NSSF Southwick Retaining The Surge Hunter Survey Report

PO Box 6435 ■ Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 ■ Office (904) 277-9765
Retaining 2020’s Surge of Hunters and Target

Shooters: Survey Results
Produced by Southwick Associates in partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation
And the:
This report was funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (#F21AP00977-00), a program supported
with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and jointly managed by the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
June 30, 2022
Southwick Associates | PO Box 6435 ■ Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 ■ Office (904) 277-9765
NSSF – Retaining the Surge | 1
Table of Contents
FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................. 2
TABLES................................................................................................................................................ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 5
KEY TAKEAWAYS.................................................................................................................................. 5
DATA AND METHODS......................................................................................................................... 8
TARGET SHOOTING SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 8
HUNTER SURVEY ................................................................................................................................. 8
Data Weighting ........................................................................................................................................ 9
LICENSE DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 12
TARGET SHOOTER SURVEY................................................................................................................... 12
Demographics ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Activity Participation Rates .................................................................................................................... 15
Consumer Purchase Information ........................................................................................................... 18
HUNTER SURVEY ............................................................................................................................... 21
Response Rate and Demographics ........................................................................................................ 21
License Purchase and Hunting Behavior ................................................................................................ 25
Hunter Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 26
Knowledge About Hunting ..................................................................................................................... 30
Species Hunted ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Hunt Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................... 39
Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hunting.................................................................................. 43
Constraints to Future Hunting Activity .................................................................................................. 46
Knowledge about Agency Funding......................................................................................................... 46
Sources of Information .......................................................................................................................... 48
LICENSE DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 52
Hunter Population Databases ................................................................................................................ 52
Northeast Regional Results .................................................................................................................... 55
Southeast Regional Results .................................................................................................................... 59
Midwest Regional Results ...................................................................................................................... 63
Western Regional Results ...................................................................................................................... 68
Figures
Figure 1. Outgoing Survey Sample (Reactivated, Recruited, Retained), by AFWA Region. ............................. 8
Figure 2. Self-Described License Purchase Behavior Provided by Survey Respondents, by Survey Group. .. 10
Figure 3. Participating States, by AFWA Region............................................................................................. 12
Figure 4. Age Classes of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group............................................................ 12
Figure 5. Gender of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group. ................................................................. 13
Figure 6. Ethnicity by Target Shooting Group. ............................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Education, by Target Shooting Group. ............................................................................................ 15
Figure 8. Family/Friend Participation, by Target Shooting Group. ................................................................ 17
Figure 9. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would do Next Year, by Gender. ...................................... 24
Figure 10. Percent (and Number) of Respondents Who Indicated They Were New Hunters in 2020 and
2021, by Survey Region. ................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 11. Average Age Respondents Started Hunting, by Gender and Survey Region. ............................... 26
Figure 12. Person Who Taught Respondents How to Hunt (Outside of Hunter Education), by Region.
Individuals could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ......................................... 27
Figure 13. Person Respondents Hunted with During the Last Year They Hunted, by Region. Individuals
could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ........................................................... 30
Figure 14 . Respondents Who Were “Somewhat” or “Very” Knowledgeable about Hunting-Related Items
for New 20/21 vs. Retained Hunters. ............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 15. Species Typically Hunted by All Respondents, by Survey Region. Individuals could check more
than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 16. Percent of New 20/21 vs. Retained Respondents Who Hunted the Species Listed on the Survey.
Individuals could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ......................................... 35
Figure 17. How Often Respondents Hunted During the Season, Species and Survey Regions Combined. ... 35
Figure 18. How Often Respondents Hunted During the Season by Survey Region, Species Combined. ...... 36
Figure 19 . Factors That Might Encourage Respondents to Hunt More Often, by Region. Individuals could
check more than one box so percentages do not add to 100. ...................................................................... 37
Figure 20. Factors That Might Encourage New 20/21 Hunters to Hunt More Often. Individuals could check
more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ............................................................................... 39
Figure 21. Satisfaction With the Most Recent Season Hunted, Overall and by Survey Region. .................... 42
Figure 22. Satisfaction With the Most Recent Season Hunted, by Species. .................................................. 42
Figure 23. Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Respondents' Purchase of At Least One Type of Hunting
License............................................................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 24. Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Respondents' Purchase of At Least One Type of Hunting
License, by Gender. ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 25. Reasons Respondents Gave for Not Hunting in 2021, due to COVID-19. ..................................... 45
Figure 26. Reasons Respondents Indicated Why They Would Not Hunt Next Season. ................................. 46
Figure 27. Knowledge of Where State Agencies Receive Their Funding, by Hunting Group......................... 48
Figure 28. Sources of Information Respondents Used to Obtain Information about Hunting, by Hunting
Group. ............................................................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 29. Number of Licensed Hunters and Percent Contributed by State. ................................................ 52
Figure 30. Hunter Avidity Groups Defined. .................................................................................................... 53
Tables
Table 1. Differences in Distribution of Sample Population and Respondents for Demographic Variables
Used to Weight the Dataset............................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2. Activity Participation Rates by Target Shooting Group. ................................................................... 17
Table 3. Family/Friend Participation by Target Shooting Group. .................................................................. 18
Table 4. Expected Participation by Target Shooting Group. .......................................................................... 18
Table 5. Firearm Ownership Noted by Target Shooters. ............................................................................... 19
Table 6. Consumer Item Ownership by Target Shooting Group. ................................................................... 19
Table 7. What Would Influence Participation, by Target Shooting Group. ................................................... 20
Table 8. Respondent Interest in More Information, by Target Shooting Group. .......................................... 20
Table 9. Sample Size, Responses Received, Response Rate, and Margin of Error for Hunter Survey. .......... 22
Table 10. Demographic Characteristics (Unweighted) of NSSF Hunter Survey Respondents, by Survey
Region. ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 11. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would do Next Year. ........................................................ 24
Table 12. Percentage of Respondents Who Purchased any Hunting License and Percent Who Went
Hunting, by Year and Survey Region. ............................................................................................................. 25
Table 13. Person Who Taught Respondents How to Hunt (Outside of Hunter Education). Individuals could
check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ..................................................................... 27
Table 14. Person Respondents Hunted With During the Last Year They Hunted. Individuals could check
more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ............................................................................... 29
Table 15. Knowledge About Hunting-Related Items...................................................................................... 30
Table 16. Factors that Might Eencourage Respondents to Hunt More Often, by Gender. Individuals could
check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100. ..................................................................... 37
Table 17. Items that are Important to a Person's Hunting Experience and the Number of People who Check
the Item, by Region. ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 18. Importance of Items to a Person's Hunt Satisfaction and the Number of People Who Rated Each
Item. ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 19. Importance of Seeing and Harvesting Game. Would you continue to hunt? ................................ 41
Table 20. Knowledge of Where State Agencies Receive Their Funding......................................................... 48
Table 21. Importance of Information That Respondents Used for Hunting-Related Purposes..................... 51
Table 22. Number of Resident Licensed Hunters by Region and Percent Assigned to Groups. .................... 54
Table 23. Northeast Churn Rates. .................................................................................................................. 55
Table 24. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Age................................................................................... 56
Table 25. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender. ............................................................................ 56
Table 26. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification............................................... 57
Table 27. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry™ Segmentation. ................................. 58
Table 28. Southeast Churn Rates. .................................................................................................................. 59
Table 29. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Age................................................................................... 60
Table 30. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender. ............................................................................ 60
Table 31. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification............................................... 61
Table 32. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation ..................................... 62
Table 33. Midwest Churn Rates. .................................................................................................................... 63
Table 34. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Age. .................................................................................... 65
Table 35. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender. .............................................................................. 65
Table 36. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification. ................................................ 66
Table 37. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation ....................................... 67
Table 38. Western Churn Rates. .................................................................................................................... 68
Table 39. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Age ..................................................................................... 69
Table 40. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender. .............................................................................. 69
Table 41. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification. ................................................ 70
Table 42. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation........................................ 71
Executive Summary
Research was not necessary to understand that there was a significant boost in hunting and target
shooting participation during the COVID-influenced 2020-2021 time period. Therefore, this report adds to
the body of research investigating the demographics, activities, and qualitative reasons driving the surge
in hunting and target shooting participation and what can be done by R3 and marketing professionals to
help maintain this participation surge.
This study examined the 2020 COVID “bump” from a multitude of perspectives. First, five years of state
license data (2016 – 2020) were analyzed to determine shifts in churn rates and buying patterns. Second,
a random sample of hunting license holders were surveyed to determine their motivations, satisfactions,
expectations regarding future participation, awareness of the excise tax, and optimal engagement tactics.
Finally, a survey of target shooters was fielded to determine their firearm purchase patterns, along with
factors that might influence their target shooting behavior. The steps taken are detailed within.
Key Takeaways
Some of the results in this study support findings from other recent R3 research projects by Southwick
Associates. Other projects examined boosting hunter participation among hunter education graduates,
making mentorship programs work, and the effectiveness of hunting mentorship programs. The new
insights not seen before or lightly examined are provided in this report.
Target Shooter Survey
These are the major key points outlining what can be done to help people continue to engage in target
shooting:
1) Focus on retaining the 18-34 age class. Of those who tried shooting in 2020, those who did not
return in 2021 were more likely to come from this age range. The reasons why young people are
dropping out faster are not fully understood. Middle-aged and older surge shooters were more
likely to remain engaged on their own. This provides opportunities for social media outreach as
lost surge shooters, while also being younger, were significantly more likely to own streaming
devices than the other two groups.
2) Make sure to have opportunities and support available to encourage female target shooters.
While women entered target shooting at greater rates during COVID than their participation rates
prior to the pandemic, they also showed the greatest dropout rates in 2021. Either they do not
feel welcome, they are not finding the benefits they would like from shooting, or they need
additional instruction and support. Retention efforts should maintain an emphasis on female
participation. This is consistent with hunting trends, as the license sales dashboard findings show
that female participation grew at rates greater than males during the 2020 surge but fell at faster
rates in 2021.
3) Emphasize engagement and outreach with less traditionally represented groups in the sport.
Surge shooters were significantly more likely to be Black or Hispanic than the “other” target
shooter group. Furthermore, Hispanic surge shooters were then retained at a higher rate than
Black surge shooters. This shows an opportunity for increased retention and greater focus by the
R3 community.
4) Provide support for target shooters who aren’t going to hunt. Lost surge shooters were less
likely to be hunters than Retained surge shooters. This group is often overlooked by R3 efforts
considering the typical emphasis on hunting. A focus on target shooting skills, engagement, and a
sense of progression in the sport may help retain these shooters.
5) Offer group instruction and classes. Lost surge shooters are interested in developing their skills
through classes and expert instruction, but may be intimidated by booking private instructors or
deterred by the cost. Group instruction can help new shooters feel less intimidated, meet other
new shooters, and become more engaged in the firearms community.
6) Have classes at a variety of times. Target shooters across the board noted a lack of free time as
an obstacle preventing them from engaging more. Adding some additional times for classes, such
as weeknights and mornings, could allow more access. Helping people become more interested
also causes them to prioritize shooting over other activities that are currently preferred.
7) Encourage regular shooters to bring friends and family. Lost surge shooters were more
responsive to invitations from adult friends and family, many of whom may already be regular
target shooters. Inversely, it could be beneficial to encourage interested new shooters to ask
regular shooters to take them along. Other recent Southwick research into mentoring shows that
the top reason why someone will teach another to hunt or shoot is being asked.
8) High prices and ammunition shortages are lowering participation across the board. High
percentages of all respondents said that current industry realities are preventing them from
shooting more. No fix is immediately available currently for this issue, but by continuing to
promote the fun, social, and confidence-building aspects of target shooting, we will be able to
bring back a greater proportion of these participants once prices stabilize.
9) People have been trying a variety of activities. Those who tried target shooting in 2020/21 (both
surge and Retained) show a greater rate of participating in nearly all the other activities listed
(boating, camping, ATV riding, etc.). This indicates that people used the additional time afforded
during COVID-19 to try other activities. If true, the challenge now is to maintain interest and
participation among as many of these new entrants as possible, knowing that other activities will
be directly and/or indirectly competing for their attention.
Hunter Survey
These are the major key points outlining what can be done to help people continue to hunt:
1) People want an invite to go hunting. As seen in multiple previous studies, invitations would
encourage new hunters to go more often. Experienced hunters should continue to be encouraged
to invite others to hunt. Another way of approaching this would be to encourage interested
potential hunters and shooters to ask experienced participant to take them along, a finding found
in past NSSF studies and programs where many mentors said they did so at the request of their
student/apprentice.
2) COVID-19 influenced license purchases to a degree. Overall, 23% of hunters surveyed said that
COVID-19 affected their license purchases. Six percent did not purchase a license and 4% only
purchased a license because of COVID-19, while the rest purchased more.
3) As COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, free time is again limited for new hunters. The 2020 COVID-
19 restrictions offered more time to hunt. But when restrictions relaxed, 62% of new hunters said
their free time available for hunting became limited.
4) Most people don’t know about Federal excise taxes. Less than half of hunters (44%) understood
that state wildlife programs are primarily funded by hunting and fishing license revenues. Despite
many outreach efforts to the contrary, only one-quarter knew about the excise taxes on firearms,
ammunition, and archery equipment. Roughly the same percentage believed that agencies were
funded with general tax dollars. The need still exists to educate hunters about their efforts to
conserve wildlife and provide professionally managed wildlife management and access efforts.
5) Skills programs are important, especially to new license holders. While knowledgeable about
firearm safety and hunting regulations, new license holders report interest in programs that focus
on hunting skills and techniques including taking care of the harvest, woodcraft, and more. These
findings are consistent with recent Southwick mentoring and hunter education studies.
Interestingly, many current hunters also show interest in learning more through such programs.
6) A person’s partner is crucial to recruiting new hunters. This is particularly important for women,
as 40% of these new hunters were taught by their spouse/significant other. Future R3 efforts
should continue to emphasize hunting as well as shooting as a social activity, something to do with
your spouse or significant other. The younger age demographics are showing a strong inclination
towards introducing spouses and significant others to hunting and shooting, possibly at rates
greater than seen in previous generations, though this latter thought is somewhat speculative.
7) Most females hunt with their partner. In addition to learning from their spouse/significant other,
69% of females also hunted with their partner. This illustrates the importance of the family unit to
hunting and how one partner can greatly impact the hunting activity of another.
8) New male hunters went with a friend or co-worker. Overall, 29% new 2020/21 male hunters
went with a friend or co-worker. This illustrates that, during the COVID-19 pandemic period,
males and females often relied on different groups of people to teach them how to hunt.
Five-Year License Analysis
1) Hunters are aging. Across the United States, older hunters continue as the majority of license
buyers. While this finding is not new, it is important to note as this problem is consistent across
the 13 states examined and could eventually reach a tipping point if younger age classes do not
grow fast enough to mitigate this age-related drop-off.
2) Female participation increased in both hunting and target shooting during the COVID surge
period. However, in 2021, women were also dropping out higher rates than men, indicating they
are either not achieving the benefits desired from participation or not receiving the support and
instruction necessary to become confident and independent hunters. This supports other
Southwick Associates studies, along with findings from the license dashboard project.
3) There is a move to the suburbs. Although the highest percentage of hunters still live in rural
areas, there is a shift towards the suburbs. This holds true across the U.S. and is particularly
apparent in the examined Western states. Finding ways to keep hunting relevant, convenient, and
accessible to suburbanites and urban residents in face of the many convenient recreational
choices available will be critical for maintaining long-term participation.
We encourage readers to go through the report as other findings may be pertinent to your specific
situation and programs. Also, keep in mind the other recent, highly-recommended R3 research by
Southwick Associates and others that examine hunting and recreational shooting participation. By better
understanding our audiences’ motivations, roadblocks, and interests, we will do a better job boosting
participation in the long run.
Data and Methods

