What the Evidence Suggests for
the Future of Fishing and Hunting
License Sales in Wisconsin

July 2016
Social Science Services Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

 ______________________________________________________
About this Report
As part of the 2015-2017 State Budget, Wisconsin’s legislature directed the Department of
Natural Resources to consult with stakeholders and prepare a report to the Joint Committee
on Finance on a plan to address an imbalance in the state’s Fish and Wildlife Account. The
department’s Social Science Team has gathered, compiled and synthesized social and
economic information to help inform the department’s efforts in response to this legislative
directive. This report is one of a series of documents prepared by the team to provide
objective, policy-relevant information. This report presents specific study findings, interprets
the information within pertinent contexts, and may identify potentially useful lines of
additional inquiry. This report does not, however, include specific recommendations or
policy prescriptions.

Report Author
Robert H. Holsman, Ph.D.
Social Science Services Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
Robert.Holsman@Wisconsin.gov

Cover illustrations: Wisconsin DNR file photographs.
Interior illustrations: Clipart from Arthur’s Free Clipart (http://www.arthursclipart.org/).

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment,
programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions
regarding this plan, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington, DC
20240.
This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audio tape, etc.) upon
request. Please call (608) 266-0531 for more information.

PUB-SS-1164 2016

 What the Evidence Suggests for the Future of Fishing and
Hunting License Sales in Wisconsin
Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..2
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Current Participation Rates and Trends……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Fishing Participation………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Hunting Participation…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Factors Influencing Fishing and Hunting Participation………………………………………………………….. 15
Causes of Declining Rates of Participation……………………………………………………………………………..16
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

1

 Abstract
Fishing and hunting have long and deep roots as important economic drivers, leisure
pursuits, cultural symbols and personal identities in Wisconsin, but a review of the current
participation research and socio-demographic trends suggests each recreation may be on a
different trajectory.
Fishing license sales appear stable nationally and have even increased slightly in Wisconsin
in recent years. Sales of inland trout stamps have been steady for the past 15 years and
Great Lakes trout stamps show an increasing trend. Per capita fishing participation in
Wisconsin is currently twice the national average. Current forecasts suggest that the overall
number of anglers will increase in the United States through 2060 as a function of overall
population increase, but per capita participation rates will decline. Research also indicates
that the number of former anglers is far greater than those who buy a license in any given
year. This fact suggests there may be opportunities to increase revenue via marketing or
other strategies that decease churn rates among existing anglers.
While there are some challenges to maintaining fishing participation, the number of
participants in recreational hunting in the U.S. and in Wisconsin is expected to continue to
decline as a result of a nexus of changing cultural, demographic and land use patterns.
Hunting participation has been on a four-decade decline nationally in both absolute numbers
and on a per-capita basis. Wisconsin seemed somewhat insulated from this national trend
until about a decade ago. Gun-deer hunting, the largest revenue generator of hunting
license sales, is declining in both the number of participants and in hunter effort statewide.
Age and cohort analyses conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in
2011 predict a 28 percent decline in the number of male gun deer hunters by 2030.
Declining participation among adult hunters has and will continue to create cascading effects
on efforts to recruit youth into deer hunting. Small game hunting has also declined sharply
in Wisconsin, while demand for waterfowl and pheasant hunting remained flat for the past
15 years. Turkey hunting participation grew dramatically during the first decade of the
2000s, but has decreased slightly over the past 5 years.
Sales of Wisconsin’s two combination license products—Sports and Conservation Patron
licenses—have fallen sharply over the last decade. Our research on CPL holders suggests
that declining sales will continue as current customers continue to age. It may be a good
time to consider other potential license bundling options that more closely reflect current
activity patterns among customers.
Emerging demographic shifts in the state further indicate less demand for all forms of
hunting in the coming decades. Meanwhile the combination of urban sprawl, loss of suitable
habitat, land parcelization and privatization, and large scale farming operations has reduced
the supply of quality hunting access in the state. Efforts to recruit new hunters to replace
those dropping out or aging out of the activity face a constellation of challenges that include
developing and testing ways to introduce new participants coming from urban backgrounds
or from non-hunting families, as well as limits imposed by the availability of hunting access,
especially on private lands.
The changing demographic composition of the state’s population also will negatively impact
demand for fishing, though to a much lesser extent.

2

 Introduction
The diverse responsibilities (e.g., fish, wildlife, forestry, air, water, waste, parks, etc.)
assigned to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR) are funded by
an equally diverse array of sources which include fees, grants, general purpose tax dollars
and donations (Responsive Management 2008). However, when it comes to the
management of the state’s fish and wildlife resources, nearly 90 percent of the agency’s
budget comes from two sources, both of which rely on anglers, hunters and trappers.
Revenue from the sale of licenses and stamps accounts for the majority of funding available
for the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources in the state, including
the management of approximately 600 public properties totaling more than 680,000 acres.
The second largest source of funding comes from federal aid associated with excise taxes on
the sale of sporting firearms and ammunition (Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act)
and fishing equipment (Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act). The state’s
apportionment of these federal dollars is tied in part to the number of fishing, hunting and
trapping licenses sold annually. Thus, fish and wildlife conservation in Wisconsin, like in
most other states, is perpetuated as a user-pay model (Jacobson et al. 2010).
While hunters and anglers deserve a great deal of credit for the restoration and
conservation of many species in the United States (Williams 2010), the user pay model
carries with it several disadvantages. Under the current model, there are many non-license
buyers who use or benefit from fish and wildlife management but do not contribute
financially to the system (what many economists refer to as “free riders”) (Holsman and
Dunfee 2014, Loomis and Margum 1987). A second drawback is the lack of flexibility to use
funds to address ecological priorities that may be perceived by current user groups as not
directly related to improving opportunities for hunting and fishing (e.g., projects focused on
non-game species) (Holsman and Dunfee 2014, Jacobson et al. 2007). Lastly, and most
apropos for the purposes of this report, is that a user pay model depends on sustaining
users to remain solvent without curtailing program functions and services. This report
provides a comprehensive overview of the current research into participation trends in
fishing and hunting, and the major influences on these trends as a way to anticipate
challenges to sustaining the current user pay model of fish and wildlife management.
Nationally, concern over future participation in hunting and fishing began to appear in the
early 1990s (Dann and Peyton 1996, Murdock et al. 1992, Heberlein 1991), but has taken
on much more of a sense of urgency during the last decade. For example, the Council to
Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports and the Wildlife Management Institute recently
completed a national plan for recruitment, retention and reactivation (R3) of hunters and
shooters that calls upon state agencies, nongovernmental partners and industry to develop
more capacity and to become more strategic in the implementation and evaluation of
interventions (Frampton and Dunfee 2016). On the fishing side, the Recreational Boating
and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) has been very active in conducting market research to better
understand the purchasing and participation behavior of anglers in the U.S
(http://www.takemefishing.org/corporate/resource-center/research/). RBFF is now
spearheading a national R3 plan for angling using a similar framework to the R3 Hunting
and Shooting National Plan (Byrne 2016).

