Research from Responsive Management and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fishing

1. LAPSED HUNTERS’ LICENSE PURCHASING
BEHAVIORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON MESSAGES
ENCOURAGING THEM TO PURCHASE HUNTING
LICENSES
TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS
Conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation by
Responsive 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. LAPSED HUNTERS’ LICENSE PURCHASING
BEHAVIORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON MESSAGES
ENCOURAGING THEM TO PURCHASE HUNTING
LICENSES
TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS
2009
Responsive Management National Office
Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director
Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate
Tom Beppler, Research Associate
Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate
Andrea Criscione, Research Associate
James B. Herrick, Ph.D., Research Associate
Weldon Miller, Research Associate
Joanne Nobile, Research Associate
Amanda Ritchie, Research Associate
Carol L. Schilli, Research Associate
Tim Winegord, Survey Center Manager
Alison Lanier, Business Manager
130 Franklin Street
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892
E-mail: mark@responsivemanagement.com
www.responsivemanagement.com

3. Acknowledgments
Responsive Management would like to thank Coren Jagnow, Carol Heiser, Tom Wilcox, Lee
Walker, and Julia Dixon of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Jodi Valenta
of Mile Creek Communications, LLC; Tammy Sapp; Southwick Associates; and Melissa
Schilling of the National Shooting Sports Foundation for their input, support, and guidance on
this project.

4. 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. 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. 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 respondent’s son (20%), the
respondent’s father (13%), and/or the respondent’s brother (11%).
The majority of lapsed hunters (89%) are not members 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. 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 sportsman’s 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 or moderately 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 cost being 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. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results v
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 of
hunting?)
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?
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%).

9. 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. 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%).
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 Virginia
hunting 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?
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.

11. 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%).
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 time
Environment Relaxing Connect to nature
Economical Tradition The basics
Family Stewardship Preserve
Active Manage Protect
Thrill Outdoor lifestyle Expensive
Heritage Conservation funding Memories
Natural Organic Fun
Quality Investment Excitement
Conservation Roots Escape
Environmentally friendly Peaceful Wildlife management
Inexpensive Get away from it all Healthy
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, somewhat effective, or not
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%)

12. 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 at
getting 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 the
species question earlier in the survey; the message used the term, “Small game,” for hunters who did not hunt any of the big
game species and who indicated hunting for fox, raccoon, small game, and/or waterfowl. All remaining respondents (those
who hunted some other species or who answered “Don’t know” to the species question) were randomized between “Big
game” and “Small game.”

13. 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 not in 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 not in 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 not statistically 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 not within that Tapestry segment—in other words, the Tapestry segment
description is accurately predicting the more common presence of the characteristic;

14. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xi
however, the differences are not statistically significant. For 4 of the 12 questions, the
findings contradict the Tapestry segment description—in other words, those from outside
the segment more often have the characteristic than do those within the Tapestry
segment; again, however, the differences are not statistically significant.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE DATA REGARDING TAPESTRY SEGMENTS
Using the personal lifestyle questions discussed above, the researchers examined how the results
relate to Tapestry Segmentation™, which is a system of analysis developed by Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). This discussion starts with a short overview of Tapestry
Segmentation™.
ESRI’s Tapestry Segmentation™ is a “market segmentation system [that] classifies U.S.
neighborhoods into 65 segments based on their socioeconomic and demographic composition.”
Tapestry Segmentation is based on the entire U.S. population and is used for marketing purposes.
The telephone survey for this project provided data to test the validity of the system as it applies
to lapsed hunters by asking specific questions about various Tapestry characteristics and then
crosstabulating these results by whether the respondent lives in the Tapestry segment associated
with that characteristic.
Responsive Management determined the top 13 Tapestry segments in the sample of lapsed
Virginia hunters. Each of these top 13 segments was then reviewed for a variety of factors.
Income, residential area type, and education level for each segment were noted. In addition,
certain details from each Tapestry description were also noted, and 20 questions were created
pertaining to these details. Respondents were then asked a series of questions to test the validity
of these Tapestry descriptions. Finally, results from the survey questions were compared to the
details predicted by the Tapestry Segmentation™ system.
In general, surveyed income information was relatively close to the Tapestry Segmentation™
prediction. For 7 of the 13 segments, median household income of the respondents was within
$10,000 of the predicted income for their segment. For the remaining 6 segments, the

