme message that

combines the hunting heritage theme with a conservation theme. Furthermore, when asked about

message themes (i.e., the series of questions about things that would make lapsed hunters likely

to purchase a Virginia hunting license), respondents top message theme was being reminded

that it is important to continue the hunting heritage of this country (this was the top item that

respondents indicated would make them very orsomewhatlikely to purchase a Virginia hunting

license during a year they otherwise might not). Finally, heritage ranked eighth among words

and phrases with which respondents said they had a positive association regarding hunting.

DO use the words, phrases, and concepts of connect, share, make memories, andheritage. These terms were used frequently in the top nine messages rated as being very or

somewhateffective. All messages that used the word connect were in the top nine messages,

regardless of whether the concept referred to making connections with nature or with family and

friends. The phrase connect to nature was the top-ranked term among words and phrases that

respondents indicated as having a positive association with hunting; the word memories ranked

sixth. Also note that the message that ranked fourth overall as very effective, Connect to nature,

hunt Virginia, was the top-ranked message as being very effective among those who indicated

they are not at all likely to purchase a 2009-2010 hunting license.

Furthermore, those who indicated that they are not at all likely to purchase a 2009-2010 hunting

license had three messages ranked among the top six in the rating by very effective that used the

word connect. Another message among the top few messages used the phrase make


21/122

xviii Responsive Management

memories. Note, however, that the word, tradition, did not appear to be as effective as the

other words and phrases that were related to the hunting heritage. Tradition ranked lower on

the list of words and phrases with positive associations, and messages using the word tradition

were not rated as high in effectiveness as were messages using the terms connect, share,

make memories, and heritage.

DONT use the term environment or other words, phrases, and concepts related to the

theme of environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, or going green unless it is blended

or used with another theme (other than the direct buy a license theme), such as the

hunting heritage theme. Although one of the top messages overall uses the word

environment, its concept of protecting the environment is blended with the hunting heritage

theme. All three messages pertaining only to the environmental impact of hunting theme

essentially an environmentally friendly or going green themeranked quite low in the very

orsomewhateffective ratings and were in the top messages rated not at all effective. Also note

that the blended messages that ranked high did not have a strong going green message, but

rather an appeal to protect the environment that did not use common going green terms that

were used in the low-ranked messages, such as natural, organic, and local.

DONT use the term conserve without being specific about what is being conserved.

Conserving the environment is too general or broad; specify conservation of wildlife, habitat,

etc. Two of the three messages pertaining to the conservation/appreciation of the natural

world theme were among the top dozen messages rated as very effective. The conservation-

themed message that resonated the best was Buy your license, help conserve habitat. The

nearly identical conservation-themed message, Buy your license, help conserve the

environment, did not rank as high and was not among the top dozen messages rated very

effective. For the two nearly identical messages pertaining to the monetary contribution of

hunters to conservation and wildlife management theme, the one using the word conserve

ranked higher than the one using the word manage. Messages with direct buy a license

statements also ranked high when blended with a conservation theme. It appears that conserve

is a preferred word or concept, but that messages that specify what is being conserved, such as


22/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xix

wildlife or habitat, may be more effective among lapsed hunters than more general or broad

concepts like the environment.

DO use messages and outreach materials that appeal to passing on the hunting heritage,

connecting, making memories, and bonding with someone special, but be non-specific (e.g.,

someone special) or all inclusive (e.g., friends and family) regarding who someone special

is (see next DONT).

DONT make family the primary or central person/people in messages and campaign

materials that appeal to passing on the hunting heritage, connecting, making memories,

and bonding. Lapsed hunters most commonly hunt with friends, followed by alone. Male

family members were common hunting companions, but still less typical than friends and alone.

Also note that over half (58%) of lapsed hunters in Virginia do not have children in the

household. Although the age distribution indicates that the slight majority who do not have

children in the household may likely be due to their children being grown, their absence may still

contribute to the higher likelihood of friends being hunting companions rather than family

members. Additionally, those messages that specifically mention someone special, a friend,

and family andfriends all ranked higher (by a few percentage points) in the top seven

messages rated as very effective by those who indicated they are not at all likely to purchase a

2009-2010 hunting license than the message that mentions only family.