3

 Current Participation Rates and Trends
Fishing Participation
The most recent national data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimated
that 33.1 million Americans 16 years of age and older fished in 2011 (USFWS 2012). This
represents an 11 percent increase over the number that reported fishing in 2006, and
reverses a nearly identical decline in the number of anglers observed between 2001 and
2006 (USFWS 2002, 2007). Overall, about 10 percent of Americans fished in 2014
(American Sport Fishing Association 2015a). Fishing participation nationally has held steady
over the past few years and shows slight upticks in both first-time female and youth
participants (RBFF and the Outdoor Foundation 2015).
In recent years, marketing research has revealed the number of anglers and hunters is
dynamic from year to year as a result of individuals that “churn” in and out of participation
over time (American Sportfishing Association 2015a, National Shooting Sports Foundation
and Southwick and Associates 2010). Therefore, estimates of license numbers in any given
year underestimate the number of participants who participate sporadically and whom
identify themselves as anglers and hunters. What appear as participation trends (up or
down) may reflect changes in rate of churn, changes in the rate at which new initiates are
added to an activity, and/or changes in the rate of death or permanent cessation among
participants.
According to the American Sportfishing Association, churn rates for anglers may be as high
50 percent overall (Byrne 2016). Churn is even higher (as much as 70 percent) among
those buying a fishing license for the first time, females, those living in metropolitan areas
and Millennials (American Sport Fishing Association 2015b, Fedler and Ditton 2001). Given
these high annual churn rates, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that there may
be 124 million Americans aged 16 and older who have fished at some point in their lives
(Byrne 2016). Consequently, retention and reactivation strategies that reduce churn may be
more apropos for generating license revenue than are recruitment strategies in the shortterm.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012) estimated that 938,000 Wisconsin residents 16
and older went fishing in Wisconsin in 2011. The estimated per capita participation rate is
approximately 20 percent, twice the national average (RBFF and the Outdoor Foundation
2015). According to Wisconsin DNR internal data, fishing license sales have increased in
Wisconsin over the past 15 years (Figure 1 & 2). In 2009, 828,686 annual resident licenses
were sold, the high point in recent history; 1.32 million fishing licenses were sold overall in
that year (Figure 1). The economic downturn may have played a role in the robust sales in
2009 as research suggests that sales increase during times of unemployment (Responsive
Management 2013, Dalrymple et al. 2010). Wisconsin sold over 819,000 resident annual
licenses in 2014. That number represents a nine percent increase in sales from 2002. The
sale Great Lakes trout stamps have increased 16 percent over the period from 2002 through
2014 (Figure 2). Sales of inland trout stamps have been stable over the same time period.

4

 1400
1350
1300
R² = 0.19

1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000

# of licenses sold in thousands

950
900
850
800

R² = 0.74

750
700
650
600

Res Annual

550
500

All licenses

450
400

Linear (Res Annual)

350

Linear (All licenses)

300
250
200
150
100
50

Year

Figure 1. Fishing licenses sales in Wisconsin, 2002-2104.

5

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

0

 160
R² = 0.01
140
R² = 0.70
120

# sold in thousands

100

Inland
Great Lakes
Linear (Inland)
Linear (Great Lakes)

80

60

40

20

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

0

Year
Figure 2. Trout stamp sales in Wisconsin, 1999-2014.

Recreation demand models suggest that population increases in the U.S. will drive a slight
increase in the total number of anglers, but per-capita participation in fishing is anticipated
to decline by about 9 percent by the year 2060 (Cordell 2012). Specific forecasts for
Wisconsin are not available. However, there is also concern that fishing participation may
decline because of the general trend of younger people spending less time outdoors
(Bruskotter and Fulton 2013, Twenge et al. 2012, Pergams and Zaradic 2008). In general,
research suggests that Millennials who do fish may be less committed to fishing than
previous generations based on the frequencies in which they renew their fishing licenses
(American Sport Fishing Association 2016).

6

 Hunting Participation
The estimated number of hunters aged 16 and older in the United States was 13.7 million in
2011, an apparent 9 percent increase from the 12.5 million reported in 2006 (USFWS
2012). This marked the first increase in the number of participants in hunting after a four
decade decline from the high-water mark of 19 million hunters in 1975. While this increase
provides some reason for optimism that perhaps efforts to recruit and retain new hunters
may be yielding returns, it also generated enough skepticism for the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies to award a multistate grant to further investigate the validity of the
observed increase (American Sport Fishing Association et al. 2013). Follow-up investigation
of license sales revealed variation in states with increasing and decreasing trends during the
2006-2011 time period, with Wisconsin showing reduced sales.
The current per capita rate of hunting participation is 6 percent in the U.S. The number of
people who self-identify as hunters is considered to be much higher than the number who
actually purchase a license in any given year and includes “hunter associates” (people who
provide social support to hunters), as well as lapsed hunters (Brown et al. 2000). A national
study in 2010 estimated that nearly 22 percent of state resident hunters “churn” in and out
of the license pool each year and that only 35 percent of state resident hunters purchase a
license in five consecutive years (NSSF and Southwick 2010).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012) estimates that 762,000 residents 16 and older
participated in some form of hunting in Wisconsin in 2011. The estimated per capita
participation rate is approximately 15 percent (Holsman et al. 2014a), but varies widely
across the state. For example, nearly half of all males over the age of 12 participated in gun
deer hunting in 2009 in Price County, compared with less than 6% of males living in
Milwaukee County (Winkler and Kaz 2011). The paradox of rural-urban effects on hunting
participation is that participation rates are highest in rural counties yet most hunters in
Wisconsin currently live in metropolitan areas where population centers occur (Figure 3).
Deer hunting with a firearm leads sales of all hunting authorizations (including Sportsman
and Conservation Patron licenses) in Wisconsin. It is estimated that 92 percent of hunting
license customers purchase a gun-deer license in any given year in our state (Holsman
2013b). We have estimated our churn rate for gun deer licenses to be approximately 28
percent, slightly higher than the national average (Wisconsin DNR licensing data).