15. xii Responsive Management
differences between surveyed median income and predicted income ranged from approximately
$10,000 to $22,000.
Regarding education levels, ESRI’s 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 bachelor’s 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 bachelor’s 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
bachelor’s or graduate degree, although an additional 32% had some college experience without
having earned a bachelor’s 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. 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 not statistically 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 = 0.321
19) 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 not a 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 ESRI’s Tapestry Segmentation™ can be a
useful tool in identifying certain demographic and socioeconomic data for a region. In the

17. 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 not match 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, ESRI’s 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
“Don’t know.” The “Don’t 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. 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. 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. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xvii
messages (ranked in a slightly different order) when ratings of very and somewhat effective 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 or somewhat effective 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 or somewhat likely 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,” and
“heritage.” These terms were used frequently in the top nine messages rated as being very or
somewhat effective. 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. 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.”
DON’T 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” theme—ranked quite low in the very
or somewhat effective 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.”
DON’T 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. 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 “DON’T”).
DON’T 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 and friends” 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.
DON’T 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
somewhat effective 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. 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 hunters—this
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 license—hunted 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.
DON’T 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 or somewhat effective 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. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results xxi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................1
Survey Results .................................................................................................................................6
Hunting Behaviors and Purchase of Hunting Licenses ...........................................................6
Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction With Hunting in Virginia, and
Constraints To Hunting Participation..............................................................................23
Motivations for Purchasing a Hunting License .....................................................................32
Reactions To Words, Phrases, and Messages as They Relate To Hunting ...........................41
Demographic and Personal Lifestyle Data ............................................................................48
An Examination of the Data Regarding Tapestry Segments .........................................................73
Overview ...............................................................................................................................73
Methodology..........................................................................................................................73
Demographic and Socioeconomic Results ............................................................................74
Tapestry Details.....................................................................................................................75
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................77
An Examination of Target Markets ...............................................................................................78
A Discussion of the Implications of the Telephone Survey Results
on Communication Strategies ..................................................................................................81
About Responsive Management ....................................................................................................95
List of Tables
Table 1. Tapestry Questions .........................................................................................................76
List of Figures
Figure 1. Nonparametric Analysis Equation...................................................................................4
Figure 2. Sampling Error Equation.................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Hunting on Private Land .................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Years Hunted of Past 5 Years..........................................................................................9
Figure 5. Days Hunting.................................................................................................................10
Figure 6. Increase or Decrease of Hunting Activity .....................................................................11
Figure 7. Hunting Outside Virginia ..............................................................................................12
Figure 8. Other States Hunted.......................................................................................................13
Figure 9. Species Hunted ..............................................................................................................14
Figure 10. Hunting Companions...................................................................................................15
Figure 11. Membership in Hunt Clubs .........................................................................................16
Figure 12. Purchase of Licenses in Past 4 Seasons.......................................................................17
Figure 13. Types of Licenses Purchased.......................................................................................18
Figure 14. Likelihood to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License ...............................................19
Figure 15. Reasons for Hunting ....................................................................................................20
Figure 16. Membership in Conservation or Sportsmen’s Organizations......................................21
Figure 17. Involvement in Hunting Accidents..............................................................................22
Figure 18. Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction With Hunting in Virginia............................................26
Figure 19. Things That Strongly Took Away From Hunting Enjoyment.....................................27
Figure 20. Things That Strongly or Moderately Took Away From Hunting Enjoyment.............28
Figure 21. Things That Did Not Take Away From Hunting Enjoyment......................................29