DONT focus predominantly on time constraints and obligations that interfere with

hunting. These factors are, for the most part, beyond the control of the VDGIF. Additionally,

all four messages with a time factor theme ranked fairly low among messages rated as very or

somewhateffective among respondents overall; three of the four time factor messages ranked

in the top dozen messages rated as not at all effective.

DO address availability and quality of hunting opportunities on public land in messages

and outreach materials. Also consider focusing some Department resources, if necessary, on

improving hunting opportunities on public lands (e.g., acquiring more land, adjusting

regulations, attempting to reduce crowding). Having hunted on private land was the top reason


23/122

xx Responsive Management

given for not purchasing a 2008-2009 hunting license, and about a third (30%) of those who

indicated that they are not at all likely to buy a 2009-2010 license said that they are not at all

likely to do so because they will hunt on private land. Nearly half of all lapsed huntersthis

percentage is about the same for both those who indicated they are likely to purchase or have

already purchased a 2009-2010 hunting license and those who are not at all likely to purchase a

2009-2010 hunting licensehunted on private land during the 2008-2009 season. Finally, not

having enough places to hunt and not having enough access to places to hunt were among the top

four factors that strongly took away from lapsed hunters enjoyment of hunting in Virginia. It

may even be an effective message approach to associate hunting on public land with the hunting

heritage, the latter being the most popular message theme.

DONT use buy a license as the primary or dominant theme in messages and campaign

materials. Many direct buy a license messages were not popular. The direct buy a license

message appears to be more effective when used in conjunction with the words conserve or

conservation: the 3 messages with a direct buy a license statement that were among the top

12 messages rated as very orsomewhateffective associated buying a license with the concept of

conservation. Note, however, that receiving a reminder to purchase a license was the top item

rated not at all likely to make respondents purchase a license during a year in which they

otherwise might not.


24/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xxi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................1Survey Results .................................................................................................................................6

Hunting Behaviors and Purchase of Hunting Licenses ...........................................................6Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction With Hunting in Virginia, and

Constraints To Hunting Participation..............................................................................23Motivations for Purchasing a Hunting License.....................................................................32Reactions To Words, Phrases, and Messages as They Relate To Hunting ...........................41Demographic and Personal Lifestyle Data............................................................................48

An Examination of the Data Regarding Tapestry Segments .........................................................73Overview ...............................................................................................................................73Methodology..........................................................................................................................73Demographic and Socioeconomic Results ............................................................................74Tapestry Details.....................................................................................................................75Conclusion.............................................................................................................................77

An Examination of Target Markets ...............................................................................................78A Discussion of the Implications of the Telephone Survey Results

on Communication Strategies..................................................................................................81About Responsive Management ....................................................................................................95

List of Tables

Table 1. Tapestry Questions .........................................................................................................76

List of Figures

Figure 1. Nonparametric Analysis Equation...................................................................................4Figure 2. Sampling Error Equation.................................................................................................4Figure 3. Hunting on Private Land .................................................................................................8

Figure 4. Years Hunted of Past 5 Years..........................................................................................9Figure 5. Days Hunting.................................................................................................................10Figure 6. Increase or Decrease of Hunting Activity .....................................................................11Figure 7. Hunting Outside Virginia ..............................................................................................12Figure 8. Other States Hunted.......................................................................................................13Figure 9. Species Hunted ..............................................................................................................14Figure 10. Hunting Companions...................................................................................................15Figure 11. Membership in Hunt Clubs .........................................................................................16Figure 12. Purchase of Licenses in Past 4 Seasons.......................................................................17Figure 13. Types of Licenses Purchased.......................................................................................18Figure 14. Likelihood to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License ...............................................19