7

 Figure 3. Male deer hunter residence by county (a) and county resident rate of deer
hunting by males (b) in 2009 (reproduced from Winkler and Kaz 2011).
Gun-deer license sales in Wisconsin peaked in 1999 when 694,712 (resident and nonresident) individuals purchased an authorization. In 2015, 613,165 gun-deer licenses were
sold, a one percent increase from the previous year, but a 12 percent decline from 1999.
Gun-deer license sales declined by about 10 percent in 2002 as a result of hunter concern
over the safety of venison consumption following the discovery of chronic wasting disease
(CWD) in southern Wisconsin (Lyon and Vaske 2010, Heberlein and Stedman 2009,
Needham et al. 2004) (Figure 4). In the next few years, license sales recovered about half
of those losses as hunters gained experience with CWD and perceived risks declined
(Cooney and Holsman 2010). The general decline in gun deer license sales continued again
beginning in 2009 and was influenced by hunter dissatisfaction with deer sightings,
frustration over regulations promoting antlerless harvests, declining access to private lands
and perceived lack of quality of opportunities available on state public land (Holsman 2012).
Meanwhile, archery deer license sales showed a 25 percent increase between 1999 and
2014, with most of that increase occurring prior to the elimination of age/disability
requirements for crossbows in 2013. This large increase offset drops in gun deer license
such that total deer licenses sold appear flat during the past 15-year period. The increase in
archery licenses is generally considered to reflect more existing (gun) deer hunters taking
up archery than the creation of new customers.

8

 900
850
800

R² = 0.28

750
700
# of licenses sold in thousands

650
600
550
R² = 0.75

500
450

Gun

400
Archery (all)

350

All deer licenses

300
250
200

R² = 0.89

150
100
50

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

0

Year
Figure 4. Sale of deer hunting authorizations in Wisconsin, 2002-2015.
Hunting effort—the number of participation days logged by participants—can be a broad
indicator for demand (Holsman 2012, Stedman et al. 2008, Weddell et al. 2006). Declining
effort may suggest an erosion of avidity for participation among the deer hunter population
of the state. Longitudinal data from DNR hunter harvest surveys reveal an overall declining
trend in hunter days during the nine day gun-deer season driven primarily by fewer hunters
(Figure 5). Average hunter effort has fluctuated over time but has generally been stable (B.
Dhuey, Wisconsin DNR, unpub. data). Three of the five deer management regions show
declines in hunter effort since 1992. Hunter days also declined 34 percent in the Northern
forest over the same time period. Southern region farmland hunters posted 11 percent
fewer hunter days in 2013 than 1992, but actually hit their highest level in 2008. Hunter
effort has remained relative stable in the Western and Eastern farmland regions (Figure 6).
The largest decline in hunter effort has occurred in the Central Forest region where hunter
days declined 39 percent since 1992.

9

 Hunter days
4,000,000
R² = 0.5517

3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

0

Statewide-average days per hunter
7.00
R² = 0.04

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

0.00

Figure 5. Trends in total hunter effort (hunter days) among Wisconsin gun-deer hunters,
1993-2015.
Purchases of other types of hunting authorizations over the past 15 years suggest shifting
patterns of participation that generally indicate a narrowing of the types of hunting that
Wisconsin residents do. The largest declines in state license sales observed occur in our two
combination packages—Sportsmen and Conservation Patron (Figure 7). Sportsmen license
purchases have declined 46 percent since 1999. Sales of resident Conservation Patron
licenses have declined 43 percent since peak sales of over 81,000 in 2002. Biennial surveys
of Conservation Patron license holders show an increase in average age of customers and
also declining participation in small game hunting (Holsman et al. 2014b), trends that
portend continuing declines in future sales.

10

 1,500,000
Northern Forest
Central Forest
Southern Farmland

1,400,000
1,300,000

Western Farmland
Eastern Farmland

1,200,000
1,100,000

R² = 0.1046

1,000,000
900,000
R² = 0.0297

800,000
700,000

R² = 0.2545

600,000
500,000

R² = 0.0188

400,000
300,000
200,000

R² = 0.5766

100,000

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

0

Figure 6. Trends in hunter effort (number of hunter days) during the 9-day gun deer
season, by region, 1992-2013.

Declining participation in small game hunting is also reflected in the 15-year trend in sale of
small game licenses (Figure 8). Small game license sales have declined 12 percent since
1999 (Figure 8). Estimates generated from annual hunter harvest surveys show sharp
declines in the number of hunters pursuing a variety of small game species since 1983
(Figure 9). There were three times as many cottontail rabbit hunters in 1983 and twice as
many squirrel hunters as now. Mourning dove hunting which began only a decade ago in
Wisconsin has lost half of its initial participants.

11

 R² = 0.91

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

R² = 0.81

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Conservation
ConservationPatron
Patron
Sports
Sportsman
Linear(Sportsman)
(Conservation Patron)
Linear
Linear
(Sports)
Linear (Sportsman)
1998

# of resident licenses sold

100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

Year

160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0

Years
Figure 8. Sales of resident small game hunting licenses, 1999-2014.