25. xxii Responsive Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 22. Most Important Reasons for Not Purchasing a 2008-2009 Hunting License..............30
Figure 23. Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License........................31
Figure 24. Things That Would Be Very Likely to Encourage License Purchase.........................35
Figure 25. Things That Would Be Very or Somewhat Likely to Encourage
License Purchase......................................................................................................................36
Figure 26. Things That Would Be Not at All Likely to Encourage License Purchase.................37
Figure 27. Support or Opposition to License Purchase Reminders ..............................................38
Figure 28. Reasons for Opposing Hunting License Purchase Reminders ....................................39
Figure 29. Reasons for Purchasing a 2009-2010 Hunting License...............................................40
Figure 30. Word and Phrase Associations With Hunting .............................................................44
Figure 31. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License Purchase .............45
Figure 32. Messages That Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Encouraging
License Purchase......................................................................................................................46
Figure 33. Messages That Would Be Not at All Effective at Encouraging
License Purchase......................................................................................................................47
Figure 34. Gender of Respondents................................................................................................51
Figure 35. Ethnic Backgrounds of Respondents...........................................................................52
Figure 36. Children in Household.................................................................................................53
Figure 37. Ages of Respondents ...................................................................................................54
Figure 38. Years of Residency in Virginia ...................................................................................55
Figure 39. Levels of Education of Respondents ...........................................................................56
Figure 40. Occupations of Respondents .......................................................................................57
Figure 41. Household Incomes of Respondents ...........................................................................58
Figure 42. Type of Residential Area of Respondents ...................................................................59
Figure 43. Tapestry Behaviors of Respondents ............................................................................60
Figure 44. Ownership of Power Tools..........................................................................................61
Figure 45. Ownership of Riding Lawnmowers.............................................................................62
Figure 46. Ownership of American-Made Vehicles .....................................................................63
Figure 47. Ownership of Motorcycles ..........................................................................................64
Figure 48. Ownership of Treadmills or Stationary Bikes .............................................................65
Figure 49. Work on Home Improvement Projects........................................................................66
Figure 50. Planting of Flower or Vegetable Gardens ...................................................................67
Figure 51. Golf Playing.................................................................................................................68
Figure 52. Purchase of Items Over the Telephone........................................................................69
Figure 53. Eating Out on Weekends or Weekdays .......................................................................70
Figure 54. Ownership of Life Insurance Policies .........................................................................71
Figure 55. Political Views of Respondents...................................................................................72
Figure 56. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License
Purchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................82
Figure 57. Messages That Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Encouraging
License Purchase (Previously Shown).....................................................................................83

26. 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 License
Purchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................84
Figure 59. Things That Would Be Very or Somewhat Likely to Encourage License
Purchase (Previously Shown) ..................................................................................................85
Figure 60. Word and Phrase Associations With Hunting (Previously Shown) ............................86
Figure 61. Messages That Would Be Very Effective at Encouraging License Purchase
Crosstabulated by Not Likely To Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License.............................88
Figure 62. Most Important Reasons for Not Purchasing a 2008-2009 Hunting
License (Previously Shown) ....................................................................................................91
Figure 63. Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting
License (Previously Shown) ....................................................................................................92
Figure 64. Hunting on Private Land Crosstabulated by Likelihood To Purchase
Hunting License .......................................................................................................................93
Figure 65. Things That Strongly Took Away From Hunting
Enjoyment (Previously Shown) ...............................................................................................94

27. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 1
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
sampling and data collection, provide higher quality data, obtain higher response rates, are more

28. 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. 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. 4 Responsive Management
Figure 1. Nonparametric Analysis Equation
( p1 − p2 )
z=
⎡1 1 ⎤
p(1 − p)⎢ + ⎥
⎣ n1 n2 ⎦
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 Π1 (% of Group 1 who had specific
characteristic).
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 Π2 (% of Group 2 who had specific
characteristic).
p = (a + c)/(n1 + n2) = (a + c)/n and is a pooled estimate of the proportion of respondents who had
specific characteristic in the underlying population.
(Equation from Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 2nd Edition 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
⎛ Np (.25) ⎞
⎜ − .25 ⎟ Where: B = maximum sampling error (as decimal)
B=⎜ Ns ⎟(1.96) NP = population size (i.e., total number who could be surveyed)
⎜ Np − 1 ⎟ NS = sample size (i.e., total number of respondents surveyed)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
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 50:50
split (the most conservative calculation because a 50:50 split would give maximum variation).

31. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 5
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 – don’t 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 Virginia’s 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 species
question earlier in the survey; the message used the term, “Small game,” for hunters who did not hunt any of the big game
species and who indicated hunting for fox, raccoon, small game, and/or waterfowl. All remaining respondents (those who hunted
some other species or who answered “Don’t know” to the species question) were randomized between “Big game” and “Small
game.”

32. 6 Responsive Management
SURVEY RESULTS
HUNTING BEHAVIORS AND PURCHASE OF HUNTING LICENSES
The sample consisted of those who had not purchased a hunting license for the 2008-2009
season (respondents who had were 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 respondent’s son (20%), the
respondent’s father (13%), and/or the respondent’s brother (11%) (Figure 10).

33. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 7
The majority of lapsed hunters (89%) are not members 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 with
family 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 sportsman’s 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. 8 Responsive Management
Figure 3. Hunting on Private Land
Q16. Did you hunt on private land in Virginia during
the 2008-2009 season?
Yes 46
No 53
Don't know 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

35. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 9
Figure 4. Years Hunted of Past 5 Years
Q24. How many of the past 5 years have you
hunted in Virginia?
5 years 32
4 years 21
3 years 18
Mean = 3.4
2 years 13 Median = 4
1 year 10
Have not hunted
in Virginia in the 5
past 5 years
Don't know 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

36. 10 Responsive Management
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?
More than 25
14
days
21-25 days 3
Mean = 15.1
16-20 days 8
Median = 10
11-15 days 14
6-10 days 24
1-5 days 32
0 days 1
Don't know 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

37. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 11
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?
Increased 9
Stayed the same 32
Decreased 58
Don't know 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

38. 12 Responsive Management
Figure 7. Hunting Outside Virginia
Q40. Have you hunted outside of Virginia in the
past 5 years?
Yes 17
No 83
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

39. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 13
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; shows
only those states with at least 3%.)
North Carolina 18
West Virginia 18
Maryland 9
Pennsylvania 9
Colorado 7
Multiple Responses Allowed
Texas 7
South Dakota 6
New Mexico 5
Kansas 4
Alabama 4
Idaho 4
Maine 3
New York 3
Wyoming 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=139)

40. 14 Responsive Management
Figure 9. Species Hunted
Q34. Which species have you hunted in Virginia?
Deer 89
Small game /
upland game 41
birds
Turkey 36
Multiple Responses Allowed
Waterfowl 11
Bear 10
Fox 4
Raccoon 3
Elk 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

41. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 15
Figure 10. Hunting Companions
Q38. With whom do you typically hunt?
Friends 38
Nobody / goes
23
alone
Son 20
Father 13
Brother 11
Multiple Responses Allowed
In-law 6
Spouse 4
Uncle 4
Cousins 3
Organized group 3
Grandson 2
Nephew 2
Daughter 2
Grandfather 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

42. 16 Responsive Management
Figure 11. Membership in Hunt Clubs
Q203. Are you currently a member of a hunt club in
Virginia?
Yes 9
No 89
Don't know 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

43. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 17
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?
2004-2005 59
2005-2006 61
Multiple Responses Allowed
2006-2007 64
2007-2008 57
Don't know 18
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

44. 18 Responsive Management
Figure 13. Types of Licenses Purchased
Q23. Which of the following licenses have you
purchased in the past?
Basic Hunting
78
license
Bear, Deer, and
70
Turkey license
Muzzleloading
29
license
Multiple Responses Allowed
Archery license 19
State Waterfowl
11
Stamp
Sportsman's
8
license
Crossbow license 6
Trapping license 1
None of these 2
Don't know 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

45. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 19
Figure 14. Likelihood to Purchase a 2009-2010 Hunting License
Q185. How likely are you to buy a 2009-2010
Virginia hunting license?
Very likely 34
Somewhat likely 29
Not at all likely 24
I have already
bought a 2009- 9
2010 license
Don't know 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

46. 20 Responsive Management
Figure 15. Reasons for Hunting
Q31. Thinking about when you've hunted, what is
your most important reason for hunting?
To be with family
32
and friends
To be close to
32
nature
For the meat 28
For a trophy 5
Don't know 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

47. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 21
Figure 16. Membership in Conservation or Sportsmen’s 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?
Yes 31
No 66
Don't know 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

48. 22 Responsive Management
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?
Yes 6
No 92
Don't know 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)

49. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 23
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 (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 or moderately 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 cost being 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 people’s 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. 24 Responsive Management
requirements) and is also prone to anti-hunting rhetoric. That these problems are in the
bottom tier suggests that they are relatively unimportant.
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 of
hunting?)
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?
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

51. Lapsed Hunter Message Testing: Telephone Survey Results 25
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%).
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
(Figure 23). 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%).

52. 26 Responsive Management
Figure 18. Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction With Hunting in Virginia
Q45. How satisfied or dissatisfied have you been
with your hunting experiences in Virginia in the
past 5 years?
Very satisfied 53
Somewhat
34
satisfied
Neither satisfied
3
nor dissatisfied
Somewhat
5
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied 3
Don't know 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent (n=803)