Target Shooting Survey
The population of interest was an online panel1 of individuals who identified as target shooters. The panel
consisted of US residents with individual quotas for 1) Gender, 2) Age Class (18 – 34, 35 – 54, 55+), 3)
Ethnicity, 4) Census Region, and 5) Target Shooting Experience (pre-2020, New 2020, New 2021/2022).
The survey was fielded in late February 2022 and 806 valid responses were recorded. The sample was
split into three groups: 1) Retained surge shooters (new in 2020 or 2021 and still active), 2) lost surge
shooters (new in 2020 or 2021 but no longer active), and 3) a control group (participated in all years). Of
the 806 responses, 537 were Retained surge shooters, 64 were Lapsed surge shooters, and 205 were
shooters who have participated consistently for all years.
Hunter Survey
The populations of interest were hunting license holders who were identified through the data analysis as
1) Reactivated, 2) Recruited, or 3) Retained. A sample of 40,000 individuals (10,000 for each AFWA
region), were selected at random to participate. Oversamples of Reactivated and Retained hunters were
selected to obtain sample sizes sufficient to answer the research questions (Figure 1)2.
Participating states were,
• Midwest: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin

• Northeast: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont
• Southeast: Alabama, Louisiana, Texas
• West: Arizona, Utah
Figure 1. Outgoing Survey Sample (Reactivated, Recruited, Retained), by AFWA Region.
Reactivated Recruited Retained