Figure 15. Reasons for Hunting ....................................................................................................20Figure 16. Membership in Conservation or Sportsmens Organizations......................................21Figure 17. Involvement in Hunting Accidents..............................................................................22Figure 18. Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction With Hunting in Virginia............................................26Figure 19. Things That Strongly Took Away From Hunting Enjoyment.....................................27Figure 20. Things That Strongly or Moderately Took Away From Hunting Enjoyment.............28Figure 21. Things That Did Not Take Away From Hunting Enjoyment......................................29


25/122

xxii Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

List of Figures (continued)

Figure 22. Most Important Reasons for Not Purchasing a 2008-2009 Hunting License..............30Figure 23. Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License........................31Figure 24. Things That Would Be Very Likely to Encourage License Purchase.........................35Figure 25. Things That Would Be Very or Somewhat Likely to Encourage

License Purchase......................................................................................................................36Figure 26. Things That Would Be Not at All Likely to Encourage License Purchase.................37Figure 27. Support or Opposition to License Purchase Reminders ..............................................38Figure 28. Reasons for Opposing Hunting License Purchase Reminders ....................................39Figure 29. Reasons for Purchasing a 2009-2010 Hunting License...............................................40Figure 30. Word and Phrase Associations With Hunting .............................................................44Figure 31. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License Purchase .............45Figure 32. Messages That Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Encouraging

License Purchase......................................................................................................................46Figure 33. Messages That Would Be Not at All Effective at Encouraging

License Purchase......................................................................................................................47Figure 34. Gender of Respondents................................................................................................51Figure 35. Ethnic Backgrounds of Respondents...........................................................................52Figure 36. Children in Household.................................................................................................53Figure 37. Ages of Respondents ...................................................................................................54Figure 38. Years of Residency in Virginia ...................................................................................55Figure 39. Levels of Education of Respondents ...........................................................................56Figure 40. Occupations of Respondents .......................................................................................57Figure 41. Household Incomes of Respondents ...........................................................................58Figure 42. Type of Residential Area of Respondents ...................................................................59Figure 43. Tapestry Behaviors of Respondents ............................................................................60

Figure 44. Ownership of Power Tools..........................................................................................61Figure 45. Ownership of Riding Lawnmowers.............................................................................62Figure 46. Ownership of American-Made Vehicles .....................................................................63Figure 47. Ownership of Motorcycles ..........................................................................................64Figure 48. Ownership of Treadmills or Stationary Bikes.............................................................65Figure 49. Work on Home Improvement Projects........................................................................66Figure 50. Planting of Flower or Vegetable Gardens ...................................................................67Figure 51. Golf Playing.................................................................................................................68Figure 52. Purchase of Items Over the Telephone........................................................................69Figure 53. Eating Out on Weekends or Weekdays .......................................................................70Figure 54. Ownership of Life Insurance Policies .........................................................................71

Figure 55. Political Views of Respondents...................................................................................72Figure 56. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License

Purchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................82Figure 57. Messages That Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Encouraging

License Purchase (Previously Shown).....................................................................................83


26/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xxiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

List of Figures (continued)

Figure 58. Messages That Would Be Not at All Effective at Encouraging LicensePurchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................84

Figure 59. Things That Would Be Very or Somewhat Likely to Encourage LicensePurchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................85

Figure 60. Word and Phrase Associations With Hunting (Previously Shown) ............................86Figure 61. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License Purchase

Crosstabulated by Not Likely To Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License.............................88Figure 62. Most Important Reasons for Not Purchasing a 2008-2009 Hunting

License (Previously Shown) ....................................................................................................91Figure 63. Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting

License (Previously Shown) ....................................................................................................92Figure 64. Hunting on Private Land Crosstabulated by Likelihood To Purchase

Hunting License.......................................................................................................................93Figure 65. Things That Strongly Took Away From Hunting

Enjoyment (Previously Shown) ...............................................................................................94


27/122


28/122

2 Responsive Management

timely, and are more cost-effective. Telephone surveys also have fewer negative effects on the

environment than do mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and reduced energy

consumption for delivering and returning the questionnaires.

A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control

over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house

telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience

conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subjects of natural resources and

outdoor recreation. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by

Responsive Management, the VDGIF, Southwick Associates, Tammy Sapp, and Mile Creek

Communications. Responsive Management conducted a pre-test of the questionnaire to ensure

proper wording, flow, and logic in the survey.

