National Hunting

& Shooting Sports

Action Plan

PHOTO BY STEVEN BRUTGER

Strategies for Recruiting, Retaining and Reactivating

Hunting and Shooting Sports Participants

Strategic Framework
May 2015

Table of Contents
Plan Development Workgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Terms/Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Scope of the challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Why partnership is critical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A targeted approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ultimate outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Short-term outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Plan framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Plan development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.

Draft work plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Expected Results and Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

For More Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix A: Hunter R3 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix B: Stakeholder List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix C: List of Indirect Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix D: Indirect Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix E: Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports Planning Summit for a
National Hunter and Shooter Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation Strategic Plan. . . . . . . 31

Plan Development Workgroup

Tasha Sorensen
Wyoming Game and Fish Department

John Frampton, Co-Chair

Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting
Sports

Robert Holsman
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Matt Dunfee, Co-Chair

Wildlife Management Institute
Keith Warnke
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Jason Kool
South Dakota Department of Fish, Game and
Parks

Mandy Harling
National Wild Turkey Federation

Tovar Cerulli
Author, Media Representative

Michelle Zeug
Archery Trade Association

Mark Horobetz
Ducks Unlimited

Mark Whitney
Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Andy Raedeke
Missouri Department of Conservation
Jon Gassett
Wildlife Management Institute

Steve Hall
International Hunter Education Association
USA

Samantha Pedder
Pennsylvania Game Commission

Melissa Schilling
National Shooting Sports Foundation

Paige Pearson
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting
Sports

Chris Williard
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Ashley Salo
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies /
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting
Sports

Brian Hyder
National Rifle Association
Jeff Rawlinson
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

Key Terms / Definitions

Agency/Agencies: State fish and wildlife management agencies
Conservation organization: Non-governmental organization whose mission is conservation and
which is supportive of hunting and the shooting sports
Shooting sports organizations: Non-governmental organizations whose mission is the training in
and promotion of shooting sports
Industry: Retailers, manufacturers and representative trade associations which support hunting
and the shooting sports and/or which have a vested interest in the excise tax funding model
Participants: Individuals who engage in hunting and/or the shooting sports
Plan or national plan: National Hunting & Shooting Sports Action Plan - Strategies for Recruiting,
Retaining and Reactivating Hunting and Shooting Sports Participants (this document)
PR: Pittman-Robertson - Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937
R3: Recruitment, retention, and reactivation of hunters and shooting sports participants
Stakeholders: Agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, and industry

Introduction
Scope of the challenge

articipation in hunting and, until recently, the shooting sports has been steadily declining since
the 1980s.1 These activities sustain a multi-billion dollar industry and provide primary financial
support for wildlife conservation in the U.S. The decline among participants poses an everincreasing threat to wildlife conservation. Early in the 20th century, conservation leaders, as well
as sportsmen and -women, recognized the critical need for a significant and sustainable source of
funding for wildlife management. As a result, the revenue generated through license and sporting
arms equipment purchases has provided the foundation for the most successful model of wildlife
conservation in the world.

According to recent estimates, there are approximately 13.7 million hunters and 20.2 million shooting
sports participants in the U.S.2 Their combined activities support 1.5 million jobs and have produced
nearly 110 billion dollars of economic output. In recognition of the importance of sportsmen and
-women to wildlife management and conservation, state fish and wildlife agencies, conservation and
shooting sports organizations, and the hunting/shooting sports industry have invested heavily in recruitment, retention, and reactivation initiatives to reverse the decline in participation. Unfortunately,
the success of these efforts has been limited and the general consensus among the stakeholders is that
a more strategic approach to sustaining the population of hunting and shooting sports participants is
critically needed.
Research directed by the Wildlife Management Institute in 2009 documented more than 400 recruitment, retention and reactivation programs being conducted in the U.S. by agencies and conservation
organizations alone (not including myriad other programs administrated by industry and trade organizations). Despite this enormous national effort and the investment of more than 30 million dollars
annually, coordination and evaluation of these programs has been minimal and their effectiveness is
generally unmeasured and unknown.3
In recent years, recruitment, retention and reactivation experts and researchers have begun to identify
the complexity of the challenge facing stakeholders working to stabilize and increase the population
of hunting and shooting sports participants in the U.S. There is a growing recognition that recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts must expand beyond simply providing hands-on learning opportunities. Increasing the number of participants from new and existing target audiences will require
multi-pronged marketing and outreach efforts. In addition, increasing participants from new groups
1 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Program
2 Hunting in America 2011 Report National Shooting Sports Foundation, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Rob
Southwick Associates
3 Hunting Heritage Action Plan Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report, Wildlife Management Institute,
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, DJ Case and Associates

will require business practices that provide customer-centric resources such as easy-to-access and
easy-to-understand information, straightforward rules and regulations, convenient licensing structures
and sales processes, and more (and easier) access to places to hunt and shoot.
Until very recently, most recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts focused heavily on programs
that provide novices with introductory opportunities that, at best, increase awareness of hunting and
shooting sports. Most introductory programs, however, do very little to provide the multiple-contact
opportunities and experiences required to move individuals from interested observers to active participants. Moreover, recruitment, retention and reactivation programs are largely conducted with minimal
collaboration among agencies, conservation organizations, and industry partners, and are thus duplicative in their efforts. Unrecognized potential exists for partnerships within the conservation community to align the programs, efforts, and financial resources necessary to establish natural recruitment
pathways, presenting new participants with an array of experiences and contact points over time that
provide mentorship into hunting and the shooting sports.
Partnerships among stakeholders, in conjunction with a framework to identify strategies and effectiveness measures, are key to stabilizing and increasing the hunting and shooting sports constituency.
Coordination of efforts under a plan agreed-upon by stakeholders can help clarify where recruitment,
retention and reactivation initiatives are needed and what resources are required to support those efforts. Additionally, a national plan will provide guidance and structure for partnerships that can effectively meet the needs of new audiences who will ultimately inherit the nations hunting and shooting
sports heritage. Finally, a coordinated national strategy can provide direction on how the conservation
community will prepare for the future.
Why partnership is critical

s of 2013, participants have paid more than eight billion dollars in excise taxes through the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act since its passage in 1937. The excise tax funding
model resulted in essential partnerships for conservation among the federal government, state
agencies, industries, and participants. These partnerships represent the most successful conservation
effort in the nations history.4

It is difficult for a single organization to offer introductory recruitment, retention and reactivation
events and also maintain long-term participant engagement. However, each stakeholder is capable
of providing unique opportunities to engage participants along the recruitment pathway. By working
together, agencies, conservation organizations, and industry can combine expertise and resources to
connect potential participants to multiple opportunities and move them through the necessary stages
needed to become lifelong hunters or shooting sports enthusiasts.
Hunting and shooting sports recruitment, retention and reactivation involves a complex range of
sociological, cultural, political, fiscal, and technical challenges. Only a broad coalition guided by a
4 2012 Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program US Fish & Wildlife Service

coordinated national strategy involving all stakeholders will have the combined resources, expertise, core capabilities, and scope of influence necessary to develop and implement a plan capable of
addressing these complex challenges.
A targeted approach

onservation organizations, agencies, and industry possess a vested interest and the technical expertise to strategically align new and existing recruitment, retention and reactivation initiatives.
Individual events, programs or efforts that are not coordinated with the multi-step recruitment,
retention and reactivation pathway will likely have limited success. With a targeted, outcomes-based
approach centered on collaboration and partnership, the stakeholder community will reduce redundant
or ineffective recruitment, retention and reactivation initiatives and more efficiently focus key resources on expanding the number and diversity of hunting and shooting sports participants.

Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
1. To increase participation in hunting and the shooting sports
2. To increase support for hunting and the shooting sports
These broad outcomes represent the primary desired results for any local, state, or national initiative
designed to recruit, retain, or reactivate hunting and shooting sports participants. Although simply
stated, these outcomes are at best challenging to measure. Unfortunately, recruitment, retention
and reactivation stakeholders currently have very little data available to determine the past effects
and results of their programs, efforts, and marketing. This is largely due to an absence of evaluation
systems designed to document outcomes rather than outputs. Only recently have state fish and wildlife agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, and hunting/shooting sports industries
begun to examine their recruitment, retention, and reactivation programs in ways that can document
their effectiveness (for example, the number of new hunting or shooting sports participants resulting
from their efforts).
In order to document how successfully the ultimate outcomes are achieved, this plan identifies several
short-term outcomes to create a structured and standard measure that can be used to gauge the success
of recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts at local, state, and national levels.
Short-term Outcomes
1. Conduct a gap analysis of current and past recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts
to determine a) what efforts have been successful toward the ultimate outcome of efficiently
producing active participants, b) what threats to the population of hunting and shooting sports
participants are being addressed at a sufficient level by local and national efforts, and c)
which threats to the population of hunting and shooting sports participants have been ignored
or not sufficiently addressed by local and national efforts.
In the past five years, a surge of literature reviews, original research, national surveys, pilot programs,
and technical working groups have produced a growing body of data and information that can frame
a gap analysis of recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts. The National Hunting and Shooting
Sports Action Plan development workgroup has already spent significant effort developing a framework for cataloging and counteracting threats to participation.
2. Identify and define targeted and efficient pathways to address threats negatively affecting the
recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunting and shooting sports participants.
Research, survey results, and pilot programs have revealed that the process of becoming a hunter or
shooting sports participant incorporates a multiple-stage recruitment pathway that requires an element of mentoring and/or supportive influence to move an individual from one stage to the next. Not
8

surprisingly, the diversity of recruitment pathways ultimately leading to creation of a lifelong hunting or shooting sports participant are as varied as the individuals who can potentially travel through
them. The simple recognition that participants are not effectively created in single-contact programs
or interactions is critical to the successful implementation of this plan and any recruitment, retention
or reactivation effort.
Similarly, efforts designed to counteract a specific threat to participation will likely be limited in their
success if they do not incorporate a multiple-step approach that targets all of the factors contributing
to that threat.
3. Develop coordinated strategies to help direct implementation of local and national recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts by identifying and prioritizing the various resources
and expertise of stakeholder groups (agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, and industry) based on to the results of the gap analysis.
Although numerous national initiatives have been developed to address the threats to recruitment,
retention and reactivation, none have succeeded in strategically aligning the various talents, resources
(staff and financial), and expertise of agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, and industry to the challenges that they are best suited to address. Moreover, stakeholders wishing to invest
their resources into recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts have little guidance for determining
how to do so and evaluating their return on investment(s).
The coordinated strategies developed through this national plan will not only provide guidance for
recruitment, retention and reactivation investments, but they will also incorporate efficiency measures
that will assist in evaluating the positive effects of those investments and how to improve results over
time.
4. Identify opportunities for agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, and industry to form strategic partnerships that are critical to addressing specific threats to hunting
and shooting sports recruitment, retention and reactivation.
Given the complexity and scope of issues facing recruitment, retention and reactivation, it is unreasonable to assume that any one stakeholder group can fully address the various factors contributing to
the decline in hunting and shooting sports participants. The threats to recruitment, retention and reactivation will be best addressed by leveraging the very different, yet complementary, talents, resources
and expertise of multiple organizations through strategic partnerships formed to target specific threats.

Plan Framework

n early 2012, a team comprised of representatives from state fish and wildlife agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, the shooting sports industry, and conservation planning firms
drafted a conceptual model of all previously identified threats negatively affecting the population
of hunters in the United States (Appendix A). Although the model was imperfect and likely omitted
several important factors contributing to the decline in hunting participation, it provided an initial
framework allowing the team to 1) identify the general scope of challenges facing the future of hunting and 2) create a map whereby recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts could be aligned with
the specific threat they were intended to counteract.
The insights revealed during creation of the model were both surprising in their simplicity and daunting in their scope. After numerous revisions to the conceptual model, it became clear that there were
only four overarching direct threats to the hunting and shooting sports populations (Figure 1). However, it also became readily apparent that numerous contributing factors were ultimately responsible for
creating each direct threat. Equally sobering was the recognition that the 400-plus recruitment, retention and reactivation programs conducted across the nation at that time were focused on only a small
number of these factors, leaving large gaps in the national effort5.

Figure 1. The direct threats to the population of hunters and shooting sports participants in the United States.

Lack of
awareness

Lack of
motivation

Lack of
skills

Lack of
access

These realizations, along with research conducted by other groups, was the impetus for (and topic of)
the 2014 Planning Summit for a National Hunter and Shooter Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation Strategic Plan (Appendix E). This one-day think tank created significant momentum for the formation of a national strategic plan that would 1) address the threats facing not just the population of
hunters, but also of shooting sports participants; 2) align the resources, expertise, and influence of the
three primary stakeholders in hunting and shooting sports recruitment, retention and reactivation: a.
state and federal agencies, b. conservation and shooting sports organizations, and c. hunting or shooting sports industries; 3) provide a road map of all known challenges to hunting and shooting sports
populations and identify the strategies and investments (such as funding, expertise and influence)
needed to address those challenges; and 4) establish effectiveness measures for recruitment, retention
and reactivation efforts that could be used to track and document return on investment.
As a result of the summit, the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports and the Wildlife
Management Institute formed a partnership. These organizations established a plan development
workgroup of experts representing state agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations,
5 H
 unting Heritage Action Plan Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report , Wildlife Management Institute, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, DJ Case and Associates

10

industry, human dimension research, and popular media. The workgroup met from early to mid 2014
to outline a framework for a comprehensive and implementable national plan.
Given the diversity and abundance of organizations that have an interest in the viability of hunting
and shooting sports in the United States (Appendix B), the development workgroup recognized that
among stakeholders an equally diverse assortment of missions, visions and motivations were leveraged to address a limited set of threats to hunting or shooting sports populations. Thus, it would be
ineffective to produce a national plan that focused only on threats that all potential stakeholders could
agree to address. Such a plan would omit a significant portion of recruitment, retention and reactivation challenges in need of resources, and would likely marginalize the expertise and resources of
many stakeholder organizations.
The workgroup chose the innovative approach of building upon the previously developed conceptual
model (Appendix A). By organizing indirect threats to hunting and shooting sports under the direct
threats they produced (Figure 2), the workgroup designed a system to categorize current and future
threats. The framework aligns specific strategies, research, resources, expertise, and best practices to
each indirect threat. The completed framework will equip stakeholders with outcomes-based toolkits
to allow them to target any direct or indirect threat. The toolkits will provide background knowledge,
resources, and a list of potential partners that could be leveraged to comprehensively counteract the
selected threat. This framework will provide all stakeholders with a common foundation to pool resources, focus investments, and evaluate effectiveness.
Figure 2. An example of contributing indirect threats organized under the direct threats they create. Note that this is only a
small sample of currently identified direct threats.

Lack of
awareness

Lack of
motivation

Lack of
skills

Lack of
access

Lack of resources/
programs for nontraditional audiences

Lack of individual
process connectivity

Lack of self-learning
tools

Lack of hunting and

shooting training
facilities

Lack of social
acceptance

Lack of cultural
relevance and
motivations

Lack of mentors who

know how to train

Lack of convenient
places to shoot

In order to begin building the structure for the toolkits, the development workgroup identified five
components that need to be addressed for each indirect threat:
1. The key elements (social, cultural, economic, and other factors) that have created the indirect threat.
11

2. The existing strategies that address elements of the indirect threat and note their current effectiveness.
3. The new strategies to address the threat.
4. The desired outcomes or performance measures for the strategies in item 3.
5. For items listed in 2 and 3, identify potential/optimal roles for the following organizations
based upon their core capabilities and scope of influence:
Agencies
Conservation and shooting sports organizations
Industry
Other
Using the information revealed following the completion of the above components, the workgroup
produced outlines of the toolkits that will serve as the as the basis for all resources that will be part of
future development and implementation of the plan. Each toolkit will contain:
Academic research and survey data that provide insight and information regarding the factors
related to the threat.
Programs, efforts, or strategies (along with any guidance documents) that have been implemented to mitigate the threat.
Existing best practices documents about implementing efforts to address the threat.
Existing evaluation templates, surveys, or effectiveness measures for evaluating efforts to address the threat.
A prioritized list of resources for addressing the threat.
Recommended stakeholder roles and responsibilities to suggest where effective partnerships
might be forged to maximize efforts to counteract the threat.
In early fall 2014, the development workgroup identified 26 indirect threats contributing to the four
direct threats to hunting and shooting sports participation (Appendix C). See Appendix D for sample
toolkit outlines for seven threats.
The inventory of threats, like the conceptual model, will change over time. The framework and toolkits will be designed to be living documents that can be revised as new information is discovered and
the plan is successfully implementation and advanced.