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 54%
50% 45% 45% 45%
40% 35% 35% 35%
29%
30%
20% 20% 20%
20% 17%
10%
0%
Midwest Northeast Southeast West
Region
1
The panel was fielded by the online survey provider Qualtrics.
2
In the Northeast, a census was drawn for reactivated hunters because a comparatively smaller number of people
fell into this group.
Survey recipients were contacted five times via email with invitations to complete a brief questionnaire,
using the online survey platform Qualtrics. Prior to fielding the survey, questions, content flow, and
readability were tested with participating states and project partners. Multiple revisions were made, and
the survey was fielded from February 23 through March 18, 2022. Additionally, an abbreviated survey
(typically called a non-response survey) was distributed twice (March 29 and April 1) to 8,000 individuals
(2,000 per AFWA region) who failed to respond to the first survey invitations. Because there were no
significant response differences between the primary or abbreviated survey, the datasets were combined
for analysis.
The survey consisted of sections that addressed: 1) license purchase, hunting frequency, and species
pursued, 2) influence of COVID-19 on hunting patterns, 3) knowledge of regulations and wildlife agency
funding, 4) factors that influence satisfaction and future hunting behavior, 5) sources of information, and
6) demographics.
Data Weighting
Because of differences between the sampling frame (outgoing survey) and response demographics
(incoming survey), a rake weighting procedure was applied for each region based on gender and age
category (
Table 1).
Table 1. Differences in Distribution of Sample Population and Respondents for Demographic Variables
Used to Weight the Dataset.
Survey Region
Variable Population Sample Population Sample Population Sample Population Sample
Gender
Male 91% 94% 93% 95% 86% 89% 90% 21%
Female 9% 6% 7% 5% 14% 11% 10% 100%
Age Group
18 - 24 11% 5% 9% 5% 10% 4% 10% 4%
25 - 34 16% 11% 16% 11% 16% 9% 19% 12%
35 - 44 17% 17% 16% 15% 18% 18% 21% 19%
45 - 54 17% 24% 19% 23% 17% 16% 17% 19%
55 - 64 19% 23% 24% 28% 18% 25% 15% 24%
65+ 20% 20% 17% 18% 21% 29% 19% 21%
Figure 2. Self-Described License Purchase Behavior Provided by Survey Respondents, by Survey Group.
Reactivated Recruited Retained
100% 93%
90% 86% 85% 85% 84%
80% 74% 76%78% 75%
78%
68% 68%
70% 65%
57% 58%
60% 54%
50% 47%
41%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 Prior to 2018
Year Licensed
License Data Analysis

This portion of the project examined five years of license data (2016-2020) to evaluate churn rates, new
recruits, and other buying patterns. To do this, 2020 license buyers were assigned as being new, Retained,
or Reactivated (not having bought or participated in 2018 and 2019). This was accomplished by using
individual license buying history from 2016 to 2020 and building profiles based on residence to categorize
license holders into ESRI’s segmentation profiles.
The study focused on 13 states that were segregated into the four AFWA regions (
Figure 3). The intention was to represent states of varying sizes and types of habitats within each region.
However, there are limitations that should be considered. For example, enrollment into the study was
dependent on a state sending data sufficient for both the license analysis and hunter survey portions of
the study. This is complicated by the fact that the license analysis does not require personally identifying
information (PII). However, the survey requires PII (e.g., email), so data privacy laws in some states
precluded participation or significantly slowed down the process of acquiring data.
While attempts were made to survey more Western states, data was not made available in time to be
included. Thus, the Western data is likely not applicable of the whole region. The expected availability of
license records since 2016 was also a consideration. Each of the 13 states in this effort agreed to share
their hunting license databases for this project.
Figure 3. Participating States by AFWA Region.
Results
Target Shooter Survey
Demographics
Target shooters who started during the COVID surge but have since quit (Lost shooters) were more likely
to be younger (between 18-34) or middle aged (35-54) than shooters who also began during COVID and
have continued. Shooters who were active prior to the surge (Other Shooters) had the most balanced age
distribution (Figure 4).
Looking at gender, the 2020 group of new surge shooters had a higher proportion of female shooters than
male, whereas typically there are slightly more male target shooters in our analyses. This indicates that
the COVID period provided situations more encouraging for women to try target shooting (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Age Classes of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group.
Figure 5. Gender of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group.
Black and Hispanic people were more represented in the total surge group than the “Other Shooters”
group, but relatively, Hispanic surge shooters were retained at a higher rate than Black surge shooters,
showing an opportunity for improved engagement (Figure 6).
Education was roughly consistent among groups, apart from a higher rate of “high school or less”
respondents in the “Lost” surge category. This is consistent with the overall trend of lost surge shooters
being younger (Figure 7).
Figure 6. Ethnicity by Target Shooting Group.
Figure 7. Education, by Target Shooting Group.
Activity Participation Rates
Retained surge target shooters were more likely to also be hunters than lost surge shooters. Overall,
surge shooters (Lost and Retained) were also more likely to be hunters than the rate among other target
shooters. Participation rates for other activities were consistent, except for lost surge shooters who were
more into running, boating, and ATV riding (
Table 2). Overall, those who tried target shooting in 2020/21 show a greater rate of participating in nearly
all the listed activities, indicating that people used the additional time afforded during COVID to try other
activities. Our challenge now is to maintain as many of the new entrants as possible while knowing that
other activities may be competing for their attention and interest.
Table 2. Activity Participation Rates by Target Shooting Group.
Target Shooting Group

Other Target
Activity Retained Lost
Shooters
Fishing 66% 64% 53%
Hunting 38% 33% 27%
Biking 46% 38% 46%
Wildlife Watching 51% 49% 30%
Running 44% 59% 49%
Boating 42% 48% 37%
Camping 56% 59% 44%
Walking 88% 86% 83%
ATV 30% 39% 23%
Skiing 17% 14% 16%
Combined rates of friends and family participation in target shooting were roughly the same (Figure 30).
Surge shooters overall (both Retained and Lapsed) were more likely to have friends who target shoot
(Table 37). However, lost surge shooters were more likely than Retained surge shooters to have parents
who participate. It could be that lost surge shooters were more often brought by parents while Retained
surge shooters more often chose to accompany friends shooting, which aligns with our findings that
Lapsed surge shooters are younger demographically than Retained surge shooters (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Family/Friend Participation by Target Shooting Group.
Table 3. Family/Friend Participation by Target Shooting Group.

Other Target
Shooters
Father 33% 45% 25%
Mother 8% 17% 6%
Grandparent 13% 8% 6%
Sibling 37% 42% 28%
Son or Daughter 31% 17% 20%
Relative 28% 19% 19%
Spouse 35% 36% 23%
Friend 49% 44% 32%
Respondents’ rates of expected participation (over the next year) are spread somewhat evenly over the
three groups. As noted earlier, the Retained surge target shooters are more likely to be hunters than the
lost surge target shooters (Table 4).
Table 4. Expected Participation by Target Shooting Group.

Other Target
Shooters
Hunting 39% 33% 24%
Target Shooting 85% 80% 72%
Fishing 61% 48% 52%
Walking 77% 73% 70%
Biking 41% 41% 38%
Wildlife watching 49% 45% 28%
Boating 40% 34% 37%
Camping 56% 61% 39%
Hiking 49% 42% 39%
ATV 33% 28% 24%
Skiing 16% 14% 17%
Snowmobiling 11% 8% 11%
Running 36% 34% 37%
Consumer Purchase Information
Retained surge shooters were more likely to have a hunting rifle or shotgun than an AR platform rifle,
relative to lost surge shooters. This perhaps shows that Retained shooters were more likely to be target
shooting as practice for hunting versus shooting as a standalone sport. This could also have been simply a
reflection of a preference for AR platform rifles among younger shooters, who were in turn
overrepresented among the lost surge shooters (Table 5).
Table 5. Firearm Ownership Noted by Target Shooters.

Other Target
Type of Firearm Owned Retained Lost
Shooters
Rifle 53% 47% 39%
AR 32% 42% 20%
Shotgun 53% 44% 41%
Rimfire 24% 16% 17%
Handgun 70% 67% 58%
Muzzleloader 10% 14% 6%
Other 2% 6% 1%
The interesting takeaway from the consumer item ownership rates between the three groups is that lost
surge shooters are more likely than either retained surge shooters or the control group to have streaming
devices. This shows that they are going to be more responsive to R3 efforts engaged with social media
outreach versus more traditional methods (Table 6).
Table 6. Consumer Item Ownership by Target Shooting Group.