To ensure the integrity of the telephone survey data, Responsive Management has interviewers

who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey

Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey

Center Managers and other professional staff conducted project briefings with the interviewers

prior to the administration of this survey. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study

goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and

qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey instrument, reading of the

survey instrument, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific

questions on the survey instrument. The Survey Center Managers and statisticians monitored the

data collection, including monitoring of the actual telephone interviews without the interviewers

knowledge, to evaluate the performance of each interviewer and ensure integrity of the data.

After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center Managers and/or

statisticians checked each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness.

Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday from

noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback design

was used to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people easy to

reach by telephone, and to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent


29/122

Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 3

could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week

and at different times of the day. The survey was conducted in November 2009. Responsive

Management obtained a total of 803 completed interviews of lapsed hunters from Virginia.

The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language (QPL). The

survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted, eliminating

manual data entry after the completion of the survey and the concomitant data entry errors that

may occur with manual data entry. The survey instrument was programmed so that QPL

branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the

integrity and consistency of the data collection. The analysis of data was performed using

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences as well as proprietary software developed by

Responsive Management.

For this report, a nonparametric analysis examined how various responses to the survey related

to behavioral, participatory, and demographic characteristics. Responses for selected questions

were tested by means of z-scores for relationships to behavioral, participatory, and demographic

characteristics. A positive z-score means that the response and characteristic are positively

related; a negative z-score means that the response and characteristic are negatively related.

The z-score shows the strength of the relationship between the characteristic and the response to

the question. Those z-scores that have an absolute value of 3.30 or greater indicate a relationship

that is so strong that it would happen by chance only 1 out of 1,000 times (p < 0.001). Those

z-scores that have an absolute value of 2.58 to 3.29 indicate a relationship that is so strong that it

would happen by chance only 1 out of 100 times (p < 0.01). Finally, those z-scores that have an

absolute value of 1.96 to 2.57 indicate a relationship that is so strong that it would happen by

chance only 5 out of 100 times (p < 0.05).

The z-scores were calculated as shown in the formula on the following page (Figure 1).


30/122


Figure 1. Nonparametric Analysis Equation

+

=

21

21

11

)1(

)(

nnpp

ppz

where: n1 represents the number of observations in Group 1.n2 represents the number of observations in Group 2.p1 = a/(a + b) = a/n1 and represents the proportion of observations in Group 1 that falls in Cell a.

It is employed to estimate the population proportion 1 (% of Group 1 who had specificcharacteristic).

p2 = c/(c + d) = c/n2 and represents the proportion of observations in Group 2 that falls in Cell c.It is employed to estimate the population proportion 2 (% of Group 2 who had specificcharacteristic).

p = (a + c)/(n1 + n2) = (a + c)/n and is a pooled estimate of the proportion of respondents who hadspecific characteristic in the underlying population.

(Equation fromHandbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 2ndEdition by David J.Sheskin. 2000, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.)

Throughout this report, findings of the telephone survey are reported at a 95% confidence

interval. For the entire sample of Virginia lapsed hunters that was provided to the research team,

the sampling error is at most plus or minus 3.45 percentage points. This means that if the survey

were conducted 100 times on different samples that were selected in the same way, the findings

of 95 out of the 100 surveys would fall within plus or minus 3.45 percentage points of each

other. Sampling error was calculated using the formula described below (Figure 2), with a

sample size of 803 and a population size of 118,713 lapsed hunters that were provided in the

sample.

Figure 2. Sampling Error Equation

( )

( )96.11

25.25.

=

p

s

p

N

N

N

B

Derived from formula: p. 206 in Dillman, D. A. 2000.Mail and Internet Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Note: This is a simplified version of the formula that calculates the maximum sampling error using a 50:50split (the most conservative calculation because a 50:50 split would give maximum variation).