12

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

R² = 0.12

1998

# of resident licenses sold
(in thousands)

Figure 7. Sales of resident Sports and Conservation Patron licenses, 1999-2014.

 Figure 9. Estimates of total number of Wisconsin hunters who pursued various small game
species, 1983-2014 (reproduced from Wisconsin DNR 2016).

Sales of stamps associated with game birds in the state have been stable over the past 15
years (Figure 10). Wild turkey hunting in the state experienced exponential growth in
participation during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Turkey stamp sales plateaued in 2009
and have fallen 14 percent since that year. Approximately, 60,000 customers bought
waterfowl stamps in 2015, the highest level in 15 years. Pheasant stamp purchases have
varied by a few thousand over the past 15 years, but are generally flat.

13

 Pheasant
Waterfowl
Turkey
Linear (Pheasant)
Linear (Waterfowl)
Linear (Turkey)

140.0

120.0

R² = 0.23

# sold (in thousands)

100.0

80.0

60.0
R² = 0.29
40.0
R² = 0.73
20.0

Year

Figure 10. Sales of hunting stamps in Wisconsin, 1999-2014.

14

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

0.0

 Factors Influencing Fishing and Hunting Participation
In the most general terms, research has established the following things to be true for
people who choose to participate in hunting and/or fishing. Participants are those who…

,

•

Identify as a “hunter” and/or an “angler” only after a process of multiple
opportunities to try out the activities (Byrne 2016, Frampton and Dunfee 2016, Enck
et al. 2000).

•

Were mentored into the activity by a person or persons who self-identify in that
activity.
o Most often by family (Petchenik 2014, Holsman 2012, Enck et al. 2000, Bissell
et al. 1998).
o Typically before the age of 20 (Petchenik 2014, Norton 2007, Hayslette 2001,
Bissell et al. 1998, Duda et al. 1995).

•

Master skills to be competent enough to be “successful” to reinforce their interest
(Deci and Ryan 2000, Wentz and Seng 2000, Leonard 2007).

•

Have supportive social systems to reinforce participation (Frampton and Dunfee
2016).
o Have family and friends who share interest (Responsive Management/
National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008, Hayslette et al. 2001).
o Grow up in and/or reside in rural areas (Heberlein et al. 2002, Steadman and
Heberlein 2001).

•

Are able to negotiate perceived constraints to continued participation (and may
experience satisfaction from overcoming constraints) (Kuehn et al. 2012, Schroeder
at al. 2012, Weddell et al. 2006, Barro and Manfredo 1996).

•

Perceive the value of experience as equal to/or greater than costs—time, money and
deferred alternatives— of participation; stated another way, the “product” is worth
the “cost” (Petchenik 2014, Holsman 2012).

15

 Causes of Declining Rates of Participation
There are literally dozens of changing social, cultural and landscape factors that may play
some role in undermining participation in hunting, and to a lesser extent fishing, in the
United States (Frampton and Dunfee 2016). In trying to identify the primary causes of the
decline in hunting and fishing, researchers have generally approached the problem in one of
three ways. The most common has been to investigate the perceived constraints to
participation. Within this line of research, both personal and activity related barriers have
been noted. Among personal constraints, “a lack of time”—often specified as work or family
obligations—has been cited as the leading reason for declining effort and license buying
among past participants (Holzinger 2009, Miller and Vaske 2003, Pierce et al. 1996, Aas
1995, Backman and Wright 1993). Age and/or declining health are other leading personal
constraints, especially for hunting (Petchenik 2014, Shrestha and Burns 2010, Miller and
Vaske 2003, Pierce et al. 1996, Aas 1995).
Activity constraints include inherent attributes of the activities themselves that can be
difficult to navigate. Without question, the largest activity constraint for hunting is lack of
access to desirable lands— those perceived to provide opportunities to see game, hunt
safely and hunt with minimal competition (Responsive Management 2010, Montgomery and
Blalock 2010, Shrestha and Burns 2010, Miller and Vaske 2003). While it is true that
Wisconsin has a plethora of federal, state and county lands open to hunting (as well
industrial forests and private land enrolled in the Managed Forest Law), the majority of
acreage is located far from urban centers requiring travel time and cost to access it (Haines
et al. 2005). We have documented, for example, that the vast majority of deer hunting
occurs on private lands (Dhuey and Lohr 2016) and that dissatisfactions with crowding and
hunt quality are important determinants for lapse from license purchasing among gun deer
hunters (Holsman 2012). Land access for hunting continues to decline from loss of habitat
from urban sprawl, conservation of farmland and housing developments; closed access to
private lands; private leasing; and perceived crowding on public lands (Holsman 2012,
Poudyal et al. 2012, Responsive Management 2010, Poudyal et al. 2008b, Wright et al.
2001, Backman and Wright 1993).
In addition to the generic problem of land access, there appears to be an association
between hunting avidity and private land access. Studies have found that hunters without
private land access hunt fewer days (Holsman 2012, Stedman and Heberlein 2008, Pierce et
al. 1996) and are more likely to churn in and out of participation than those with private
land access (Holsman 2012, Miller and Vaske 2003). Leases for access to private land
hunting have not yet become as common in Wisconsin as they are in other regions, but
where present, obviously contribute to another cited barrier which is the cost of
participation (Mehmood et al. 2008, Pierce et al. 1996).
Compared to a generation ago, most huntable private nonindustrial land in Wisconsin is now
either closed to access or spoken for by landowners and their friends and family (Petchenik
2009). Initiatives to encourage private land access in Wisconsin have largely been
unsuccessful on the scale necessary to meet the demand. Surveys of landowners suggest
little opportunity to gain additional private land access for Wisconsin hunters (Petchenik
2009). In the absence of change in the current situation, the amount of private land access
for hunting may serve as a limiting factor for reversing declines in hunting participation.
Ironically, efforts to introduce new hunters in the state may run counter to efforts to retain
existing hunters unless access is increased (Holsman 2012).