Other Target
Item Retained Lost
Shooters
HDTV 88% 81% 85%
ATV 33% 36% 25%
Streaming Device 73% 78% 71%
Firearm 71% 59% 50%
Paintball 26% 34% 24%
RV 23% 19% 15%
Tablet 74% 75% 70%
Bow 3% 31% 21%
Bicycle 38% 44% 35%
Binoculars 69% 50% 44%
Influencing Future Target Shooting Participation and Obstacles
Respondents were asked about which factors they thought would influence them to target shoot more
often. Across the board, high prices and ammunition availability are currently limiting participation.
Additionally, all shooters would like more convenient places to shoot and more free time to go shoot.
These findings reflect those seen in other recent Southwick Associates mentoring and hunter education R3
research.
Lost surge shooters are more responsive to invitations from adult friends and family than the other
groups. Interestingly, long time target shooters are more likely to attend beginner and novice shooting
events than either group of surge shooters, demonstrating the large gap in engagement (particularly for
classes) between regular and new target shooters (Table 7).
Regarding obtaining information about target shooting, lost surge shooters are more receptive to classes
and learning information from experts but are not necessarily interested in private instruction with a local
instructor. This may show a preference for some new shooters to learn in a group setting that may seem
more approachable (Table 8).
Table 7. What Would Influence Participation, by Target Shooting Group.

Other Target
What would influence you to do more target shooting? Retained Lost
Shooters
Invitation from adult friend or family member 36% 45% 32%
More convenient place to shoot 43% 34% 34%
Invitation from youth wanting to learn to target shoot 14% 23% 14%
Instruction to improve knowledge and technique 31% 42% 30%
Rental or loaner target shooting equipment access 16% 20% 20%
Information/insights from local shooting experts 15% 23% 17%
Beginner/novice target shooting event 14% 14% 23%
Online or print stories about target shooting 8% 11% 6%
Having more personal free time 42% 38% 40%
If range fees and costs lowered 33% 31% 34%
If ammunition were more available 39% 41% 32%
I already target shoot as much as I like 16% 17% 13%
None of the above 1% 0% 0%
Table 8. Respondent Interest in More Information, by Target Shooting Group.

What type of information about target shooting are you Other Target
Retained Lost
most interested in? Shooters
Target shooting locations 48% 41% 44%
Regulation and permitting 39% 45% 39%
Where to buy equipment 33% 31% 33%
How to develop skills 58% 63% 62%
Upcoming activities, tournaments, and events 29% 34% 27%
Opportunities for youth 18% 27% 16%
Local target shooting instructors 22% 19% 25%
Opportunities for specific groups 29% 31% 22%
Other 1.3% 0% 0%
Hunter Survey
Response Rate and Demographics
Of the 40,003 surveys distributed, 2,822 were undeliverable and 2,901 individuals responded, which
yielded an adjusted response rate of 7.8%. The overall margin of error for this survey is 1.8%. Given that
more than 400 responses were received in each region, regional results are presented with a margin of
error of less than 5% (Table 9).
Survey respondents were predominantly white (93%) males (92%) who averaged 52 years old and skewed
towards the older age groups. Nearly 80% had at least some college education, with 43% having at least a
Bachelors’ degree; over half (55%) self-reported income over $75,000 per year (
Table 10).
Table 9. Sample Size, Responses Received, Response Rate, and Margin of Error for Hunter Survey.
Margin
Response of error
Region States Sample Bounced Returned Rate (+/-)
Midwest IA, MI, NE, OH, WI 10,001 571 685 7.3% 3.7%
Northeast MA, NJ, VT 10,002 545 854 9.0% 3.4%
Southeast AL, LA, TX 10,000 1,369 477 5.5% 4.5%
West AZ, UT 10,000 337 885 9.2% 3.3%
Total 40,003 2,822 2,901 7.8% 1.8%
Table 10. Demographic Characteristics (Unweighted) of NSSF Hunter Survey Respondents, by Survey
Region.
Survey Region
Variable Midwest Northeast Southeast West Overall
Age Group
18 - 24 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
25 - 34 11% 11% 9% 12% 11%
35 - 44 17% 15% 18% 19% 17%
45 - 54 24% 23% 16% 19% 21%
55 - 64 23% 28% 25% 24% 25%
65+ 20% 18% 29% 21% 21%
Gender
Male 94% 95% 89% 90% 92%
Female 6% 5% 11% 10% 8%
Ethnicity
White or Caucasian 98% 94% 88% 91% 93%
Black or African American 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Hispanic or Latino 1% 2% 6% 5% 3%
American Indian or Native Alaskan 0% 1% 3% 2% 1%
Asian 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Education
High School diploma or less 21% 24% 16% 17% 20%
Some college 23% 21% 23% 23% 22%
Associate's or technical degree 18% 12% 12% 15% 15%
Bachelor's degree 23% 27% 30% 25% 26%
> 4 Year degree 14% 16% 19% 19% 17%
Income
$25,000 - $49,999 6% 8% 4% 6% 6%
$50,000 - $74,999 15% 14% 16% 14% 14%
$75,000 - $99,999 27% 18% 20% 21% 21%
$100,000 - $124,999 21% 18% 13% 20% 19%
$125,000 or more 13% 16% 19% 13% 15%
Respondents were avid outdoor enthusiasts. Nearly all indicated that they would participate in hunting
(92%) or fishing (88%) next year. Three-quarters (77%) also indicated they intended to target shoot next
year (Table 11). There were few gender differences, although females were more likely to participate in
walking, camping, hiking, and running (Figure 9).
Table 11. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would Do Next Year.
Survey Region
Activity Midwest Northeast Southeast West Overall
Hunting of any kind 93% 94% 92% 92% 93%
Fishing of any kind 88% 82% 88% 84% 85%
Target shooting 73% 78% 73% 80% 77%
Walking 71% 69% 63% 67% 68%
Camping (tent camping or RV'ing) 61% 48% 59% 84% 64%
Boating (motorized or non-motorized) 62% 59% 65% 45% 56%
Hiking/backpacking 49% 56% 39% 70% 56%
Wildlife watching 57% 49% 50% 59% 54%
Off-roading/ATV'ing 39% 36% 47% 65% 47%
Biking (trail, road, or mountain) 39% 38% 23% 32% 34%
Running/jogging 26% 25% 28% 26% 26%
Skiing (downhill, Nordic) 16% 24% 10% 17% 18%
None of the above 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Figure 9. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would Do Next Year, by Gender.
Hunting of any kind 89%

93%
Fishing of any kind 87%
85%
Target shooting 75%
77%
Walking 80%
67%
Boating (motorized or non-motorized) 60%
56%
Camping (tent camping or RV'ing) 78%
62%
Activity
Wildlife watching 67% Female