Where: B = maximum sampling error (as decimal)NP = population size (i.e., total number who could be surveyed)

NS = sample size (i.e., total number of respondents surveyed)


31/122


Note that some results may not sum to exactly 100% because of rounding. Additionally,

rounding in the graphs may cause apparent discrepancies of 1 percentage point between the

graphs and the reported results of combined responses (e.g., when very likely and somewhat

likely are summed to determine the total percentage being likely).

The 28 messages that were tested in this survey included 4 messages (or close derivatives

thereof) that were developed in past research sponsored by the National Shooting Sports

Foundation conducted by D.J. Case & Associates and that were considered for use by some

agencies, such as the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission. These four messages that were not developed exclusively for this

study are as follows:

o Hunting season only comes once a year dont miss it.

o Big game, big fun. Hunt Virginia. [or Small game, big fun. Hunt Virginia.]*

o Life is short. Break free and go hunting.

o Need a break? Peace awaits you in Virginias outdoors. Go hunting.

*This message used the term, Big game, for hunters who indicated that they hunted bear, deer, elk, or wild turkey in the speciesquestion earlier in the survey; the message used the term, Small game, for hunters who did not hunt any of the big gamespecies andwho indicated hunting for fox, raccoon, small game, and/or waterfowl. All remaining respondents (those who huntedsome other species or who answered Dont know to the species question) were randomized between Big game and Smallgame.


32/122


SURVEY RESULTS

HUNTING BEHAVIORS AND PURCHASE OF HUNTING LICENSES

The sample consisted of those who had notpurchased a hunting license for the 2008-2009

season (respondents who hadwere not interviewed). Nonetheless, nearly half of the lapsed

hunters in the sample (46%) had hunted on private land in Virginia in the 2008-2009 season

(Figure 3). (Virginia hunting regulations allow hunting on private land without a license in

specific situations.)

The survey asked about hunting anywhere in Virginia in the past 5 years: 32% of all

respondents had hunted all 5 of the past 5 years in Virginia; the median is 4 of the past 5

years (Figure 4).

The number of days per year that hunters had typically hunted (in those years in which

they had hunted) is shown in Figure 5. While 32% typically hunted no more than 5 days,

there are some who hunted much more often, including 14% who typically hunted more

than 25 days annually. The median is 10 days.

Because the sample consists of hunters identified (in the sample as well as through

screener questions in the survey) as lapsed, it is not surprising that the majority (58%)

indicate that their amount of hunting in Virginia has decreased over the past 5 years

(Figure 6). Only 9% indicate that it has increased.

The survey also asked about hunting outside of Virginia in the past 5 years: 17% had done

so (Figure 7).

Those other states in which they had hunted include North Carolina (18% of those out-of-

state hunters had hunted there), West Virginia (18%), Maryland (9%), and Pennsylvania

(9%) (Figure 8).

The most commonly hunted species among the lapsed hunters are deer (89%, the top answer

by far), small game/upland game birds (41%), and wild turkey (36%) (Figure 9).

The most common hunting companions are friends (38%), the respondents son (20%), the

respondents father (13%), and/or the respondents brother (11%) (Figure 10).


33/122


The majority of lapsed hunters (89%) are notmembers of a hunt club in Virginia; however,

9% are members of a hunt club in Virginia (Figure 11).

The survey asked about purchasing behaviors over the past 4 years. For each of the hunting

years asked about (starting with the 2004-2005 season through the 2007-2008 season), at

least 57% but no more than 64% had purchased a hunting license (Figure 12).

The most commonly purchased licenses are the Basic Hunting license (78% had

purchased this type) and the Bear, Deer, and Turkey license (70%) (Figure 13). These

were distantly followed by the Muzzleloading license (29%) and the Archery license

(19%), among others.

Regarding plans to purchase a hunting license for the 2009-2010 season, 34% indicate being

very likely to do so (along with the 9% who indicated that they had already bought one, this

makes an anticipated purchase rate of approximately 43% among the sample) (Figure 14).

On the other hand, 24% indicate being not at all likely.

Respondents were asked to choose their most important reason for hunting from among four

reasons (for the meat, for a trophy, to be with family and friends, or to be close to nature).