12

Plan Development

ith its strong partnership of state fish and wildlife agencies, federal natural resource agencies, archery and firearms trade organizations, industries, and conservation organizations,
the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports is optimally poised to facilitate the
development and implementation of a national plan leveraging the talents and resources of organizations vested in the future of Americas hunting and shooting heritage.
With two years of funding secured through the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, which is
cooperatively administered by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports and Wildlife Management Institute are forging a national initiative incorporating an innovative strategy, best practices,
and evaluation framework for recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts. The initiative is based
on efforts that have been developed and tested by the Wildlife Management Institute and many other
organizations, agencies, and academic institutions. This plan will result in a framework to leverage
and facilitate efforts, programs, activities, and funding based upon a comprehensive matrix of targeted
threats to hunting and shooting participation in the United States.
The extensive partnerships formed during the development and implementation of the plan and framework will result in enhanced cooperation among state and federal agencies, conservation and shooting sports organizations, industry, and trade organizations vested in the nations hunting and shooting
heritage.

Draft Work Plan

Phase 1. Strategic Initiative Development January to August 2015
Objective 1: Develop a strategic action plan that will incorporate a variety of toolkits designed to
align the necessary programs, efforts, and funding with specific threats (documented by research
and program managers experience) negatively affecting the population of hunters and shooters in
the U.S.
I. The project will use an existing development workgroup (15-20 individuals plus a chair), and
a plan advisory workgroup (25-35 individuals), composed of recruitment, retention and reactivation specialists/experts from state and federal agencies, archery and firearms trade organizations, conservation/sporting organizations, media outlets, and education/research institutions to
develop a framework for strategies by using research, previous program results, and program
managers experience to develop a comprehensive conceptual model of all threats (direct and
indirect) to the population of hunting and shooting sports participants in the U.S.
II. For each identified threat, the development workgroup will produce an outcomes-based guide
outlining: 1) the social, cultural, economic, and other factors that have created the threat 2) existing strategies, if any, to address the threat, and any data indicating their effectiveness 3) new
13

strategies necessary to address the threat, 4) the desired outcomes and performance measures
for the strategies, and 5) the organizations and/or agencies with the resources, expertise, core
capabilities, and scope of influence to best implement the existing and necessary strategies
identified in elements 2 and 3.
Phase 2. Pilot Testing - September 2015 through March 2016
Objective 2: Develop and test an implementable framework for evaluating new and existing recruitment, retention and reactivation strategies by piloting a selection of programs or efforts that address specific threats identified through the completion of the previous objective.
I. Using the partnership opportunities presented by the external advisory board and the members
of the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, the development workgroup will
select programs, efforts, or strategies and assist program managers in incorporating the best
practices, partnerships, and evaluation recommendations developed in phase one (also incorporating Wildlife Management Institute evaluation toolkits). The results of these pilots will begin
to inform program administrators and future funding organizations of the efforts and techniques most likely to produce measureable results.
Phase 3. Implementation and Roll-out April to December 2016
Objective 3: Compile and synthesize the results of the previous two objectives into a living document (available electronically and in hard copy), and conduct a series of regional workshops on
the application of outcomes-based guides to recruitment, retention and reactivation program and
activity implementation.
I. The development workgroup will compile the results of the action plan and pilot testing into a
master guidance document and make it available in electronic and hard copy. The development
workgroup will continually update the document to incorporate emerging information, data,
and strategies.
II. The Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports will work with action-plan partners
to conduct workshops at regional Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies meetings, industry forums, and other venues to inform and encourage active involvement with implementation of recruitment, retention and reactivation programs and activities. Workshops will target
participants from industry, conservation organizations, and state/federal agencies.

14

Expected Results and Benefits

1. New and existing recruitment, retention and reactivation strategies will be aligned with the specific threats they are intended to counteract. Program managers and stakeholders will identify the
expected outcomes that the strategy should produce, as well as provide mechanisms to measure its
effectiveness and make adjustments to improve program outcomes.
2. New target groups of potential hunters and shooters will be identified by documenting the threats
to recruitment, retention and reactivation that have not previously been addressed or engaged by
stakeholders. The identification of new target groups will be accompanied by experimental strategies to address the needs of each group and track program participants to determine whether they
become hunting and shooting sports participants. The development workgroup will design mechanisms to test the effectiveness of the experimental strategies to recruit new hunters and shooters.
3. The development workgroup will recommend ways to improve coordination and facilitation of
efforts and partnerships between agencies, industry, and conservation/sporting organizations to
leverage resources, reduce redundant programs or activities, and provide guidance for investing in
recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts. Improved coordination and facilitation will foster
programs and efforts that are proven to be effective by research, data, and program managers experience.
4. Partnerships between stakeholder groups will be strengthened by bolstering existing and forging
new opportunities to coordinate information-sharing, resources, and funding.
All stakeholder organizations and agencies with a vested interest in sustaining the population of
hunters and shooters will have a master guidance document that will allow them to target the specific
threat they wish to address, or invest efforts in counteracting, as well as a framework to evaluate the
effectiveness of their efforts and improve them over time. The guidance document will include adaptive management feedback loops that can be applied to changing environmental, societal, and demographic trends. The development workgroup will continually update the document as recruitment,
retention and reactivation strategies are discovered to be effective (or not) and new strategies are
documented and trial programs evaluated. Over time, regional differences in program or effort effectiveness and response to threats may also be included. Users can expect the master guidance document to be adapted and remain continuously relevant for recruitment, retention and reactivation well
into the future.

15

For More Information

For further information, please contact plan development workgroup co-chairs:
Matt Dunfee
Wildlife Management Institute
mdunfee@wildlifemgt.org
John Frampton
President and CEO
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports
jframpton@fishwildlife.org

16

17

Appendix A

Appendix B Stakeholder List

Agency
AFWA R3 Committees Directors
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Corps of Engineers
State Departments of Education
Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation
Council
State Forest Agencies
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Retail
Council and trade organizations
Retail experts
Conservation NGOs
Ducks Unlimited
Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever
Boone and Crockett Club
Congressional Sportsmans Foundation
National Wild Turkey Federation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Quality Deer Management Association
Mule Deer Foundation
International Hunter Education Association USA
Isaac Walton League
Whitetails Unlimited
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Safari Club International
Dallas Safari Club
Pope and Young
Ruffed Grouse Society
National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association

Manufacturing
Hunter Education Providers
-Kalkomey
-Outdoor Roadmap
- Fresh Air Educators
Shooting NGOs
National Rifle Association
Archery Trade Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
USA Shooting
USA Archery
National Field Archery Association
National Archery in the Schools Program
National Sporting Clays Association
National Skeet Shooting Association
U.S. Collegiate Archery
Collegiate shooting programs
Youth Organizations
Boy Scouts of America
Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation
Youth Shooting Sports Alliance
Parks & Recreation
Local Municipalities
National Recreation and Park Association
Academia
Natural Resource Human Dimension experts

18

Appendix C
List of Indirect Threats
Plan Development Workgroup Draft 9/24/14
Lack of Skills
Lack of mentors who know how to train
Lack of Self Learning tools
Lack of Awareness
Lack of social acceptance
Current media representation of hunting
Lack of cultural awareness of hunting and shooting to nontraditional demographics
Lack of awareness of where to find information about shooting and hunting
Lack of social acceptance from administrative, regulatory, and education entities
Lack of inter & intra coordination of R3 efforts
Lack of resources or programs for non-traditional audiences
Lack of Motivation
Lack of cultural relevance & motivations
Lack of potential participant time and opportunity
Lack of motivated mentor trainers
Lack of individual process connectivity
Lack of participant next steps
Lack of socially acceptable places to shoot (firearms and archery)
Cumbersome hunting regulations
Cost is an entry barrier
Lack of Access
Lack of proper land management on public lands
Lack of convenient places to shoot
Lack of convenient places to hunt
Lack of shooting and hunting training facilities
Lack of access to the resource (gear, guns, bows, etc.)
Lack of access to the resource (game)
High demand for hunter and shooter education
High cost of leasing & use fees
Inability to obtain permits or tags due to limited availability