52%
69% Male
Hiking/backpacking 54%
Biking (trail, road, or mountain) 38%
34%
Skiing (downhill, Nordic) 17%
18%
Off-roading/ATV'ing 55%
46%
Running/jogging 40%
24%
None of the above 0%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
License Purchase and Hunting Behavior
Due to a variety of factors, the license analysis did not perfectly line up with self-reported license purchase
and hunting behavior among respondents. Overall, most respondents indicated they purchased a license
and went hunting annually. Additionally, Western hunters were most likely to have a 2022 license, likely
because of early application deadlines. Among all respondents, 363 indicated they were new hunters in
2020 (n = 209) or 2021 (n = 154) (Figure 10). Where appropriate, comparisons were made between new
20/21 hunters and respondents who indicated that they hunted before 2020 (called “Retained” in this
report).
Table 12. Percent of Respondents Who Purchased Any Hunting License and Percent Who Went Hunting,
by Year and Survey Region.
Survey Region
Midwest Northeast Southeast West Overall
% % % % % % % % % %
Year License Hunted License Hunted License Hunted License Hunted License Hunted
2022 60% 49% 63% 49% 59% 44% 68% 31% 63% 43%
2021 82% 77% 86% 79% 79% 68% 81% 64% 82% 72%
2020 81% 76% 79% 72% 74% 64% 77% 60% 78% 68%
2019 73% 69% 63% 61% 64% 55% 65% 50% 66% 59%
2018 67% 64% 61% 59% 57% 52% 61% 49% 62% 56%
Before 2018 79% 75% 71% 71% 76% 74% 72% 69% 74% 72%
Figure 10. Percent (and Number) of Respondents Who Indicated They Were New Hhunters in 2020 and
2021, by Survey Region.
25% 2020 2021
20%
15% 13% (n=74) 14% (n=75)
11% (n=55)
10% 9% (n=53)
8% (n=24)8%, n=22)
8% (n=36)
5% (n=25)
5%
0%
Hunter Characteristics
Overall, the average age when respondents started hunting was 16 years old. By region, southeast
hunters started at the youngest age (average = 13) and northeastern hunters the oldest (average = 18).
Female hunters, regardless of survey region, started hunting at a much older age than males (average =
23) (Figure 11). Important to note is that new 20/21 hunters started hunting at an older average age
(males = 23, females = 24).
As expected, nearly all respondents (93%) had a family member who also hunted, and this did not vary by
survey region (ranging from 91% in the Northeast to 95% in the Southeast). Family was also very
influential in training new hunters as respondents learned to hunt from their father or another relative
(i.e., grandfather, uncle). Friends and co-workers were much more likely to teach males (22%) than
females (6%). Females also noted a high percentage of “other,” which ended up being their spouse or
significant other (25% vs. 3%, Table 13). Although the sample size was small for new 20/21 hunters, 42%
(n = 22) of females listed other (spouse) and 29% (n = 62) of males noted friend or co-worker. This is an
important finding in that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, males and females relied on different
groups of people to teach them how to hunt.
By region, there were some differences among respondents with who taught them how to hunt, although
the patterns were generally the same. Functionally, a person’s father is highly influential in their
development as a hunter, followed by friends or co-workers, then their grandfather. Learning from a
mentor program ranked lowest overall; however, that is not an indicator of importance. Rather, there are
relatively few mentored events nationwide as compared to other ways to learn hunting. It is encouraging
that this was even identified as a reason, especially since COVID restrictions limited in-person events
(Figure 12).
Figure 11. Average Age Respondents Started Hunting, by Gender and Survey Region.
35 Male Female
30
27
25 23 23
21 21
Average Age
20 18
16 16
15
15 13
10
0
Region
Table 13. Person Who Taught Respondents How to Hunt (Outside of Hunter Education). Individuals
could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
Gender
Who taught you to hunt? Male Female Overall
Father 61% 51% 60%
Mother 2% 2% 2%
Brother and/or sister 9% 9% 9%
Son and/or daughter 1% 0% 1%
Other relative 15% 16% 15%
Friend or coworker 22% 6% 20%
Club or organization 3% 1% 3%
Participated in a guided/mentored program 1% 2% 1%
Took a class 5% 8% 6%
Nobody/taught myself 15% 6% 14%
Taught other* 3% 25% 6%
*Males most often listed another family member. Females listed spouse or
significant other.
Figure 12. Person Who Taught Respondents How to Hunt (Outside of Hunter Education), by Region.
Individuals could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
Father
Friend or coworker
Grandparent
Who taught you how to hunt
Other relative
Nobody/taught myself
West
Brother and/or sister Southeast
Taught other Northeast
Took a class Midwest
Club or organization
Mother
Guided/mentored program
Son and/or daughter
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
There were also differences between the sexes regarding who they hunted with during their most recent
year. For males, most either hunted with friends or co-workers (47%) or alone (46%). They hunted less
frequently with another relative (20%), their own adult son or daughter (18%), or their father (17%). For
females, they most often hunted with their spouse or significant other (69%). They were also much less
likely to hunt with a friend or co-worker (20%) or alone (19%) (Table 14).
By region, the trends were also similar in that most people hunted with friends and co-workers or alone,
although Northeastern hunters were more likely to hunt alone than any other region (
Figure 13).
Table 14. Person Respondents Hunted With During the Last Year They Hunted. Individuals could check
more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
Gender
Who did you hunt with the last year you hunted? Male Female Overall
I hunted alone 46% 19% 43%
Father 17% 23% 18%
Mother 1% 4% 1%
Brother and/or sister 17% 14% 16%
Your own adult son or daughter 18% 13% 18%
Your own youth (under 18) son or daughter 14% 20% 14%
Other relative 20% 14% 20%
Spouse or domestic partner 10% 69% 16%
A youth (under 18), not related to you 4% 3% 4%
Friend or Coworker 47% 20% 44%
Organized group 1% 0% 1%
Mentor from a group event 1% 1% 1%
Who - Other 3% 3% 3%
Figure 13. Person Respondents Hunted With During the Last Year They Hunted, by Region. Individuals
could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
Friend or Coworker
Who did you hunt with the last year you hunted
I hunted alone
Other relative
Your own adult son or daughter
Father
West
Brother and/or sister
Southeast
Spouse or domestic partner
Northeast
Your own youth (under 18) son or daughter
Midwest
A youth (under 18), not related to you
Who -Other
Grandparent
Mother
Mentor from a group event
Organized group
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Knowledge About Hunting
Respondents were asked several questions about their knowledge of a variety of hunting-related items.
Overall, the vast majority were at least “somewhat” knowledgeable about all the items, regardless of
gender. As expected, respondents were most knowledgeable about firearm safety/handling (Table 15).
Knowledge about firearm safety and hunting regulations was consistent between retained and new 20/21
hunters. As expected, new hunters were less knowledgeable about all other field related aspects of
hunting. While this should come as no surprise, it is worth noting that providing information beyond
safety and regulations is important in the education journey of new hunters (Figure 14).
Table 15. Knowledge About Hunting-Related Items.
Knowledge
Not at A
Item all little Somewhat Very
Firearm safety/handling 0% 1% 7% 92%
Hunting regulations, seasons, licensing for the state(s) you hunt 0% 7% 35% 58%
General outdoor skills 1% 11% 39% 49%
Hunting techniques 1% 13% 43% 43%
Taking care of the harvest 3% 11% 27% 59%
Behavior / Habitat of the species I am hunting 1% 14% 41% 44%
Finding somewhere to hunt 4% 18% 42% 36%
Scouting 5% 21% 40% 35%
Figure 14 . Respondents Who Were “Somewhat” or “Very” Knowledgeable About Hunting-Related Items
for New 20/21 vs. Retained Hunters.
Retained New 20/21
Firearm safety/handling 99%

99%
Hunting regulations, seasons, licensing for the 93%

state(s) you hunt 89%
General outdoor skills (navigation, woodscraft) 89%

81%
Hunting techniques 89%

67%
Taking care of the harvest 89%

69%
Behavior / habitat of the species I am hunting 88%

64%
Finding somewhere to hunt 80%

66%
Scouting 78%
56%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Species Hunted
As expected, the highest percentage of respondents indicated they typically hunted big game, followed by
fall upland game, then rabbits or squirrels. A higher percentage of Midwest (36%) and Northeast (34%)
respondents hunted turkeys as compared to Southeastern (17%) and Western (19%) hunters. Of note, a
much higher percentage of Southeast hunters checked “Other Species”3 (20%), as compared to the other
three regions (Figure 15). Among the respondents who indicated they were new hunters in 2020 or 2021,
they generally hunted species at slightly lower percentages than Retained hunters (
3
Due to survey length, respondents were not asked to specify the “other” species hunted.
Figure 16).
Overall, most people (70%) hunted half the season or less, and about half of those (46%) hunted for less
than half the season (Figure 17). By region, Southeastern respondents were more likely to hunt only a day
or two, while Western hunters were more likely to hunt almost every day of the season which might
partially reflect the typical season length for the more popular species (
Figure 18). Overall, 77% of respondents were on their trip only to hunt.
Figure 15. Species Typically Hunted by All Respondents, by Survey Region. Individuals could check more
than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
87%
Big game 78%
84%
85%
39%
Fall upland game 26%
46%
43%
28%
Rabbits, squirrels 32%
Species Hunted
27%
40% West
19%
17% Southeast
Spring turkey 34%
36%
Northeast
Waterfowl/migratory 24%
40% Midwest
birds 21%
19%
26%
Predators 25%
18%
23%
5%
Other species 20%
3%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 16. Percent of New 20/21 vs. Retained Respondents Who Hunted the Species Listed on the
Survey. Individuals could check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
90% 85% New 20/21 Retained

80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
41%
40%
33% 33%
29%
30% 26% 24%
22%
18%
20% 15% 14%
10% 7%
3%
0%
Big game Rabbits, Fall upland Waterfowl Spring turkey Predators Hunt Other
squirrels game
Figure 17. How Often Respondents Hunted During the Season, Species and Survey Regions Combined.
40%
35%
30% 27%
24%
25%
21%
20% 19%
15%
9%
10%
5%
0%
Only a day or 2 Less than half About half More than half Almost every day
How much of the season hunted
Figure 18. How Often Respondents Hunted During the Season by Survey Region, Species Combined.