16

 Anglers generally do not face access issues in Wisconsin because public access to navigable
waters is held in trust in Wisconsin as the right of all citizens whereas most hunting land in
the state is privately owned. Public waters available for fishing are also fairly well distributed
throughout the state, including close to urban centers, with the possible exception of some
of the Driftless Area counties in the southwest region that have trout streams but few inland
lakes. While physical access to water is generally secure, the perceived desirability of that
access may change in the future if water quality declines (Haines et al. 2005).
Heberlein et al. (2002) modeled hunting participation across two continents and found the
percent of land in forest cover was a significant predictor. It may be that forest cover is
merely a proxy variable for lack of urbanization which may be the real driver of hunting
participation (Poudyal et al. 2008b, Zinn 2003). Not only does urban sprawl reduce hunting
access and habitat, it has larger negative influences on hunting and fishing participation in
ways that are both proximate and cultural. Urban residents incur greater travel time and
expense to access hunting and fishing locations (Poudyal et al. 2012a, Responsive
Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008). It is important to note that
the negative effect of urbanization on hunting and fishing may be as much one of changes
to mindset than barriers imposed by land use (Stedman and Heberlein 2001, Heberlein and
Thomson 1996). Hunting and fishing may simply become less salient leisure choices for
people living detached “from the land” and for whom there are more accessible alternative
entertainment choices than exist in rural areas. Additional studies have suggested that our
post-modern urban society has shifted away from utilitarian values regarding fish and
wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2003)
In summary, research has documented perceived lack of time, lack of access and declining
health as the three most significant constraints to hunting and fishing participation.
Urbanization—both as land use description and a phenomenon of cultural transformation—is
an important contributor to perceived lack of time and lack of access. Other second-tier
constraints that have been reported in the literature include cost (Holsman 2012, Mehmood
et al. 2008, Miller and Vaske 2003), regulations (Holsman 2012, Shrestha and Burns 2010,
Enck et al. 1993) and lack of game (Holsman 2012, Shrestha and Burns 2010, Miller and
Vaske 2003).
The second major line of participation research considers the drivers of consumer demand
for an activity. It differs from the constraints model which assumes that people have an
interest in the activity but are somehow discouraged from participating. The consumer
demand literature places hunting and fishing within the marketplace of available product
alternatives recognizing that many people may not be interested in participating. Often this
analysis focuses on license price as a driver of demand and sales as reflection of demand
(see Beardmore and Harris 2016), but we have found that anglers and hunters generally
view license price as only one of the “costs” of participation and that costs are weighed
against expected benefits to arrive at expected value (Holsman 2012, Petchenik 2012). One
promising new approach called “Tapestries” categorizes lifestyle preferences of people
based on a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of the neighborhoods where they
reside. Proprietary software predicts the likelihood of purchasing hunting and fishing
licenses based on an array of other consumer choices (American Sportfishing Association
2015b, National Shooting Sports Foundation 2015).

17

 A holistic analysis is necessary to consider license price in conjunction with other expected
costs and benefits, and also in comparison to other competing sources of entertainment—a
topic that returns us to the discussion of “lack of time” (Montgomery and Blalock 2010).
While it has often been concluded that people are simply “too busy” to go hunting and
fishing, data suggest people’s free time is actually increasing (Aguiar and Hurst 2007).
Declining participation in hunting and angling is really the result of more people choosing to
do other things with their free time that are perceived to be more enjoyable, allow for more
desirable social identities, are more convenient or all of the above (Byrne 2016, Holsman
2012, Backman and Wright 1993). For example, Pergams and Zardonic (2008) note that per
capita participation in numerous forms of outdoor recreation began to decline in the early
1980s coinciding with the rise of personal electronic media. About the same time, Louv
(2006) coined the phrase “nature-deficit disorder” and noted that children’s free time was
being scheduled more by parents, some of whom were fearful of perils of unsupervised play
outside, including fear of child abduction. Yet, another researcher (Coakley 2006) has noted
that changing social expectations of men as husbands and fathers has resulted in a culture
shift where “free” time is devoted to youth sports, band, dance, or other activities perceived
by society to be more beneficial to childhood success than outdoor hobbies.
It is not just kids who are not spending time outside. According to Forbes magazine
(Oestriecher 2015), 57 million adults will invest considerable time and money playing
Fantasy Football online this fall, nearly twice the number that will fish and four times the
number that will hunt. This example illustrates merely one form of emerging competition
faced by state agencies for time and money.
The third major line of research has focused on the impact of changing demographics on
hunting and fishing participation (Zinn 2003, Floyd and Lee 2002). Hunters have
traditionally been younger, white men originating from rural areas (USFWS 2002, 2007,
2012) (Table 1). For example, 95 percent of our current hunters in the state are Caucasian.
Data from the national survey (USFWS 2012) clearly shows that African-Americans,
Hispanics and Asian-Americans participate in hunting and fishing at much lower rates than
whites do (Table 1). Other demographic segments that hunt and fish at lower rates include
people living in large metropolitan areas, women, people older than 64 and those with more
education (Table 1). Therefore, increases in any of those demographic segments as a
proportion of the population will likely decrease demand for hunting and fishing, unless
outreach can alter historical participation rates within those under participating groups.
According to national survey data from 2011, Wisconsin has fairly similar pattern of
participation to the nation by demographic groups, although sample sizes are too low in
many cases to provide direct comparisons (USFWS 2012). For example, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service estimates that 28 percent of males over the age of 16 hunted in Wisconsin
in 2011, but estimates for women are not available. Other findings in the report show that
Wisconsin’s rural residents are more likely to participate in hunting and fishing than urban
residents (USFWS 2012). Nearly all of Wisconsin’s hunters (99%) and anglers (98%) are
white according to the national data. Estimates for participation by age are not available for
residents under 35 years-old. However, participation rates in hunting decline after age 55
for hunting and increase for fishing after age 65.
Demographic trends indicate that the Wisconsin population is expected to increase in age,
decline in the proportion of whites and decline in the proportion of rural residence in the
next 20 years (Egan-Robertson 2013). All three of these trends will result in lower
participation rates in hunting and fishing, barring some cultural shift in participation among