19

Appendix D
Indirect Threat:
Lack of Cultural Awareness of Hunting/Shooting Sports amongst Non-Traditional
Demographics
Key Elements:
The lack of stakeholder resources needed to reach these groups, the lack of understanding
of these groups, and the lack of infrastructure to reach these groups.
Preaching to the choir is easier than trying to educate new participants or to try to
educate people who are against hunting and the shooting sports.
Administrative push for numbers and institutional inertia are constant threats.
Demographics are constantly changing and what once was the minority is now becoming
majority.
There is a constant movement amongst stakeholders as they and their companies are
constantly changing to abide by new legislation, political bias and trends.
While there are many programs taught in public schools, there is still a lack of knowledge
on conservation. Educators are not familiar enough to teach hunting and the shooting
sports or conservation related topics.
Family roles have changed in recent years (millennials) which has hurt the sports. Both
parents working full time and/or finances have placed a key role.
Due to a number of issues like lack of social support, economics, knowledge, family
history, and urbanization of land have caused access and the overall want and ability to
hunt and shoot difficult for certain demographics.
Hunting and shooting is hard for these demographics to get into and stay involved (lack
of social support, economics, knowledge, family history).
Bias is an issue as well as the impression that recruiting new hunter/shooters is creating
competition which may be causing complacency amongst current hunter/shooter groups.
Desired Outcomes
The need for a greater participation and a feeling of comfort by these non-traditionals.
To be able to grasp the changing needs of these non-traditionals.
The need for pathways that engage non-traditional hunters and shooters and the diverse
demographic we are trying to reach.
To create a positive public view of hunting that more accurately reflects our current
society.
To engage non-traditionals in hunting and the shooting sports and to make them feel
comfortable enough to actively hunt and shoot.
Existing Strategies
Stakeholders are beginning to work more with organizations serving these non-traditional
demographics with efforts to recruit minority professionals. Web sites that cater to these
demographics.

20

NGOs, agencies and industry websites are now catering to these non-traditionals through
local and national marketing efforts. Luckily, growing market share has demanded more
support for this demographic with thanks from stakeholder outreach programs such as
Becoming an Outdoors Woman (BOW) and family camps.

New Strategies
We need programs that reach returning service men and women as they are skilled in
shooting and could be advantageous in helping educate future participants.
The targeting of families in these efforts along with family institutions such as churches,
etc. would be helpful in gaining the needed participants. If we are able to target these
family institutions without fail, the parents could become excellent mentors to not only
their kids, but to the kids who dont have mentors. Expanding the current programs to
target these non-traditional groups through their own organizations would be something
to consider as well as more media support for a measurable outcome.
Most states need tracking to ensure these programs are beneficial.
Some states are also trying new campaigns for minorities and women. Although these
arent widely known campaigns, they are suitable outreach efforts. One strategy to
increase participation within these demographics would be to expand efforts through
universities, colleges, food networks, etc. We need to think of ways to attract this new
audience which means new media outlets which would, in turn, improve the targeted
outreach.
These new campaigns should also come with new-age campaign materials such as new
range signs, wildlife area rules, fishing signs, foursquare check-ins, etc. specified to
target key these demographics.
As we try to target these new demographics, research is key amongst cultural groups to
determine what is needed and missing within the education of hunting and the shooting
sports.
Pathways to these sports need to include the needs of these demographics targeted. It is a
constant struggle to get the current participants (middle-aged Caucasian men) to
understand the value and need for support in these efforts.
There is a definite need for greater education about North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation and what we are trying/needing to accomplish.
Organizational Roles
State Agencies:
o Leadership role in filtering communication through desired channels; leadership in
desired and needed research.
o A possible partnership with CAHSS and NGOs for new focus groups, needed
research, marketing efforts, and to help with the education to target these nontraditionals and their families.
Industry
o Funding support for above steps; Lead research to monitor and study demographics.

21

Indirect Threat:
Lack of Individual Process Connectivity
Key Elements:
Lack of awareness of access opportunities, how to purchase licenses, and how to find
pertinent information for nontraditionals.
The lack of coordination and perceived competition amongst stakeholders.
Lack of knowledge of next steps amongst stakeholders.
Lack of evaluation on existing programs.
Lack of programs targeting females or the whole family.
Lack of programs producing outcomes vs output statistics (numbers vs success).
Lack of long term goals to R3 programs.
Lack of knowledgeable volunteers to educate non-traditionals.
Lack of volunteer recognition.
Desired Outcomes
Lifelong hunters and shooters.
Perceived gaps in recruitment pathways will be filled.
Coordinated goals and efforts among stakeholders conducting R3 programs and enhanced
communication amongst stakeholders.
Prioritization and reinvigorated focus on the recruitment pathway.
More agencies evaluating programs and their R3 efforts.
Future participants will have a complete recruitment pathway with easy access and
engagement from organizations on all levels of the pathway.
Existing Strategies
Stakeholders attend conferences, meeting, and summits to engage with the community on
new strategies to reach nontraditionals.
Program evaluations being to be pushed on a national level.
Continued research on connectivity to participants.
State and NGO partnerships exist for staffing, budgeting, etc. to work on the recruitment
pathway.
New Strategies
Improve the recruitment pathway for developing hunters and shooters.
Conduct research to identify programs which are effective.
Increased sharing of knowledge and effective programs.
State summit meetings amongst stakeholders annually.
More evaluations and action on new found knowledge.
Identify gaps in recruitment pathways.
Better coordination or cooperation amongst all stakeholders.
Stakeholders have clear understanding of their capabilities, roles and direction to support
the overall effort in a coordinated manner.

22

Partnerships that meet the needs of stakeholders along with those of non-traditional
partners including youth organizations, family institutions, local parks and recreational
organizations, etc.
Need to make it easier for customers to find the support they need and enter the
recruitment pathway for R3 at all levels.

Organizational Roles
Agency
o Funding.
o Leadership and coordination and directing conversation.
o Knowledge of big picture.
o Big picture focus.
o Clearinghouse for public info.
o Lead evaluation.
o Definition of needs/pathways.
o Marketing support for local efforts.

NGOs
o Funding.
o Volunteer support to implement strategies.
o Niche focus with incredible detail and strength.
o Evaluate and provide feedback.
o Willing to change as needed to support overall picture.
o Content experts.
o Provide facilities and supplies, materials.
o Marketing support for local and national efforts.

Industry
o Funding.
o Supplies for programs/discounts.
o Industry could help develop purchasing programs for stakeholders to purchase needed
supplies at discounted pricing.
o Marketing support for local and national efforts.
o Program delivery support (facilities, volunteers, staffing).

Indirect Threat:
Lack of Mentors, Coaches, Instructors along the Recruitment Pathway
Key Elements
Lack of time and the associated costs with serving as mentor, coach, and/or instructor,
has limited the availability and quality of mentors in the hunting and shooting sports.
Lack of awareness among the community and potential mentors of the need for the
support and mentorship.
Lack of diversity among potential mentors (i.e. women and minorities), which
contributed to the look like me factor.

23

Lack of traditional family model (i.e. father passing to son) and the continual shift of
rural to urban communities in the U.S have played a contributing factor to the lack of
mentorships and mentorship opportunities.
Lack of (or limited) effective mentor recruitment programs.

Desired Outcomes
An increase in the number of trained and qualified mentors, coaches, and/or instructors
through the implementation of key stakeholder partnerships and targeted strategies.
Meeting the needs of present and future mentees through quality and qualitative time
spent by mentors, coaches, and instructors.
A quantitative and thorough review of current and new research applied to the declining
numbers in mentors, coaches, and instructors for a comprehensive understanding of the
trend.
Existing Strategies
Hunter Education programs produce mentors.
NRA Instructors.
Existing state hunter mentorship programs (Ex: South Carolina: Take One Make One;
Texas: Youth Hunting Programs).
Partnerships with outside programs such as Big Brothers/Sisters, Boy Scouts, etc.
NASP, USA Archery, Bowhunter Ed.
Heritage Partnership Program Model.
Outdoor Education in schools.
New Strategies
Transitioning existing volunteers to mentors.
Re-enforce and improve on linking mentors with potential mentees.
Better understand motivations of current and potential mentors.
Organizational Roles
State Agencies:
o Can provide training to mentors and link them to mentees.
o State agencies serve as a clearinghouse for mentorship programs.
o Provide insurance and risk management.