They are fairly evenly divided among three of the answers: 32% did so to primarily be withfamily and friends, 32% did so primarily to be close to nature, and 28% did so primarily for

the meat; a relatively low percentage did so for a trophy (5%) (Figure 15).

Just under a third of lapsed hunters (31%) have been a member of and/or have donated to a

conservation or sportsmans organization other than a hunt club in the past 2 years

(Figure 16).

A final question in this section asked hunters if they had ever been involved in or witnessed a

hunting accident in which somebody was injured by a hunting weapon: 6% indicated that

they had (Figure 17).


34/122


Figure 3. Hunting on Private Land

Q16. Did you hunt on private land in Virginia during

the 2008-2009 season?

1

53

46

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


35/122


Figure 4. Years Hunted of Past 5 Years

Q24. How many of the past 5 years have you

hunted in Virginia?

5

10

13

18

21

32

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

1 year

Have not huntedin Virginia in the

past 5 years

Don't know

Percent (n=803)

Mean = 3.4Median = 4


36/122


Figure 5. Days Hunting

Q27. When you hunted in Virginia in the past, how

many days did you typically hunt in Virginia in a

year?

32

24

14

8

3

14

1

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 25days

21-25 days

16-20 days

11-15 days

6-10 days

1-5 days

0 days

Don't know

Percent (n=803)

Mean = 15.1Median = 10


37/122


Figure 6. Increase or Decrease of Hunting Activity

Q30. Has your amount of hunting in Virginia

increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the

past 5 years?

1

58

32

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increased

Stayed the same

Decreased

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


38/122


Figure 7. Hunting Outside Virginia

Q40. Have you hunted outside of Virginia in the

past 5 years?

83

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Percent (n=803)


39/122


Figure 8. Other States Hunted

Q42/43/44. In what states other than Virginia did

you hunt in the past 5 years? (Asked of those who

hunted in another state in the past 5 years; showsonly those states with at least 3%.)

3

3

3

4

4

7

7

9

9

18

18

6

5

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

North Carolina

West Virginia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Colorado

Texas

South Dakota

New Mexico

Kansas

Alabama

Idaho

Maine

New York

Wyoming

Multiple

ResponsesAllowed

Percent (n=139)


40/122


Figure 9. Species Hunted

Q34. Which species have you hunted in Virginia?

4

10

11

36

41

89

3

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Deer

Small game /upland game

birds

Turkey

Waterfowl

Bear

Fox

Raccoon

Elk

MultipleResponsesAllowed

Percent (n=803)


41/122


Figure 10. Hunting Companions

Q38. With whom do you typically hunt?

1

2

2

2

3

6

11

13

20

23

38

4

4

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Friends

Nobody / goesalone

Son

Father

Brother

In-law

Spouse

Uncle

Cousins

Organized group

Grandson

Nephew

Daughter

Grandfather


Percent (n=803)


42/122


Figure 11. Membership in Hunt Clubs

Q203. Are you currently a member of a hunt club in

Virginia?

2

89

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


43/122


Figure 12. Purchase of Licenses in Past 4 Seasons

Q20. Please tell me if you bought a Virginia hunting

license for each of the following seasons?

18

57

64

61

59

0 20 40 60 80 100

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Don't know


Percent (n=803)


44/122


Figure 13. Types of Licenses Purchased

Q23. Which of the following licenses have you

purchased in the past?

1

8

11

19

29

70

78

6

1

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Basic Huntinglicense

Bear, Deer, andTurkey license

Muzzleloading

license

Archery license

State WaterfowlStamp

Sportsman'slicense

Crossbow license

Trapping license

None of these

Don't know

Multip

leResponsesAllowed

Percent (n=803)


45/122


Figure 14. Likelihood to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License

Q185. How likely are you to buy a 2009-2010

Virginia hunting license?

4

9

24

29

34

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Not at all likely

I have alreadybought a 2009-

2010 license

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


46/122


Figure 15. Reasons for Hunting

Q31. Thinking about when you've hunted, what is

your most important reason for hunting?