35%
30% 30% 30%

30%
26% 26%
25% 25%
25% 24%
23%
22%
20% 19% 19%

18% 18%
17%
15%
15% 13%
10% 8% 8%
5% 3%
0%
Only a day or 2 Less than half About half More than half Almost every day
How much of the season hunted
Respondents were also asked what factors might encourage them to hunt more often. A majority of
people would hunt more often if they had more personal free time (52%). Convenient places to hunt
(45%), an invitation to go hunting (34%), and information on where to go hunting (31%) were also
important. Interestingly, only 20% of respondents said they “hunted as much as they wanted” (Table 16).
By gender, there were no real differences in factors between males and females. In looking at the
question from the perspective of region, only two differences are noted. First, given the extent of public
land, Western respondents did not need more convenient places to hunt. Also, Southeastern hunters
were more inclined to indicate they would hunt more if they had an invitation to go and more information
on where to go hunting (Figure 19).
In looking at the question from the perspective of new 20/21 new hunters, the patterns were generally
the same; however, more personal free time was even more important to this group (
Figure 20). This could suggest that COVID-19 restrictions offered more time to hunt and when restrictions
relaxed, free time was more limited.
Table 16. Factors that Might Encourage Respondents to Hunt More Often, by Gender. Individuals could
check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
Sex
What might encourage you to hunt more? Male Female Overall
More personal free time 51% 56% 52%
More convenient places to hunt 46% 38% 45%
An invitation from an adult friend or family member 34% 32% 34%
Information on where to go hunting 31% 27% 31%
I already hunt as often as I want to 20% 17% 20%
Information and insights from local hunting experts 16% 17% 16%
Instruction to improve my knowledge/methods/techniques 16% 18% 16%
An invitation from a youth wanting to learn how to hunt 16% 8% 15%
Hunt more often other 9% 11% 9%
A special event for beginner or novice hunters only 7% 8% 7%
Stories about hunting in-print or online 5% 3% 5%
Access to rental or loaner hunting equipment 3% 6% 4%
None of the above 1% 2% 1%
Figure 19 . Factors that Might Encourage Respondents to Hunt More Often, by Region. Individuals could
check more than one box so percentages do not add to 100.
More personal free time

What might enourage you to hunt more often
More convenient places to hunt

An invitation from an adult friend or family member
Information on where to go hunting
West
I already hunt as often as I want to
Southeast
Information and insights from local hunting experts
Northeast
Instruction to improve my knowledge/methods/techniques
Midwest
An invitation from a youth wanting to learn how to hunt
Hunt more often other
A special event for beginner or novice hunters only
Stories about hunting in-print or online
Access to rental or loaner hunting equipment
None of the above
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 20. Factors that Might Encourage New 20/21 Hunters to Hunt More Often. Individuals could
check more than one box, so percentages do not add to 100.
More personal free time 61%
More convenient places to hunt 41%
An invitation from an adult friend or family member 41%

What might encourage you to hunt more often
Information on where to go hunting 35%
Instruction to improve my knowledge/methods/techniques 27%
Information and insights from local hunting experts 23%
A special event for beginner or novice hunters only 20%
I already hunt as often as I want to 12%
An invitation from a youth wanting to learn how to hunt 9%
Access to rental or loaner hunting equipment 8%
Hunt more often other 7%
Stories about hunting in-print or online 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Hunt Satisfaction
Satisfaction is loosely defined as an evaluation of an event, and those outcomes have influence on
whether a person will hunt in the future. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to a person’s
overall satisfaction – it is not just taking an animal. This study evaluated an array of items that could
potentially contribute to a person’s hunt satisfaction. Respondents were shown all 16 items and asked if
any contributed to their hunting experience, if they checked “yes,” they were offered a scale from “slightly
important” to “extremely important.” Framing the questions this way allows R3 practitioners to focus on
the items that are important.
Like almost every other study examining hunter satisfaction, being outdoors (90%), nature (86%), and
spending time with family and friends (71%) were at the top of the list. Getting wild game to eat (65%),
harvest opportunity (63%), and seeing a lot of game (56%) were also important. Less important items in
this study included teaching someone else to hunt (37%) and having an abundance of trophy-sized game
(21%) (Table 17).
Table 17. Items That are Important to a Person's Hunting Experience and the Number of People who
Check the Item, by Region.
Survey Region
Item N Midwest Northeast Southeast West Overall
Enjoying the outdoors 1,852 90% 90% 91% 90% 90%
To be out in nature 1,775 88% 88% 85% 84% 86%
Spending time with family/friends 1,472 70% 62% 76% 79% 71%
Having a relaxing time 1,397 70% 69% 80% 58% 68%
To get wild game to eat 1,334 64% 65% 68% 63% 65%
Chance to take the species I'm hunting 1,297 61% 63% 56% 68% 63%
Seeing a lot of game 1,159 52% 55% 53% 63% 56%
To disconnect from technology 1,002 47% 47% 48% 52% 49%
Hunting locations close to home 925 47% 57% 40% 33% 45%
Easy access to good hunting locations 924 44% 51% 42% 41% 45%
Seeing few hunters 912 40% 42% 32% 56% 44%
Getting to improve my scouting/hunting techniques 902 40% 46% 42% 45% 44%
To experience new things 851 43% 39% 42% 42% 41%
To teach someone else to hunt 768 37% 35% 39% 39% 37%
Abundance of trophy-sized game 432 20% 19% 19% 25% 21%
None of these 9 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Not surprisingly, a similar pattern develops regarding how important each item is to a person’s evaluation
of their hunting season and ultimately hunt-related satisfaction. The first four items (related to being
outdoors and with family/friends) were noted as “very” or “extremely” important. However, hunting land
access, seeing fewer hunters, and helping someone else learn to hunt moved higher up on the list. While
these items were less frequently noted, they were very important to those individuals. Harvest-related
items either moved down the list (e.g., taking game, eating wild game, seeing a lot of game), or stayed at
the bottom (trophy game) (Table 18).
Respondents were also asked if their plans would change if they did not see or harvest any game.
Generally, people indicated they were slightly less inclined to go if they did not see any game. However,
respondents would largely go hunting again, even if they did not harvest any game (Table 19).
So, what does this mean? In this study, regardless of survey region, respondents were generally satisfied
with their hunt (58%). It also did not matter which species were hunted; respondents were still satisfied
with their most recent hunting season (Figure 22). Of note, there was a small difference in satisfaction
between new 20/21 hunters (55%) and Retained respondents (60%). The take home message is that
respondents from across the country, regardless of what they hunted, were generally satisfied with the
most recent season they hunted and would continue hunting, even if they were not successful.
Table 18. Importance of Items to a Person's Hunt Satisfaction and the Number of People who Rated
Each Item.
How important?
Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Item N important important important important
Enjoying the outdoors 1,827 1% 7% 36% 55%
To be out in nature 1,750 2% 10% 38% 51%
Spending time with family/friends 1,452 3% 11% 32% 55%
Having a relaxing time 1,374 3% 16% 41% 40%
Easy access to good hunting locations 904 4% 27% 41% 28%
Seeing few hunters 895 7% 25% 37% 32%
To teach someone else to hunt 752 11% 25% 37% 27%
Chance to take the species I'm hunting 1,282 6% 31% 36% 27%
To get wild game to eat 1,315 7% 30% 34% 29%
To disconnect from technology 988 10% 28% 30% 32%
Getting to improve my scouting/hunting techniques 889 8% 33% 39% 20%
Hunting locations close to home 905 6% 35% 37% 22%
Seeing a lot of game 1,141 5% 38% 38% 19%
To experience new things 838 10% 36% 34% 20%
Abundance of trophy-sized game 424 12% 42% 27% 19%
Table 19. Importance of Seeing and Harvesting Game. Would you continue to hunt?
Hunter Group
New
Question 20/21 Retained Overall
Future plans change if you didn't see game
I would definitely not go 2% 4% 4%
I might not go 28% 25% 26%
I might go 23% 18% 19%
I would definitely still go 47% 53% 52%
Future plans be affected if you didn't harvest any game

on your past trips?
I would definitely not go 1% 2% 2%
I might not go 15% 13% 14%
I might go 25% 15% 17%
I would definitely still go 59% 70% 68%
Figure 21. Satisfaction With the Most Recent Season Hunted, Overall and by Survey Region.
100% Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied
90%
80%
70% 67% 65%

57% 58%
60%
49%
50%
40%
30%
30% 23%
21% 22%
20% 19%
20% 15%
18% 17%18%
10%
0%
Region
Figure 22. Satisfaction With the Most Recent Season Hunted, by Species.
70% Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied
58% 59% 58% 60%