18

 urbanites or people of non-white ethnicities. There has been a modest increase in hunting
license buying by females, but not enough to offset losses among males (Cordell 2012).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of U.S. anglers and hunters (USFWS 2012).
Demographic segment
Gender

Participation rate (%) with
U.S. population
Anglers
Hunters

% composition within
angling/hunting populations
Anglers
Hunters

males
females

21
7

11
1

73
27

89
11

16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older

22
15
15
16
15
11

10
5
6
7
7
4

11
19
18
22
18
12

12
15
18
23
21
11

Large metro area
Medium metro area
Small metro area
Rural
Race/Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Education level
11 years or less
12 years
1-3 years of college
4 years of college
5 or more years of college

10
15
20
24

3
5
11
18

38
21
29
11

25
17
38
20

10
6
5
16

2
<1
1
7

7
2
5
86

3
<1
1
94

12
13
15
15
14

5
6
6
6
4

11
32
26
19
12

11
36
26
18
9

Age

Residence

As mentioned previously, hunting participation rates vary widely by county in the state. As
an illustration of the impact and interaction of demographics and urbanization on hunting
participation in Wisconsin, the social science team ran an analysis using data from 2013
resident gun-deer licenses that tested the relative influences of select demographic, land
use (e.g., percent of public land, housing density) and deer herd variables (harvest totals
and harvest density) on county deer hunting participation rates. The top three predictors
which explained 79 percent of the overall variance were demographic variables. The
percentage of residents with college degrees was negatively correlated with hunting. Median
age and percentage of Caucasians were both positively correlated with age. All three
variables were significant predictors of hunting license sales. The effect of education may
really be a result of the concentration of employment opportunities in metropolitan counties.
In the analysis, counties with older median ages (e.g., Price, Iron and Forest) had the
highest participation rates, but their median age values were at or near 50, still below the
threshold at which we would expect age-related declines. Counties with more ethnic
diversity (e.g., Dane, Milwaukee and Racine) had much lower participation rates.

19

 The most compelling forecast of hunting license decline is based on a long-term
demographic analysis conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s
Applied Population Lab (Winkler and Warnke 2013). That analysis has correctly predicted
the most recent declines in deer hunting licenses (Huck and Winkler 2008, Winkler and
Warnke 2013). Based on current trends, sales of gun deer licenses are expected to decline
an additional 28 percent by the year 2030 (Winkler and Kaz 2011), as the current cohort of
baby-boomers age out of hunting. Further, Winkler and Kaz (2011) have shown that much
of the current decline is resulting from drop-out among 25-44 year old men which creates
cascading effects on recruitment of their children as well. To illustrate what these data
forecast, Figure 11 is reproduced from their analysis. The lines represent the percentage of
Wisconsin males by age that went gun-deer hunting in each year between 2000 and 2009.
Four significant observations can be made from the graph that portends a future collapse in
license sales: 1) participation rates across almost all age classes declined in each successive
year of the study, 2) age at which participation rates peak increases in each year, a sign of
an aging population structure of deer hunters, 3) deer hunting participation rates fall
precipitously around age 65 so we can expect natural attrition to occur to reduce the
number of hunters, because 4) participation rates among 30-year old males fell by 30
percent in ten years.

Figure 11. Time series analysis of participation rates by age among male gun deer hunters
in Wisconsin, 2000-2009 (reproduced from Winkler and Kaz 2011).

20

 Holsman (2012) conducted focus groups and surveys with lapsed, middle-aged male, gun
hunters as a follow-up to identify drivers of trends discovered by the UW Applied Population
Lab researchers. That investigation found that dissatisfaction with deer numbers, declining
land access, frustration with antlerless harvest and overall cost were the leading influences
on desertion. Most of the hunters in the focus groups did not view themselves as having
permanently quit deer hunting, but were examples of “lapsed” participants—likely to return
when circumstances or perceived opportunities change.

Conclusion
Assuming no changes in fee structures or increasing participation rates within population
segments, revenue from the sale of hunting licenses can be expected to continue to decline
into the future. Fishing license sales are also expected to decline but with a smaller
magnitude than that affecting demand for hunting. Attempts to alter these trends face
multiple and interacting forces, many of which will be difficult to affect. In the short term,
marketing and outreach that reduces churn may be more efficient than trying to generate
new participants in the activities. In the long term, identifying and serving the needs of a
more diverse and urban society in Wisconsin may hold the key to funding fish and wildlife
conservation. Efforts to recruit new participants in hunting and fishing can transmit heritage
values to the next generation, but thus far there is little evidence that such efforts have had
any effect on reversing the observed and predicted trends (Frampton and Dunfee 2016).

Literature Cited
Aas, Ø. 1995. Constraints on sport fishing and effect of management actions to increase
participation rates in fishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
15(3):631-638.
Aguiar, M., and E. Hurst. 2007. Measuring trends in leisure: The allocation of time over five
decades. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122:969-1006.
American Sport Fishing Association. 2015a. U.S. Angler Population: Who Comes and Who
Goes. American Sport Fishing Association: Alexandria, VA.
American Sport Fishing Association. 2015b. Lifestyles of Today’s Angler: Tapestry
Segmentation of Licensed Anglers: Report Four of Six in a Series. Fernandina Beach, FL:
Southwick Associates.
American Sport Fishing Association. 2016. Will Millennials Sustain Fishing? Alexandria, VA:
American Sport Fishing Association.
American Sport Fishing Association, Responsive Management, Oregon Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, and Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2013. Exploring Recent
Increases in Hunting and Fishing Participation. Alexandria, VA: American Sport Fishing
Association.
Backman, S.J., and B.A. Wright. 1993. An exploratory study of the relationship of attitude
and the perception of constraints to hunting. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 11(2):1-16.
Barro, S.C., and M.J. Manfredo. 1996. Constraints, psychological investment, and hunting
participation: Development and testing of a model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
1(3):42-61.