3

5

28

32

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

To be with familyand friends

To be close tonature

For the meat

For a trophy

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


47/122


Figure 16. Membership in Conservation or Sportsmens Organizations

Q204. In the past 2 years, have you been a member

of or donated to any conservation or sportsman's

organizations other than a hunt club?

2

66

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


48/122


Figure 17. Involvement in Hunting Accidents

Q205. Have you ever been involved in or witnessed

a hunting accident in which someone was injured

by a hunting weapon?

2

92

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=803)


49/122


SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH HUNTING IN VIRGINIA, ANDCONSTRAINTS TO HUNTING PARTICIPATION

The overwhelming majority of lapsed hunters (87%) report that they have been satisfied with

their hunting experiences in Virginia over the past 5 years; only 8% say that they have been

dissatisfied (Figure 18).

The survey asked 32 questions about things that may have taken away from respondents

enjoyment of hunting, shown in Text Box 1 on the following page. In examining the results

of things that strongly ormoderately took away from enjoyment of hunting, 8 of the 32 items

stand out above the rest, each with about a third or more of respondents saying that it

strongly or moderately took away from their enjoyment. For the most part, they relate to

time, access, and cost (Figures 19, 20, and 21).

Three items are at the top, all related to time; each has at least half of respondents saying

it took away from enjoyment: not having enough time (61%), work obligations (56%),

and family obligations (50%).

In the next tier are five items, with access and costbeing prominent. This tier consists of

the following: having other interests that are more important (42%), not having enough

access to places to hunt (41%), not having enough places to hunt (40%), the cost of

licenses (35%), and the cost of hunting equipment (31%).

A large middle tier exists: 15 of the 32 items have at least 15% of lapsed hunters (but

less than 30%) who say the item took away from hunting enjoyment, as shown in the

graph. These problems run the gamut, such as poor behavior of other hunters, not enough

game, complex regulations, personal health/age issues, and not having anybody to go

with. Included within this tier are a couple of items that relate to access and cost, as well.

At the bottom are 9 items, suggesting that the problems in this tier are relatively

unimportant. Many of the problems here appear to be related to respondents basic

beliefs about hunting (e.g., other peoples negative opinion of hunting, thinking hunting

may be wrong). The relatively small percentage of people naming the problems in the

bottom tier appear to be a group that is not well-informed about hunting (e.g., concern

that hunting might endanger animal populations, mandatory hunter education


50/122


requirements) and is also prone to anti-hunting rhetoric. That these problems are in the

bottom tier suggests that they are relatively unimportant.

As a follow-up to the above list of potential problems, the survey asked respondents to name

the most important reasons that they did not buy a 2008-2009 Virginia hunting license

(although the question followed the above listing, respondents were not limited to the reasons

on the list but could say anything that came to mind) (Figure 22). Five reasons stand out

Text Box 1: Things That May Have Taken Away From Enjoyment of Hunting That

Were Asked About in the Survey

(Did this strongly take away, moderately take away, or not take away from your enjoyment ofhunting?)

What about because you feel you lack skills?What about because you think hunting may be wrong?What about because you have other interests that are more important?What about because you don't have time?What about because you're not interested?What about work obligations?What about family obligations?What about personal health?

What about poor behavior of other hunters?What about poor behavior of other recreationists?What about not enough places to hunt?What about not enough access to places to hunt?What about not having anyone to go with?What about fear of injury by another hunter?What about having to travel too far to hunt?What about the cost of hunting equipment?What about the costs of licenses?What about other costs related to hunting, such as gas and lodging?What about other people's negative opinions of hunting?What about harassment by anti-hunters?What about not enough law enforcement officers?

What about because you don't want to kill animals?What about too many hunters in the field?What about your concern that hunting might endanger animal populations?What about pollution or litter?What about not enough game?What about the concern about causing pain to animals?

NSSF - Lapsed Hunters' License Purchasing Behaviors and their Opinions on Messages Encouraging the...

Documents

Transcript of NSSF - Lapsed Hunters' License Purchasing Behaviors and their Opinions on Messages Encouraging the...