60% 58%
53%
49%
50%
40%
30% 27%26%
25% 24%
22% 23% 23% 22%
20% 19% 19% 20%
20% 17% 17%
10%
0%
Big game Small game Fall upland Waterfowl Spring turkey Predators Other species
game
Species Hunted
Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hunting
Respondents were asked several questions related to their 2020 hunting activities in terms of the COVID-
19 pandemic and associated restrictions. Given the change in numbers and distribution of hunting license
sales, and the restrictions that started around March 2020, it was important to include a battery of
questions related how the pandemic impacted 2020 and beyond.
First, respondents were asked if the COVID-19 pandemic influenced how they purchased any hunting
license in 2020. Overall, 77% indicated COVID-19 had no influence on their license purchase in 2020. Six
percent did not purchase at least one license because of the pandemic, and 4% each purchased more
licenses, or purchased them earlier or later (Figure 23).
Figure 23. Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Respondents' Purchase of At Least One Type of
Hunting License.
No 77%
I did not purchase any license in 2020 because of COVID-19 6%
Yes, I purchased more types of hunting licenses that I

4%
normally do
Yes, I only purchased at least one license because of the

4%
COVID-19 pandemic
Yes, at least one purchase was delayed 4%
Yes, I purchased at least one license earlier than usual 4%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
By gender, the only difference was a slightly higher percentage of females (10% vs. 6%) did not purchase
at least one license in 2020 because of COVID-19 (
Figure 24).
To investigate the effects of COVID-19 on 2021 hunting participation, individuals who said they did not
hunt in 2021 (n = 525), were asked if COVID-19 was related to that decision. Overall, 15% said they did
not hunt in 2021 because of COVID-19. Although the sample size was small (n = 76), the primary reason
was that loosening restrictions limited free time (34%) (Figure 25). Overall, 27% said “other,” and was
primarily related to personal health issues and other time constraints.
Figure 24. Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Respondents' Purchase of At Least One Type of
Hunting License, by Gender.
77%
No
77%
10%
I did not purchase any license in 2020 because of COVID-19
6%
Yes, I purchased more types of hunting licenses that I normally 4%

do 5%
Female
Yes, I only purchased at least one license because of the COVID- 4%
Male
19 pandemic 4%
3%
Yes, at least one purchase was delayed
4%
3%
Yes, I purchased at least one license earlier than usual
4%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 25. Reasons Respondents Gave for Not Hunting in 2021, due to COVID-19.
COVID restrictions loosened and I didn't have the time 34%
Other 27%
Work or school obligations increased and I didn't have time 22%
My child was home and I didn't have time 9%
I only hunted in 2020 because I had time due to COVID-19

7%
restrictions
0% 25% 50%
Constraints to Future Hunting Activity
Individuals who did not indicate that they were planning to hunt next season were asked why they would
not participate. Overall, the highest percentage (26%) indicated that hunting land was difficult to find,
followed by not having people to hunt with (20%), and not having as much free time (20%). Of note, 17%
checked “other,” which was predominantly people who indicated that licenses were hard to obtain, they
were moving, or had some other life event that precluded hunting (Figure 26).
Figure 26. Reasons Respondents Indicated Why They Would Not Hunt Next Season.
Access to hunting land is hard to find 26%

I dont have as many people to hunt with as I would like 20%
I don't have as much time 20%
Not hunt other reason 17%
No longer interested in hunting 17%
Health or other issues 17%
Other activities are more enjoyable to me 13%
There is no place to hunt close to home 12%
Hunting is too expensive 11%
I don't know where to hunt 8%
Hunting rules are too complex 7%
I don't have the proper equipment 5%
My hunting skills need to improve 5%
Negative experience with other hunters 4%
I have no one to teach me how to hunt 3%
I don't know enough about it to go hunting 2%
I only hunted because of COVID-19 restrictions 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Knowledge about Agency Funding
The foundation for funding of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies is hunting and fishing licenses sales, which
are leveraged against Federal Excise taxes. In some states (e.g., Minnesota, Missouri), Agencies receive a
percentage of the state sales tax; however, these programs are exceptions, rather than the rule. In most
cases, Agencies do not receive funding from the state General Fund or special taxes. In this survey,
respondents were asked where they think Agencies receive their funding.
Overall, most respondents correctly indicated that agencies receive their funding from hunting and fishing
license sales (89%). However, less than half (44%) indicated “taxes on the sale of hunting and fishing
gear,” which indicates a lack of knowledge of the Pittman-Robertson Federal Excise Tax law. Nearly one-
quarter believed that general sales taxes were used to fund Agencies (
Table 20). There were no substantial differences in responses to the agency funding question between
new 20/21 and retained license holders (Figure 27). Given the overall percentage of people who did not
know about excise taxes and thought general taxes funded agencies, there is an opportunity in hunter
education instructions to provide information specific to their state.
Table 20. Knowledge of Where State Agencies Receive Their Funding.
Sex
Where do you think State fish and wildlife agencies receive their funding? Male Female Overall
Hunting and fishing license sales 92% 86% 89%
Taxes on the sale of hunting and fishing gear 42% 30% 44%
Boat registration fees 41% 32% 31%
General state tax revenues (property, income, and sales taxes) 24% 19% 23%
Taxes on motorboat fuel 10% 7% 8%
I'm not sure 6% 12% 8%
Car registration fees 2% 2% 2%
Other 3% 1% 2%
Figure 27. Knowledge of Where State Agencies Receive Their Funding, by Hunting Group.
Retained New 20/21
Hunting and fishing license sales 93%

89%
Taxes on the sale of hunting and fishing gear 42%

44%
Where agencies receive their funding
Boat registration fees 42%

31%
General state tax revenues (property, income, and sales taxes) 24%
23%
Taxes on motor boat fuel 10%

8%
Funding I'm not sure 6%

8%
Funding Other 3%
2%
Car registration fees 2%

2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources of Information
Where individuals seek information is critical to designing and implementing effective programs.
Respondents were asked to indicate all the sources where they get their information about hunting,
hunting-related entertainment, or information. Respondents who checked any of the presented items
were then asked how influential those information channels are with regards to their hunting. Overall,
whether a person is a new or a retained hunter, the majority get their information from family or friends
(65%). Both groups also used websites nearly equally (46%). Old, not retained hunters more often used
state regulations guides (43% vs. 33%) and print media (35% vs. 21%), but new hunters tended to use
streaming services slightly more often (31% vs. 26%) (Figure 28).
Regarding how important the information was to respondents, there were no statistical differences
between new 20/21 and retained respondents. Overall, respondents relied heavily on the information
from friends and family, websites, and regulations guides. Hunting apps and social media were also
important, along with emails from agencies and non-profits. A smaller number (and percentage) of
respondents relied on guides or outfitters, celebrities, and workshops (
Table 21).
Figure 28. Sources of Information Respondents Used to Obtain Information About Hunting, by Hunting
Group.
A friend / family member 65%

67%
Websites 45%
49%
State agency regulation guides 43%
33%
Print media 35%
21%
Social media 32%
33%
Hunting apps 32%
36%
Email communication from state fish… 29%
25%
Streaming services 26%
31%
Online forums 22%
20%
Retained
Local television or cable not through… 18%
12%
15% New 20/21
Podcasts 18%
Hunting organizations 15%
10%
Local clubs / organizations 12%
13%
Guides / Outfitters 12%
8%
8%
Outdoor celebrity 7%
11%
Hunting workshops or seminars 7%
8%
Live radio shows 5%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Table 21. Importance of Information That Respondents Used for Hunting-Related Purposes.
Importance
Source of information N Not at all Slightly Moderately Extremely
A friend / family member 1,256 1% 6% 35% 58%
Websites 914 3% 38% 47% 12%
State agency regulation guides 815 1% 15% 34% 50%
Print media 630 5% 37% 49% 10%
Hunting apps 623 3% 24% 45% 28%
Social media 621 10% 46% 36% 8%
Email from agencies or nonprofits 542 4% 32% 48% 17%
Streaming services 508 10% 48% 35% 7%
Online forums 423 6% 45% 42% 7%
Local TV not through streaming services 330 11% 45% 37% 8%
Podcasts 304 8% 34% 43% 15%
Hunting organizations 277 4% 42% 44% 11%
Local clubs / organizations 230 4% 29% 46% 21%
Guides / Outfitters 225 3% 29% 44% 23%
Outdoor celebrity 146 10% 43% 36% 11%
Hunting workshops or seminars 136 3% 31% 47% 20%
Live radio shows 83 6% 50% 37% 7%
License Data Analysis