21

 Beardmore, B. and C. Harris. 2016. Effects of Changing License Structures and Increasing
License Fees on Participation and Revenue: A Review of the Literature. PUB-SS-1165.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Bissell, S.J., M.D. Duda, and K.C. Young. 1998. Recent studies on hunting and fishing
participation in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3(1):75-80.
Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, J.W. Enck, W.C. Gartner, and D.W. Lime. 2000.
Trends in hunting participation and implications for management of game
species. Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism (2000):145-154.
Bruskotter, J.T., and D.C. Fulton. 2013. The future of fishing: An introduction to a special
issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 18(5):319-321.
Byrne, B. 2016. Highlights of Angler Recruitment, Retention and Reactivation (R3)
Literature. Prepared for the Aquatic Resources Education Association and Recreational
Boating and Fishing Foundation. Amissville, VA: Bob Byrne Consulting.
Coakley, J., 2006. The good father: Parental expectations and youth sports. Leisure Studies
25(2):153-163.
Cooney, E.E., and R.H. Holsman. 2010. Influences on hunter support for deer herd
reduction as a chronic wasting disease (CWD) management strategy. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 15(3):194-207.
Cordell, K.H. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting
the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Dalrymple, C.J., M.N. Peterson, H.D. Bondell, S.L. Rodriguez, J. Fortney, D.T. Cobb, and
E.O. Sills. 2010. Understanding angler and hunter annual spending in North Carolina.
Proceedings of the annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 64:88-94.
Dann, S.L., and R.B. Peyton. 1996. Facing realities in recruiting, retaining and training
consumptive fish and wildlife users. Transactions of the 61st North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference.
Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11:227-268.
Dhuey, B., and J.R. Lohr. 2016. 2015 Firearm Deer Hunter Questionnaire. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available online
at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/gundeer.pdf.
Duda, M.D., Bissell, S.J., and K.C. Young. 1995. Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing
Participation in the United States. Phase V: Final Report. Grant Agreement 14-48-000992-1252. Harrisburg, VA: Responsive Management and Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.
Enck, J.W., D. J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment and retention
in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):817-824.
Enck, J.W., B.L. Swift, and D.J. Decker. 1993. Reasons for decline in duck hunting: insights
from New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(1):10-21.
Egan-Roberson, D. 2013. Wisconsin’s Future Population Projections for the State, Its
Counties and Municipalities, 2010–2040. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of
Administration Demographic Services Center. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Applied Population Laboratory.
Fedler, A.J., and R.B. Ditton. 2001. Dropping out and dropping in: A study of factors for
changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 21(2):283-292.
Floyd, M.F., and I. Lee. 2002. Who buys fishing and hunting licenses in Texas? Results from
a statewide household survey. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7(2):91-106.

22

 Frampton, J., and M. Dunfee. 2016. National Hunting and Shooting Sports Action Plan:
Strategies for Recruiting, Retaining and Reactivating Hunting and Shooting Sports
Participants. Washington, DC: Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports.
Haines, A, L. Markham, D. Miskowiak, E. Olson, R. Roberts and C.C. Tang. 2005.
Wisconsin’s Land Use Megatrends: Forests. Stevens Point, WI: Center for Land Use
Education, University of Wisconsin-Extension and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Available online at https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/clue/documents/megatrends/
WiscForests-PDFweb-Standard.pdf.
Hayslette, S.E., J.B. Armstrong, and R.E. Mirarchi. 2001. Mourning dove hunting in
Alabama: motivations, satisfactions, and sociocultural influences. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 6(2):81-95.
Heberlein, T.A. 1991. Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife--Preserving the sport
hunter. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:528-534.
Heberlein, T.A., G. Ericsson, and K-U. Wollscheid. 2002. Correlates of hunting participation
in Europe and North America. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 48(1):320-326.
Heberlein, T.A., and R.C. Stedman. 2009. Socially amplified risk: Attitude and behavior
change in response to CWD in Wisconsin deer. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
14(5):326-340.
Heberlein, T.A., and E. Thomson. 1996. Changes in U.S. hunting participation, 1980-1990.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(1):85-86.
Holsman, R.H. 2012. Why Fewer Middle-aged Males Bought Gun-deer Hunting Licenses in
2010 and 2011: A Report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Stevens
Point, WI: College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Holsman, R.H. 2013. Profile Analysis of 2012 Hunting License First Time Buyers. Stevens
Point, WI: College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Holsman, R.H., and M. Dunfee. 2014. Conservation relevance: Aligning funding and the
Public Trust Doctrine. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 79:59-64.
Holsman, R., N. Kaner, and J. Petchenik. 2014a. Public Attitudes towards Wolves and Wolf
Management in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Bureau of Science Services, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. Available online
at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/WolfAttitudeSurveyReportDRA
FT.pdf
Holsman, R., J. Petchenik, and N. Kaner. 2014b. Trends in Outdoor Activity by Conservation
License Holders, 1993-2012. Misc. Publ. PUB–SS-1135. Madison, WI: Bureau of Science
Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available online
at http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS1135.pdf.
Holzinger, J.R. 2009. Factors Associated with Declining Hunting in Indiana. M.S. Thesis.
Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
Huck, J., and R. Winkler. 2008. Deer Hunter Demography: Projecting Future Deer Hunters
in Wisconsin. UW Madison Applied Population Lab, Madison, WI.
Jacobson, C.A., D.J. Decker, and L. Carpenter. 2007. Securing alternative funding for
wildlife management: insights from agency leaders. Journal of Wildlife Management
71(6):2106-2113.
Jacobson, C.A., J.F. Organ, D.J. Decker, G.R. Batcheller, and L. Carpenter. 2010. A
conservation institution for the 21st century: Implications for state wildlife agencies.
Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):203-209.
Kuehn, D., V. Luzadis, and M. Brincka. 2013. An analysis of the factors influencing fishing
participation by resident anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 18(5):322-339.
Leonard, J. 2007. Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1995 to
2005: Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