Conservation NGOs:
o Provide access to volunteer communities.
o Greater access to shooting instructors and coaches.
o Expanded resources for media, communications, and marketing.

Industry:
o Provide access to retail facilities, paid staffs, and instructors.
o Potential funding source.
o Access to skilled marketing and social media.

24

Other(s):
o Schools access to teachers and curriculum.
o Faith based organizations with mentor/mentee relationships already established.
o Organized sporting community such as soccer, football, baseball, etc.

Indirect Threat:
Lack of self-learning tools
Key Elements
Lack of technological improvements among the hunting and shooting sports community
members (i.e. not embracing the improvements in technology to reach diverse audience
members).
Lack of recognized benefits of self-learning among the hunting and shooting sports
community.
Lack of recognition among the hunting and shooting sports community of the publics
rapidly changing attitude of the benefit of self-learning for convenience (i.e. time saver,
enhanced technology, etc.).
Lack of easy and clear internet or web-based resources for potential new hunters and
shooters creating an unintentional block to the R3 process.
Desired Outcomes
Efficient and clear available resources for new participants will provide a pathway for
participants to better understand the following basic info: a) what do I need? b) How do
I do it? c) Where do I do it?
An improved online presence will lead to an increased number of online and social media
participants, ultimately increasing the number of hunting and shooting sports participants.
Providing access to online tools for participants will also provide access to participant
email and other online contact information.
An online presence will increase contact and reach non-traditional participants.
Potential recruits, who access the improved online tools, will continue on in the
recruitment pathway.
More organizations make better or more utilization of self-learning educational
opportunities, resulting in increased accessibility of resources to the public.
Existing Strategies
Online-Education programs such as Hunter Ed, Bowhunter Ed, etc.
Many state agencies have embraced social media.
Existing programs dedicated to addressing the locavore movement.
Self-learning facilities and ranges exist.
Participants have access to magazines, brochures, and printed materials.
New Strategies
Improved online resources for basic beginners.

25

Online strategies should be consistent and answer key questions: a) what do I need? b)
How do I do it? c) Where do I do it?
Coordinated approach to identifying specific opportunities and strategies to develop
online resources.
Online resources need to follow the R3 model for recruitment and engage participants on
all levels (basic to advanced).
Organizations need greater flexibility for staff to effectively engage the public through
social media, web education, webinars, etc.
All tools need to be utilized such as: radio, web pages, social media, etc.
Online resources need to be more effective at engaging users through short bursts of
quality information.

Organizational Roles:
State Agencies:
o Identify specific opportunities to build online presence for increased access to
participants.
o Develop online social media opportunities for engaging the public for all levels of
the R3 model.
o Assist in developing the answers to the identified three key questions (What?
How? Where?).
o Fulfill coordination role amongst all stakeholders.
o Provide funding support.
Conservation NGOs:
o Assist in developing the answers to the identified three key questions (What?
How? Where?).
o Develop beginner content information in publications, the web, etc.
o Coordinate strategic messaging and educational media.
Industry:
o Provide funding support.
o Produce content.
o Coordinate strategic messaging and educational media.

Indirect Threat:
Lack of Participant Time and Opportunity
Key elements

Lack of participant time and priority for the hunting and shooting sports competing with
other recreational activities such as sports, computer, TV, Internet, etc.
Lack of instantaneous results. Millennials are the instant gratification generation; they
expect results and satisfaction immediately and are quick to turn away from any activities
with delayed results.
Lack of easily accessible hunting and shooting locations, which increase the required
time commitment among potential participants.
Lack of social support for participants among family, friends, and community.

26

Lack of economic advantages to allow for additional time to spend hunting and shooting
away from work.

Desired Outcomes

Increase access opportunities to hunt and shoot to urban areas, which will increase the
number of hunters and shooters.
Develop metrics of where and when people hunt and shoot.
Increasing access opportunities will increase the participant rate of non-traditional
audiences.
Increased number of schools involving in hunting and shooting programs.
Exposure for hunting and the shooting increases (social media, online, etc.) and is
measured through the number of views and/or hits on a site providing clear
measurements of success.

Existing Strategies

More liberal hunting and youth seasons exist to reach additional audiences.
State agencies and Conservation NGOs provide access to free youth hunts.
Mentor and apprentice programs exists.
Targeted programs for women, youth, and minorities which provide opportunities usually
unavailable.
Families Afield initiatives.
Access programs to allow hunting on private land.
Conservation Easement programs.
Free range pass days special range events.
Online license(s) purchasing.
Scouting (online) for hunting and shooting spots for convenience and time saving efforts.
National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP).

New Strategies

Even more liberal hunting seasons.

More urban programs (hunting and shooting) to reach audiences in more convenience
fashion.
Improve convenience through more online opportunities.
Working with nuisance or pest (local) control to create hunting and/or trapping
opportunities in urban areas.
Improved marketing, products, and services.
Free shooting days (or inexpensive days) to more audiences.
More school and community programs to provide more opportunities.
Increase competitions: such as college hunting and/or shooting team(s).
Use NASP instructors to teach additional programs.

27

Organizational Roles:

State Agencies:
o Regulate hunting seasons.
o Improve and/or create additional hunting and shooting opportunities.
o Land agencies (BLM) can improve access and opportunities to previously
inaccessible lands.
Conservation NGOs:
o Funding grants, programs (e.g. Explore Bowhunting. First Shots) creates more
opportunities.
Industry:
o Market hunting and shooting not just products.
o Brand hunting and shooting opportunities.
o Provide marketing and communication events.
Indirect Threat:
Lack of Awareness of where to Find Information about Shooting and Hunting
Key elements:
Lack of existing information geared to the more advanced participant.
Lack of available social network resources.
Lack of user friendly websites amongst stakeholders.
o Mobil; scalable; desired information is buried.
Lack of web space and desired locations.
Lack of awareness of the need for recruiting new participants.
Desired Outcomes:
Information seeker obtains the information they are seeking in a prompt, straightforward
manner.
Websites are user friendly.
Information on hunting and shooting is organized, strategic and based on participants
needs.
Agencies, NGO and industry staffs direct information seeker(s) to the correct site in a
timely manner.
Existing strategies:
Many agencies are updating websites and access programs; CAHSS conducted thorough
digital evaluations of all state fish and wildlife agencies web sites.
New Strategies:
Improve internet marketing skills amongst staff(s).
Do not assume users have baseline information.
Share links containing information among agencies, NGOs and industry in a strategic
manner.

28

Provide research-based information.

o Ask end users what they need and how they want to access it.
Bring information forward on web sites.
Improve internal understanding on the need to recruit and retain participants.
Create a one-stop-shop clearing house for information seekers.

Organizational Roles:
Agencies
o Improve their website(s).
o Cooperate in creating central clearing house website.
NGOs
o Cooperate in creating central clearing house website.
o NGOs could potentially house central clearing house type website(s).
Industry
o Cooperate in creating central clearing house website.
o Web information providers: develop strategic information for information
seekers.
Others
o Conduct research on information seeker needs and preferred information delivery
platforms.
Indirect Threat:
Lack of Societal Acceptance from Public, Administrative, Regulatory and Education Entities
Note: the workgroup recommends that this direct threat be separated into two segments: 1) Lack
of societal acceptance from public; and 2) Lack of societal acceptance from administrative,
regulatory and education entities.
Key elements:
Hunting DOES have high public acceptance; Support for Second Amendment is also high
(obtain figures).
Numerous books and mainstream magazines have recently published positive articles on
hunting and target shooting which should be shared and promoted through
hunting/shooting community.
The community needs to solidify this position with additional positive messages.
Support for hunting and shooting likely is dependent on the age, sex, and ethnicity of
these queried.
Hunting and shooting communities need to improve image by reducing poaching,
vandalism, illegal activities, etc.
Some TV shows that emphasize the kill may not enhance huntings image.
Desired Outcomes:
Hunting and shooting will continue to have high public support among the general public
and improved support among the segments of the public that do not currently support
these activities.

