1. Who participates in Learn to
Hunt and what it means for our
future
By: Jason Kool
Robert Holsman, UWSP

2. Outline
• The Learn to Hunt Program
• Program Evaluation
• Is the Program Effective?
• Key Findings
• Recommendations
• Next Steps
Photo courtesy of Mark Hirsch
Photography

3. Background on Wisconsin’s Hunting
Heritage
• Among Wisconsin Hunters…
– 92% hunt deer (550,000+)
– 22% Wild turkey
– 11% Migratory birds
– 32% Small game
• Pheasant—117,000
• Grouse – 77,000
• Rabbit 67,000
• Squirrel 60,000

4. A Strong Hunting Heritage at Risk
• Wisconsin ranks 4th
in hunting license
sales
• 2008 study predicts
25% decline by
2025
• 2001 study
indicated a 0.53
replacement ratio

5. What is Learn to Hunt?
• A formal mentored hunting workshop…
– Hunter Safety Certification is not
required
– Free license/tag for all participant
hunters
– One to One mentor / participant ratio

6. What is Learn to Hunt?
• Each LTH event has…
– Minimum 4 hours of
classroom time
• Firearms safety briefing
• Technical hunting skills
and methods training
• Species ecology and
management education
– Field Hunt

7. Species Number of events on
our record in 2010
Wild Turkey 63
Pheasant 14
Gun Deer 6
Waterfowl 5
Bear 3
Dove 1
Bow Deer 1
Total 93

8. Program Evaluation
• Assess program “effectiveness”
• Mixed methods
– Mentor focus groups
– Interviews of past participants
– Surveys to 2010 participants
– Participant observation

9. What is the goal of Learn to
Hunt?
“Provide a safe and
positive first time hunting
experience with a
qualified mentor.”
Photo courtesy of Mark
Hirsch Photography

10. Is Learn to Hunt “Effective”?
• 2006-2007 Learn to Hunt Participants
– Bought licenses the following year at a
rate of 91-96%!

11. Is Learn to Hunt “Effective?”
• The Learn to Hunt program is
“effective!”
– Happy photos guide belief that
program is “being effective”
– 4.1 rating on 5 point scale

12. “Effective” at What?

13. Effective at Finding Hunters
• Participants had hunted before to
coming to LTH
– 70% of Spring participants hunted before
LTH
– 40% of Fall participants hunted before LTH
• 78% of Spring LTH Participant Dad’s
hunt
• 83% of Fall LTH Participant Dad’s hunt

14. Effective at Finding Hunters
• Participants are coming from AVID
hunting families
Number of Prior Hunting Activities
20%
18%
18%
16%
16%
16% 15%
Percent of Participants
14% 13%
12% 11%
11%
10%
10% 10%
10% 9% 9%
8%
8%
6% Spring
2010 LTH
6%
5% 5%
4% 4% 4% 4% Fall 2010
4% 3% LTH
2% 3%
2% 1%
1% 1%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of Activities

15. Effective at Finding Hunters
• Program sponsors tend to recruit
participants from hunter safety classes
• Why?
– Uneasiness with accepting uncertified
participants
– It’s convenient
– Haven’t thought about the need to
broaden reach
– Lack ability to attract new audience

16. Effective at Finding Hunters
• Youth from hunting backgrounds– “The
Choir”
• Already get exposure
• Probably have family support
• Likely come from rural areas (cultural supported)
– May be at-risk of non-initiation anyway
• Parental desertion or churn
• Changing view of parent’s role (others teach your
kids)
• May not want to forego own opportunity to invest
• Provide experience that they can’t

17. Effective as a “Guided Hunt”
• Go to an event
• Meet a stranger
• Go on a morning,
afternoon or
weekend hunt
– Hunt on private
property lined up
by “mentor”
– Taxi v. Drivers Ed.
Photo courtesy of Mark Hirsch
Photography

18. Effective at Recruiting Youth
Ages of 2010 LTH Participants
60.00%
56%
50%
50.00%
Percent of Participants
40.00% Spring 2010
36%
LTH
30.00% 29% Fall 2010
LTH
20.00%
10.00% 7%
5% 5%
3% 2% 2% 3% 1%
0.00%
9-11yrs 12-15yrs 16-20 yrs 21-30yrs 31-40 yrs 40+ yrs
Years