23

 Loomis, J.B., and W.R. Mangun. 1987. Evaluating tax policy proposals for funding nongame
wildlife programs. Evaluation Review 11(6):715-738.
Louv, R. 2006. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder.
Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Lyon, K.M., and J.J. Vaske. 2010. Predicting hunting participation in response to chronic
wasting disease in four states. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(3):208-220.
Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and A.D. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife
changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:287-306.
Mehmood, S., D. Zhang, and J. Armstrong. 2008. Factors associated with declining hunting
license sales in Alabama. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(2):243-262.
Miller, C., and J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter effort
in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(4):263-276.
Montgomery, R., and M.G. Blalock. 2010. The impact of access, cost, demographics, and
individual constraints, on hunting frequency and future participation. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal 14(2):115.
Murdock, S.H., K. Backman, R.B. Ditton, N. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1992. The implications of
future demographic change for participation in fishing in Texas. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 12:548-558.
National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2015. Lifestyles of Today’s Hunter: Tapestry
Segmentation of Licensed Hunters: Technical Report #4. Fernandina Beach, FL:
Southwick Associates.
National Shooting Sports Foundation and Southwick and Associates. 2010. A Portrait of
Hunters and Hunting License Trends: A National Report. Newtown, CT: National
Shooting Sports Foundation.
Needham, M.D., J.J. Vaske, and M.J. Manfredo. 2004. Hunters’ behavior and acceptance of
management actions related to chronic wasting disease in eight states. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 9(3):211-231.
Norton, R. 2007. The Hunter: Ethics and Development Stages. Helena, MT: Riverbend Press.
Oestriecher, B. 2015. Five tips for first-time Fantasy Football players. Forbes (15 September
2015). Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/blakeoestriecher/2015/09/02/fivetips-for-first-time-fantasy-football-players/#7ea88a6a2446. Accessed 6 May 2016.
Outdoor Foundation. 2013. Participation Report 2013. Washington, DC: The Outdoor
Foundation.
Pergams, O.R.W., and P.A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift
away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105:2295-2300.
Petchenik, J. 2009. Private Landowners in Wisconsin: Friend or Foe to Deer
Management? Unpubl. Rept. Madison, WI: Bureau of Science Services, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
Petchenik, J. 2012. Results of the 2011 Survey of Lapsed Wisconsin Inland Trout Anglers.
Rept. to Bureau of Fisheries Management. Madison, WI: Bureau of Science Services,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available online
at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/trout/ troutdropoutreport.pdf.
Petchenik, J. 2014. Trout Fishing in Wisconsin: Angler Behavior, Program Assessment and
Regulation and Season Preferences. Rept. to Bureau of Fisheries Management. Madison,
WI: Bureau of Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available
online at dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/trout/troutreportjan2014.pdf.
Pierce, C.L., J.K. Ringelman, and M.R. Szymczak. 1996. An investigation of factors affecting
waterfowl hunting participation in Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(3):80-81.
Poudyal, N.C, S.H. Cho, and J.M. Bowker. 2008a. Demand for resident hunting in the
Alabama. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(4):222-233.

24

 Poudyal, N.C., S.H. Cho, and D.G. Hodges. 2008b. Effects of urban sprawl on hunting
participation in the Southeastern United States. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 32(3):134-138.
Poudyal, N.C., J.M. Bowker, G.T. Green, and M.A. Tarrant. 2012. Supply of private acreage
for recreational deer hunting in Georgia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(2):141-154.
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation and the Outdoor Foundation. 2015. 2015
Special Report on Fishing. Alexandria, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.
Responsive Management. 2010. Issues Related to Hunting Access in the United States.
Harrisburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Responsive Management. 2013. Nationwide Survey of Hunters Regarding Participation in
and Motivations for Hunting. Harrisburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Responsive Management. 2008. The Future of Hunting and the Shooting Sports.
Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2008. The Future of
Hunting and the Shooting Sports: Research-Based Recruitment and Retention
Strategies. Grant Agreement CT-M-6-0. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2016. The Millennial
Hunter, Technical Series Report #6. Harrisburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Schroeder, S.A., D.C. Fulton, J.S. Lawrence, and S.D. Cordts. 2012. An application and
extension of the constraints-effects-mitigation model to Minnesota waterfowl hunting.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(3):174-192.
Shrestha, S.K., and R.C. Burns. 2010. Big game hunting practices, meanings, motivations,
and constraints: A survey of Oregon big game hunters. Proceedings of the Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium, GTR-NRS-P-94: 1-8.
Stedman, R.C., P. Bhandari , A.E. Luloff , D.R. Diefenbach, and J.C. Finley. 2008. Deer
hunting on Pennsylvania's public and private lands: A two-tiered system of hunters?
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13( 4):222-233.
Stedman, R.C., and T.A. Heberlein. 2001. Hunting and rural socialization: Contingent effects
of the rural setting on hunting participation. Rural sociology 66(4):599-617.
Twenge, J.M., W.K. Campbell, and E.C. Freeman. 2012. Generational differences in young
adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 102(5):1045.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Weddell, M.S., D.M. Anderson, E.D. Rodgers, and B.A. Wright. 2006. A study of the
relationships and deer hunters participation intensity and constraints. Proceedings of the
2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-14.
Wentz, J., and P. Seng. 2000. Meeting the Challenge to Increase Participation in Hunting
and Shooting. Newtown, CT: National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Williams, S. 2010. Wellspring of wildlife funding: How hunter and angler dollars fuel wildlife
conservation. The Wildlife Professional 4(3):35-38.
Winkler, R., and R. Kaz. 2011. Declining Deer Hunters: Wisconsin’s Gun Deer Hunter
Numbers are Continuing to Decline. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Applied
Population Lab.
Winkler R., and K. Warnke. 2013. The future of hunting: an age-period-cohort analysis of
deer hunter decline. Population and Environment 34(4):460-480.

25

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2016. Small Game Hunter Numbers, 19832014. Madison, WI: Bureau of Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Available online
at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/graphs/smghunt.pdf.
Wright, B.A., E.D. Rodgers, and K.F. Backman. 2001. Assessing the temporal stability of
hunting participation and the structure and intensity of constraints: A panel study.
Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):450-469.
Zinn, H.C. 2003. Hunting and sociodemographic trends: older hunters from Pennsylvania
and Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1004-1014.

26