29

More culturally diverse role models will be developed.

An increase in the number of positive articles.
Enhance messages that focus on the connection between hunters and shooters and
wildlife conservation.

Existing strategies:
Have research on motivations of hunters; may need more research on shooters.
Existing research available to develop programs and educational campaigns on the North
American Model for Wildlife Conservation.
Numerous positive books and articles on hunting and the shooting sports exist.
Turn in Poacher programs.
New Strategies:
Evaluate existing programs; make improvements as recommended from evaluation.
Develop positive messages delivered by proper role models and developed by welldesigned research on hunting and shooting for specific age, sex, and ethnicity of the
public that do not support these activities.
Improve understanding among hunters and shooters that all of their actions reflect on the
public image of hunters and shooters.
Organizational Roles:
Agencies
o Develop complimentary messages that support a cooperative media campaign.
o Industry/NGO cooperative media campaign.
NGOs
o Develop cooperative media campaigns with NGOs.
Industry
o Develop cooperative media campaigns with Industry.
Others
o Conduct research on information effective messages.

30

Appendix E
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports Planning Summit for a
National Hunter and Shooter Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation
Strategic Plan
Summary Report

Prepared by Matt Dunfee, Wildlife Management Institute

Introduction and Purpose
Without question, hunting and the shooting sports have provided the bulk of funding needed to
realize the majority of the successes in North American wildlife conservation over the past 75
years. Likewise, the future success of wildlife conservation will be dependent upon sustained
revenue generated through license sales and excise taxes.
If the natural resource management community is to ensure that support for and active
participation in hunting and the shooting sports will continue and thrive in the future, they must
begin to coalesce in a concerted effort to enhance our hunter and shooter numbers and increase
the overall public support for hunting and the shooting sports. A national effort and plan is
critically needed to bring together a host of partners whose diverse resources and talents can
accomplish these critical objectives.
On January 21, 2014, the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports hosted a planning
summit for a national hunter and shooter recruitment, retention, and reactivation strategic plan
(Plan) at the Hyatt House Hotel in Denver, Colorado. This stakeholder meeting was held for
the purpose of bringing together potential partners who could assist in developing a framework
for a national plan for recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and shooters.
Facilitated by Matt Dunfee of the Wildlife Management Institute, the meeting identified potential
plan partners (Appendix D); examined the current status of hunter recruitment, retention, and
reactivation (RRR) programs, efforts, and activities; collected participant input on what pieces of
RRR strategies are missing, which elements of RRR strategies are important to their
organization/agency, and what resources/expertise their organization/agency can bring to the
table (Appendix A); and finally, identified potential goals for and threats to a national hunter
and shooter RRR strategic plan (Appendix B).
Meeting Summary
Introductory remarks by John Frampton, CEO of the Council to Advance Hunting and the
Shooting Sports (Council), included a brief history of the Council and an overview of the
organizations purpose, mission, vision and guiding principles:
Purpose: Ensure support for and active participation in hunting and the shooting sports for future
generations.

31

Mission Statement: Facilitate the promotion and growth of hunting and the shooting sports and
the education of the public on the contributions that hunters and shooters make towards wildlife
conservation.
Vision Statement: An America where hunting and shooting sports are an integral part of
mainstream culture and where hunters and shooters are widely recognized as premiere
conservation contributors.
Guiding Principles: The Council is committed to safeguarding the Pittman-Robertson legacy by:
1. maintaining no net loss of revenues available to the state wildlife agencies from excise
taxes and other sources for shooting, hunting and wildlife management;
2. generating additional funds for use by the individual states for the recruitment and
retention of shooters and hunters as well as for the development of shooting facilities and
access for shooting and hunting;
3. ensuring that increases in revenues accomplish healthy state programs for recruitment,
retention and access.
Mr. Frampton explained that the role of the Council in the development of a Plan would be in
coordination and facilitation only. He emphasized that the Council in no way can be the sole
developer of the Plan, and stated that state and federal agencies, hunting and shooting sports
industry, and conservation NGOs must form the partnership through which the development and
implementation of the Plan can be successfully completed.
Matt Dunfee, coordinator of WMIs Hunting Heritage Action Plan (HHAP), followed Mr.
Framptons introduction with a presentation that provided a brief synopsis of the demographics,
participation rates, and general characteristics of todays population of hunters in North America.
He then summarized, based upon research and the experience of state agency RRR program
coordinators, the types of RRR program strategies that have been employed during the past 15 or
more years. These are summarized below:
1. The vast majority of RRR programs target youth, usually the sons and daughters of
individuals who are already highly vested and experienced in hunting and shooting.
2. Most programs only loosely target an audience (many programs do not strategically
target at all).
3. Most are single-contact in nature.
4. Nearly all are heavily weighted toward the early stages of recruitment.
5. Precious few programs address individuals who are in need of retention or
reactivation.
6. In most cases, agency and organization programs exist as pearls without a string, i.e.,
programs and efforts are not tied to one another in a logical succession. Therefore, they
often duplicate efforts and provide no continuum for an individual to continue down on
the path to becoming a hunter or a shooter.
Mr. Dunfee stated that these programs, though potentially effective in the far past, have not been
moving the needle toward stabilizing and increasing the number of hunters in the United
States. More importantly, virtually none of the over 400 different hunter RRR programs in the

32

U.S. have been able to prove their effectiveness by tracking the actual number of license sales or
license buyers they have created. Thus, it is difficult to determine what types of RRR efforts
work. As RRR program coordinators are beginning to look at license sales as the ultimate
outcome of their efforts, and new pilot programs are underway, the RRR community is
beginning to identify some important characteristics that likely increase the effectiveness of RRR
efforts.
Mr. Dunfee summarized them as follows:
More effective RRR programs are those that:
1. Incorporate a mentoring component, resulting in multiple contacts with the participant
over time.
2. Identify and tailor their content to a target audience.
3. Include a next steps component, either with a follow-up program or effort, or future
resource network.
4. Foster, develop, or identify a social support network for the participant.
5. Address non-traditional audiences whose demographics are fast out-pacing the traditional
hunting and shooting audience.
6. Tune in to and capitalize on non-tradition motivations that are present in todays potential
hunter and/or shooter.
Mr. Dunfee then led the group in an exercise to answer two questions; 1) why does the natural
resource community want hunters, and 2) what are the ultimate outcomes necessary to prove the
effectiveness of a hunter RRR program?
Following much discussion, the results of the exercise mirrored what previous state agency,
industry, and conservation NGO representatives had developed within the numerous working
groups formed as part of the HHAP. These results are summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Ultimate outcomes of retaining a population of hunters and shooters in the United
States.

33

The group emphasized that while there are countless benefits from the preservation of a
population of hunters and shooters (connection to the outdoors, a cultural value of the land, a tie
to activities and communication that are non-digital, etc.), the ultimate test of the effectiveness of
a RRR program or effort can most clearly be demonstrated through (I) the number and diversity
of licenses purchased by the program participants, and (II) the dollars generated through the
purchases of hunting and shooting equipment by program participants. The group recognized
that these outcomes were relatively easy to measure, and were the most attainable benchmark to
evaluate the effectiveness of a RRR effort.
The group then held a discussion regarding current successful RRR program characteristics, and
the general needs of agencies and organizations who conduct RRR programs and efforts.
These are summarized below:
Current Successful RRR Strategies
1. Stringing the pearls Multiple contacts per participation cohort, intra and interprogram.
2. Targeting Micro-communities, i.e., potential participants that come from a
community that already has a strong social support and mentoring network in place
(e.g., home school families).
3. Targeting adult learners Capitalizing on new, diverse, and robust motivations
(healthy eating, locavore, desire for family activities, etc.).
4. Recognizing that re-engagement or reactivation audiences are the lowest-hanging
fruit.
5. Implement systems to track customers and their post-program buying habits.
6. Targeted marketing to a better representation of U.S. demographics.
Current Needs of Agencies and Organizations Conducting RRR Programs and Efforts
1. The ability to prove and improve their R&R efforts
2. The ability to track desired outputs and outcomes
3. Multiple partners for multiple contact points with participants
4. Funding and resources for pilot efforts
5. Scalability of successful pilot efforts
6. Social framework and next steps
As a final exercise, Mr. Dunfee presented the Hunter Adoption Model (Figure 2), developed by
representatives from numerous state and federal agencies, industry, and conservation NGOs.
This model incorporates approximately 30 years of hunting, shooting, and leisure science
research, and is a compellation of these ideas into a graphical format. Mr. Dunfee noted that the
model is applicable to not just hunting, but to shooting as well, based upon its use in the last year
by numerous state, federal, and NGO RRR and education staff.