19. Other Key Findings
• I’m interested in hunting because…
1) I want to spend time outside- 86%
2) I want to spend time with family- 85%
3) I want to use different types of equipment- 85%
4) I think I could be good at it- 83%
5) I want to learn more about wildlife- 80%

20. Other Key Findings
• Technology use
– 49% have a Facebook profile
– 68% use YouTube to watch videos
• Unsure about joining online “friends” group
– 31% Yes
– 39% Unsure
– 29% No
Photo courtesy of Mark
Hirsch Photography

21. Other Findings
• Males are the primary participants
2010 LTH Participants
500
Number of Participants
450 Spring
400 2010
350 LTH
300
250
200 Fall
150 2010
100 LTH
50
0
Male Female
Gender

22. Declining Hunters
L
LTH Program
L
Inputs Outputs Outcomes
•Marketing •Hold events
•Reimbursements •1,000+ participate •???????
•Gear donations •Positive
•Continuation
•Volunteers experiences
•Special seasons Enjoyment
Confidence
Motivation

23. So where should we focus?

24. Who is the target audience?
• Youth from non-hunting backgrounds– “True
youth novices”
– What happens to them after event?
• No money
• Can’t drive
• Lack behavioral autonomy to make own decisions
• Apprenticeship far from completed
– Limited duration programs should not target this
group
• Either need to change format to longer duration
• Or pick a different audience

25. Who is the target audience?
• Adults from non-hunting backgrounds
– Cuts against the grain of tradition
• “Hunters come from hunting families”
• Less common to acquire hobbies in adulthood
– May be harder to find participants
• Have money, can drive, behavioral
control
• Also may be raising kids

26. Youth Adults
Non-white youth Non-white adults with
without familial limited hunter-social
hunters network
Without familial
Locavores/Foodies
hunters
with non-hunting Have parents/
parent(s), but close siblings hunt
hunting relative
Who have co-
With infrequent
workers who hunt
hunting parents
With avid hunting Who already fish
parent (one)
Spouses of
Youth with avid existing
hunting parents hunters
(both)

27. Don’t Forget Those Closest To You
Photo courtesy of Delta Waterfowl
First Hunt Mentor Manual (pg 20)

28. Four recommendations:
1) Develop measurable outcomes
2) Prioritize audience segments
3) Move from guides to mentors
4) Learner-centered education

29. 1) Develop Measurable Outcomes
• Is it to increase license sales?
• Is it to provide exposure to hunting?
• Is it to bring in a new non-traditional
audience?
• Is it to retain the base we have in the
activity?
• Is it all these things?

30. 2) Prioritize Audience Segments
• Learn to Hunt inadvertently
branded as “youth hunts”
– Participants recruitment reinforces
this image
– Many events held in conjunction with
youth seasons

31. 2) Prioritize Audience Segments
• Program logic of youth
intervention fails without support
– Lack income
– Can’t drive
– Lack autonomy
Photo courtesy of Mark Hirsch Photography
• Don’t forget the adults

32. 3) Move from “Guides” to “Mentors”
• True mentoring requires extended
multiple contacts
• True mentoring requires the building of
a relationship
• Effective mentoring needs a long-term
commitment
– Research shows only way to “create a
hunter”
• Keep parents involved

33. 4) Learner Centered Education
• Understand “one-shot” wonders play a
limited role in “becoming a hunter”
• Focus on “becoming a hunter” rather
than “going hunting”
• Age appropriate teaching methods and
activities

34. Photo courtesy of Mark Hirsch Photography
So What’s Next?
 WI DNR 1.5 positions
 Sabbatical- develop a
planning process
 2nd Hunting Heritage
Conference
 Follow up survey of
participants in 5 years

35. This project is supported by the 2010 Hunting Heritage
Partnership, a grant program of the National Shooting
Sports Foundation, Inc.

36. Questions
• Robert Holsman, Ph.D
– UW- Stevens Point
– Associate Professor of Wildlife
– rholsman@uwsp.edu
– (715) 346-4546
• Jason Kool
– South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks
– Recruitment and Retention Coordinator
– jason.kool@state.sd.us
– (605) 773-8162