34

Figure 2. Hunter Adoption Model. Adapted by Dunfee and Byrne 2013 from earlier research
conducted by Decker et al; Seng et al; and others.

The group recognized that the process of becoming a hunter or shooter is, in fact, a process, and
the ease with which and individual progress to the ultimate goal of continuation is highly
dependent upon the individuals, age, gender, ethnicity, risk aversion, and many other factors.
The group noted that most of the current RRR efforts weighed heavily on the far left of the
decision to continue, and that there needed to be a national re-prioritization of RRR efforts to
address the entire continuum and to identify where the lowest-hanging fruit really exist.
Participant and Stakeholder Input
The remainder of the Summit focused on collecting participants views and opinions that could
be used in a SWOT-type analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to inform the
future formation of the Plan.
Participants were delineated into five groups, and given two hours to draft answers to the
following questions:
1. What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
2. Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization/agency?
3. What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?
After the groups were reconvened to the main meeting room, a representative from each group
related their groups draft to all participants. These drafts were collected and digitized
immediately after the summit. Group answers are contained in Appendix A
*Note: Following the Summit, all participants were given the opportunity to add or edit
their group submissions. Final edits are included in the group responses contained within
this document.
As a final exercise, Mr. Dunfee led the group in a facilitated discussion to identify participant
input in three categories:
1. Threats to RRR Strategies
2. Goals for the Strategic Plan

35

3. Funding of Strategic Plan

The results of this discussion were written down on a flipchart in front of the group to ensure that
the correct context and phrasing were captured. These comments can be found in Appendix B
Other Information
Throughout the Summit, participants were encouraged to place thoughts, ideas, or concerns they
might have on a flipchart titled the Parking Lot. The intention was to capture any information
that would be useful in the development of the Plan, and that might otherwise be lost during the
scheduled exercises and activities of the meeting. Those comments can be found in Appendix C
A list of meeting participants and their affiliations can be found in Appendix D.
Concluding Comments
Mr. Frampton thanked the participants for attending the meeting and noted that a Planning Team
would be established to begin the formation and drafting of a framework for the Plan and that
opportunity would continue to be available for input from all interested individuals and
organizations. He again stressed that for the Plan to be successful, strong and committed
partnerships would need to be realized between the state and federal agencies, industry and the
NGOs. He noted that presentations on the Plans process would be provided to many of the
AFWA Committees at the upcoming North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference in March and that there is a goal to have a draft framework in place by the
September AFWA Meeting.

36

Appendix A Summary Report

Participant and Stakeholder Input
Group 1: Steve Williams, Becky Humphries, Jon Gassett, Daren Cottle, Scott Kovarovics
Question 1: What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
1. The sharing of customer information among and within agencies and partnering organizations.
2. Measures of industry performance in RRR (sales, volume).
3. Ways to address privacy concerns in marketing campaigns to customers/sportsmen and
women.
4. Strategies to reactivate older lapsed hunters.
5. Explore strategies to microtarget hunters and shooters.
6. Innovative enticements for license purchase.
7. Utilize fully the automated license system information.
8. Expanded use of license auto-renewal and notice of time to buy a license.
9. Reduction of regulations complexity and license sale process.
10. Increased use of structured activities (per Hunter Adoption Model)
Question 2: Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization?
1. Full use of social media in RRR.
2. Making hunting and shooting Fun.
3. Engagement with NGOs and Clubs to create social networks and to promote a fun and cool
lifestyle.
4. Establish connections between agencies and NGOs/Clubs to enhance access and opportunity.
5. Create places and opportunities to shoot by leveraging private and public resources.
6. Coordination of RRR efforts and messaging about hunting and shooting within communities.
7. Standardize hunter education programs to be fun.
8. Increase and open access to suburban and urban hunting and shooting opportunities.
Question 3: What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?
1. Facilities and experienced participants who can work with a wide range of ages.
2. Provide funding for projects (NGOs and foundations)
3. Knowledge and expertise of customers and projects that can be shared with agencies that dont
have it in house.
4. Help with making hunting and shooting fun. Increase customer attraction to and appreciation
of hunting and shooting.
5. Provide independent, third party evaluation of efforts.

37

Participant and Stakeholder Input

Group 2: Steve Hall, Mitch Strobl, Megan Wisecup, David Lane, Aaron Hershberger
Question 1: What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
Targeted Communication
1. Email marketing campaign. Agency cultivation of emails is lacking. Note, its because
agencies lack the latter that we are missing the former. Additionally, agencies are at best strongest in securing emails from current permit buyers limiting the effectiveness of current
email blasts in overall RR&R.
2. Better collection of customer information at all programs, events, and ranges.
3. Multiple contact points with participants/customers. For example, multiple marketing efforts
such as social media, print, radio, and TV (and within program marketing i.e. the next step)
4. Pre, post, and follow up surveys of participants at events, activities and programs.
5. Selling the experience as a family oriented one.
Agency-Wide RRR Buy In (Changing the Culture)
1. Making RRR a priority for the agency and getting internal buy in.
2. Making RRR a responsibility of ALL staff at some level.
3. Combine resources and coordinate RRR efforts within the agency.
4. Include political and legislative levels in RRR strategies. Helpful if industry, NGOs can assist
on state specific issues.
Linkages
1. Get back to a Natural Pathways model (e.g., starting with fishing or small game).
2. Link related databases.
3. Incorporate partners (NGOs, agency, and industry) to expand and enhance RRR efforts.
4. Diversification of audiences into more than just youth, change the orange man group to
better represent society.
5. Next steps for new recruits, i.e., where to get social support, where to go, how to, what youll
need, where to find mentors.
Question 2: Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization?
1. Data mining to understand users, customers, and target audience.
2. Capturing customer information, particularly emails and program participant information.
3. Tracking the customers journey (linking databases).
4. Improving accessibility to social media for agencies leading to better customer service
and
1. User resources (mobile apps).
2. Continuing hunting and shooting heritage to further conservation and build advocates for
the agency.
5. Coordinated RRR efforts between agencies, NGOs, and industry.
6. Hunting and shooting access and opportunities close to customers (urban areas).

Question 3: What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?

From Industry
1. Business skills
2. Marketing
3. Customer service

38

4. Funding
5. Research
6. Legislative support
7. IT development (customer information databases, systems, mobile apps, websites, etc.)
From NGOs
1. Volunteers
2. On-going contact points with participants
3. Funding, match programs
4. Legislative support
5. Programs and mentors
6. Membership base (social support)
From Agencies
1. Volunteers
2. Program, species/habitat management expertise
3. Funding (PR and license sales)
4. Dedicated staff
5. Existing evaluation/survey results for programs and permit buyers

39

Participant and Stakeholder Input

Group 3: Mary Emmons, Thomas Baumeister, Brenda Beckley, Tasha Sorensen, Jeff
Rawlinson
Question 1: What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
1. Connectivity of programs internally and externally. Too many one-time exposures and a
lack of a complete pathway.
2. Adequate number of clubs/programs/instructors (NGO partnerships should be increases
to meet the demand).
3. Immediate direction (next steps) for new recruits to continue with programs and pathway.
4. Engaging partners (local and national) to help grow programs (multiple program
experience/ exposure)
5. Access to equipment grants (materials for NGO instructors and program leaders)
6. Need to reframe marketing strategies to be relevant to constituents.
7. National RRR Program Tracking System
8. Engaging retail and industry to market to beginners and families.
9. Shooting programs (canned: consistent and easy to start) at the community level (parks
and rec); community-based organizations.
10. Quality mentor networks.
Question 2: Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization?
1. Access to ranges, clubs, programs, instructors.
2. Being able to identify the target audience and gaining access to them.
3. Getting access to quality program materials that lead to next steps versus one time
exposures.
4. Total agency buy-in.
5. Interconnectivity of programs.
6. Baseline data and continual evaluation.
7. Return on investment.
Question 3: What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?
Agency
1. Pilot programs and efforts, case studies, baseline user data.
2. Funding and resources.
3. Marketing and customer reach.
4. Databases
5. Places to hunt and shoot.
6. Access to the rules and regulations system.
ATA
1. National marketing campaign.
2. Retail
3. Industry
4. Advocacy
USA Archery
1. Instructor certification programs.
2. Program resources to further the pathway.

40

3. Clubs for repeated participant exposure.

4. National partnerships with NGOs
5. Events
6. Ability to lead NGOs, participants, instructors to next steps programs.
7. Research data
8. National press
9. Instructor, program, club locations, community based organizations.
10. Access to large and diverse participant groups of all ages and abilities.

41

Participant and Stakeholder Input

Group 4: Andy Treharne, Jim Moore, Mark Horobetz, Gary Berlin, Windi Padia
Question 1: What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
1. Evaluation and ways to track success.
2. Consistent metrics for evaluation.
3. Identification of the baseline.
4. Ability to isolate variables when measuring performance.
5. Tools to help market to your target audience.
6. Converting potential hunters/shooters from awareness to interest stage.
7. Converting awareness into action.
8. Simple metrics.
9. Opportunities to market outside your state (specific strategies).
10. Ability to make hunting regulations easy to understand for new participants.
Question 2: Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization?
1. Partnerships
2. Opportunity to participate
3. Connecting programs. Giving participants an opportunity to get involved with additional
programs
4. Measurable programs.
5. Follow up for introduction programs.
6. Ability to identify those that need recruitment and adjust strategies to their specific needs.
7. Incentives for repeat license purchases.
Question 3: What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?
CSF
Educate policy makers on motivations for changes to statutes and regulations.
Hunter Ed Course
Introducing the new hunter to the sport and connecting them to the agency.
Ducks Unlimited
Retention efforts to keep individuals involved in the sport. Keeping those connected to
waterfowl conservation informed and involved.
Everyone
Mentor and partner organization resources, training and BMPs.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
In the field, ground-level expertise.

42

Participant and Stakeholder Input

Group 5: Todd Schmidt, Mike Barnes, Brian Hyder, Hannibal Bolton, Kristin Phillips
Question 1: What pieces of RRR strategies are missing?
1. Branding. Need to improve image of hunting and shooting
2. The right staff running RRR programs (match to audience; gender, ethnicity, educationoriented).
3. Redundancy in programs across NGOs and state agencies.
4. Selling to people who are already our customers.
5. Business, agency, NGO partnerships.
6. Better data collection (emails, sales) and better use of what we already have access to.
7. Closing the loop. Inviting people to take the next step (capturing emails to send
reminders to buy, participate, etc.).
8. Take the initiative to actually diversify participants; stop giving it only lip service.
9. Prioritize efforts for long-term impact and viability.
Question 2: Which elements of RRR strategies are important to your organization?
1. The numbers of hunters and shooters are critical. Numbers lead to voters and
constituents.
2. Funding
3. Quality of life and preservation of the heritage.
4. Tradition and legacy.
5. Strategies that are effective, efficient, and successful.
Question 3: What resources/expertise can your organization/agency bring to the table?
1. Funding (NRA)
2. Expertise in training and education. (NRA, Kalkomy)
3. Legislative (NRA)
4. Contact with hunters and shooters (emails, personal contact). (States, NRA)
5. Public range programs and funding. (NRA)
6. Contacts and networking with partner groups.

43

Appendix B Summary Report

Threats to RRR Strategies
Agency, legislative, political leadership who dont recognize the relevance of hunting and
shooting to their agencies or organizations mission. Additional threats include the broadening
of agency missions and the politicization of agency leadership.
The high rate of agency Director turnover leading to a loss of institutional knowledge and
investment.
A growing cultural perspective that categorizes hunting as a wildlife management tool only.
Public opinion being forged by anti-hunting and anti-shooting groups.
The restrictions of scalability (FTEs, resources, funding) to expand RRR programs, efforts and
activities.
The reality that it might be too late to do anything that will have an impact on hunting and
shooting populations.
Apprehension to share user and participant data between agencies, NGOs, and industry.
Regulatory or legislative actions that may hamper or eliminate RRR efforts.
Limited access and opportunity to hunting grounds and shooting ranges.
The misconception that sampling techniques to measure RRR effort effectiveness or detect
changes in perception are inappropriate or meaningless.
In the west, a loss of hunting and shooting access due to other interest (multiple use
management); in the east, a loss of hunting access due to changes in the Farm Bill and other
legislation.
The hunting and RRR community can be its own worst enemy.
The loss of agency relevancy.
Media perception and representation of hunting and shooting.
A National Strategic Plan that is not implementable.

44

Goals for the Strategic Plan

Need to determine what is the minimum population and funding level needed to keep agencies
and the activities of hunting and shooting viable. What is our base threshold?
Consider measurable goals and objectives at the level of trends, not specific population targets.
The plan should contain an overall goal to maintain the current level of conservation viability
and/or capacity.
Consider measurable goals and objectives that are numerical to help identify failure (dont be
afraid of failure).
Be realistic regarding the impact than can or cannot be made to hunter numbers: focus on
continual improvement.
Consider utilizing hunter replacement ratios within measurable goals.
Consider an overall goal that ensures that support for RRR strategies and efforts adapts to
changing demographics, political power structure, and culture.
Funding of Strategic Plan
An effective plan will result in re-directed funding.
Identification of successful RRR programs will bring in private funding sources.
Plan should identify sources of RRR funding that might not be traditionally seen as RRR related.
Effective RRR programs will attract industry funding.
The plan should target bringing in other large groups (i.e., 4H)

45

Appendix C Summary Report

Parking Lot
Any RRR planning efforts need to incorporate access issues:
- Access to ranges
-Access to hunting areas
RRR planning efforts should address the negative messages and stereotypes of hunting and
shooting:
- Address public and school shootings
- Should convey the NAMWC and role of PR funding impacts
RRR community should identify why hunting and shooting should exist from an internal and
public perspective.
Identify any connections between the surprisingly high social acceptance of hunting (within
certain parameters) and specific RRR efforts in the past.
-The community should measure how the public connects conservation and
hunting/shooting
RRR community should specifically market the outdoors connections (i.e., the personal, direct
connection to the out-of-doors) of hunting and shooting to the non-participating public.
RRR planning efforts should develop a canned market strategy for hunting and shooting for
agencies and NGOs.
Need for an integration of RRR efforts into entire agency strategy and communication on RRR
related efforts within agency departments and divisions.
RRR planning efforts should develop national branding of hunting and shooting.
RRR planning efforts should revisit the assumption that there is little to no hunting/shooting
access near suburban areas (seek out new opportunities and innovative ideas).
RRR planning efforts should constantly put positive hunting and shooting messages and
resources in front of the target audience.
Need for long-term RRR strategies and avoid getting halted by mid-term outcomes.

46

Appendix D Summary Report

Summit Attendees
John Frampton, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports
Paige Pearson, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports
Jon Gassett, Wildlife Management Institute
Becky Humphries, Boone and Crockett Club, National Wild Turkey Federation
Steve Williams, Wildlife Management Institute
Daren Cottle, Easton Archery
Scott Kovarovics, Izaak Walton League of America
Steve Hall, International Hunter Education Association - USA
Mitch Strobl, Kalkomey Enterprises
David Lane, Ohio Division of Wildlife
Megan Wisecup, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Aaron Hershberger, Nebraska Game and Parks
Jeff Rawlinson, Nebraska Game and Parks
Mary Emmons, USA Archery
Thomas Baumeister, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Brenda Beckley, Idaho Fish and Game
Tasha Sorensen, Wyoming Game and Fish
Andy Treharne, Congressional Sportsmans Foundation
Jim Moore, HunterEd Course
Gary Berlin, HunterEd Course
Mark Horobetz, Ducks Unlimited
Windi Padia, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Todd Schmidt, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Mike Barnes, Bohning Archery
Brian Hyder, National Rifle Association of America
Hannibal Bolton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kristin Phillips, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Ashley Salo, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Carol Bambery, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Larry Voyles, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Matt Dunfee, Wildlife Management Institute

47