Hunter Population Databases
Annual hunting license databases shared by each of the participating states span a five-year period, from
2016 through 2020. The five database files were synchronized at the state level to create one harmonized
database of individuals along with their hunting license purchasing behavior over the period. An
individual was identified as purchasing within a particular year if they are on record as having purchased
any type of license (either annual or short-term) during that year (Figure 29).
Figure 29. Number of Licensed Hunters and Percent Contributed by State.
Two filters were applied to the databases to capture only those hunters who would have been required to
purchase a license during that period. These filters excluded hunters younger than 18 years of age and
older than 64 years of age in 2020. Any hunter who purchased a lifetime license during the evaluation
period was also excluded from the analysis.
Processing the raw databases revealed a variety of challenges, due to the limitations of the data and the
duration of the purchasing history under evaluation. In the vast majority of cases, state-level electronic
license databases are an effective and accurate means of tracking a hunter’s purchasing behavior.
However, there are instances that arise, such as shifts in license structure at the state level, consistency of
the data collected and associated with a particular license purchase, or the consistency of unique
customer numbers over the entire time period, which can challenge the ability to link the purchases of an
individual from year to year over a decade, and in turn can impact the ability to harmonize an individual’s
purchase history.
Defining Hunter Groups
Using the harmonized state-level database, hunters are assigned to an avidity grouping based upon their
historical purchasing patterns (Figure 10). The groupings are defined with the goal of strategically
identifying common characteristics within a group and differences between groups.
• “Recruited:” This group represents individuals who did not purchase a license from 2016 – 2019
but did purchase one in 2020. This potentially represents the group most likely to have purchased
a license because of COVID-19.
• “Retained:” This group represents individuals who purchased a license from 2018 – 2020. This
group is typically your “avid” hunter who buys a license every year.
• “Reactivated:” This group purchased at least one license in 2016 or 2017, did not buy a license in
2018 and 2019, and bought one in 2020. This group may have also purchased a license due to
COVID-19.
• “Lapsed:” This group purchased a license in 2019 but did not buy one in 2020. This group
represents the “churn” in the analysis.
In addition to these four groups, each table also reports results for “All Hunters,” which includes all
individuals who purchased a hunting license over the period, regardless of their frequency. These results
reflect the characteristics of the hunting population over the last decade and provide another point of
comparison to evaluate the presence of unique characteristics within one group.
Figure 30. Hunter Avidity Groups Defined.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Classification in 2020
Purchased
Recruited Did not purchase
in 2020
Purchased Purchased Purchased
Retained
in 2018 in 2019 in 2020
Purchased
Reactivated Purchased in >1 year Did not Purchase
in 2020
Purchased Did not
Lapsed (Churn)
in 2019 Purchase
Using those specific breakouts, Table 1 shows the breakdown of all hunters across each group by region.
For example, there are almost 227,000 resident license hunters in the Northeast. Based on their
purchasing patterns over the period, 45% can be characterized as “Retained,” 5% can be characterized as
“Recruited,” 1% are “Reactivated,” and 12% are “Lapsed.” The structured definitions of avidity groups do
not and are not meant to encompass all possible purchasing patterns. As a result, there are other hunters
who fall outside of the structured definitions created for this analysis. These are shown as “Other” hunters
in Table 1; for example, approximately 36% of resident licensed hunters in the Northeast region (Table
22).
Table 22. Number of Resident Licensed Hunters by Region and Percent Assigned to Groups.
Northeast Southeast Midwest West
Total Count 226,839 2,903,430 2,339,865 839,833
Hunter Group
Retained 45% 41% 28% 22%
Recruited 5% 7% 4% 8%
Reactivated 1% 2% 1% 3%
Lapsed 12% 11% 11% 9%
Other Hunters 36% 38% 57% 57%
Tapestry Segmentation Identification
Data from each region was analyzed using a data service known as “Tapestry™.” Provided by ESRI of
Arlington, VA, Tapestry™ is built from Census Bureau data and other sources and is used to describe an
anticipated lifestyle segment of an individual household based on its location. Every neighborhood, down
to the block level, has been categorized and divided into 65 types of lifestyle segments based on
demographic variables such as age, wealth and income, occupation, ethnicity, family status, education,
and many types of consumer behavior characteristics. For each region, individual license records from
2016 - 2020 were appended with Tapestry™ data. The aggregated results allowed us to learn more about
the lifestyles of people who purchased hunting licenses and, in conjunction with purchasing behavior,
provided insights into those segments who do or do not renew their license. Detailed Tapestry™ segment
descriptions are included in Appendix A.
By combining Tapestry™ and license sales data as well as identifying groupings based on purchasing
pattern behaviors, this report identifies where opportunities exist to improve hunting marketing efforts
among specific locations and members of the hunting population. Report results will be useful in
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of future recruitment and retention efforts by positioning
outreach efforts to reduce the likelihood of hunters leaving or taking a hiatus from the sport.
The analysis combines each state within a region and focuses the results at the regional level. As a result,
the section of this report exploring the hunting license sales databases is organized by regions and
examines the churn rates, demographic characteristics (age and gender), and lifestyle characteristics
(urban/rural classification, Tapestry™ segmentation, and household income) of the resident hunting
population.
For this analysis, churn is defined as the number of hunters purchasing a license of any type in a particular
year who do not purchase a license of any type the following year. Household income is an approximate
measure rather than a specific measure for each licensed hunter. Hunting license databases do not
provide income-related data. Instead, the Tapestry™ segmentation process is able to provide an
estimated household income based upon an individual’s location and the general neighborhood
characteristics.
Northeast Regional Results
Churn Rates
Within the Northeast, churn rates among resident hunters range between a low of 13%, occurring in 2016-
17, and a high of 19%, occurring most recently in 2017-18 (Table 2). Among nonresident hunters, the
churn rate is much higher, but not quite twice that of residents. The lowest levels of churn (17%) occurred
during 2016-17 and the highest (28%) in 2019-20 (Table 23).
Table 23. Northeast Churn Rates.
Resident Hunters Not Non-resident Hunters Not

Renewing Renewing
Year Range N % N %
2016 to 2017 19,928 13% 3,762 17%
2017 to 2018 30,052 19% 6,500 26%
2018 to 2019 26,757 18% 6,452 27%
2019 to 2020 28,322 19% 6,698 28%
Age
Among resident hunters, only 15% of Retained hunters are between 25 and 34 years old, while
26% of Recruited hunters fall within this age group. Retained hunters are also much older, as
41% are at least 55 years older, as compared to the cohort of Recruited (23%) and Reactivated
(33%) hunters. As expected, the median age for Retained hunters is higher (50 years), compared
to Reactivated and Lapsed (47 years each) and Recruited hunters (39 years) (Table 24).
Becoming a Lapsed hunter starts at the 25 – 34-year age category (19%) and continues through
all age classes (15% to 19%), consistent with the group’s median age of 47. The largest category,
Retained hunters, show a steady decline in age classes and peak at 55 – 64 (25%).
Table 24. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Age.
Hunter Status in 2020 All Hunters
Recruited Retained Reactivated Lapsed (2016-2020)
# % # % # % # % # %
18 - 24 1,978 16% 8,500 8% 361 11% 3,468 12% 24,476 11%
25 - 34 3,185 26% 14,998 15% 580 18% 5,493 19% 40,496 18%
35 - 44 2,289 19% 16,070 16% 540 17% 4,271 15% 35,949 16%
45 - 54 2,081 17% 21,123 21% 665 21% 4,608 16% 41,735 18%
55 - 64 1,840 15% 25,351 25% 675 21% 5,277 19% 47,745 21%
65+ 991 8% 15,897 16% 400 12% 5,205 18% 36,438 16%
Total 12,364 100% 101,939 100% 3,221 100% 28,322 100% 226,839 100%
Median age 39 50 47 47 44
Gender
Males comprised the vast majority of hunters, regardless of group, and account for between 89% (Lapsed)
and 94% (Retained) of the resident hunting population. The highest percentage of female hunters were
from the Lapsed group (11%). In contrast, female hunters in the Retained group account for only 6% of all
hunters (Table 25).
Table 25. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender.
# % # % # % # % # %
Male 11,299 91% 95,604 94% 2,998 93% 25,207 89% 207,248 91%
Female 1,065 9% 6,335 6% 223 7% 3,115 11% 19,580 9%
Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0.0% 11 0%
Total 12,364 100% 101,939 100% 3,221 100% 28,322 100% 226,839 100%
Lifestyle Profiles
Overall, 39% of hunters reside in a suburban setting, which is characterized by households in

neighborhoods with proximity to amenities, entertainment, and work. Within that group, 68%
of Reactivated and 65% of Recruited hunters come from suburban areas. One-third of hunters
reside in rural areas (country living, farms, and single-family homes); however, only 12% of
Recruited hunters are rural residents (Table 26).
Table 26. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification.
Hunter status in 2020 All Hunters
# % # % # % # % # %
Urban Centers 259 3% 423 1% 27 2% 225 1% 1,771 1%
Metro Cities 825 10% 12,012 16% 145 8% 3,533 19% 25,422 16%
Urban Outskirts 666 8% 3,981 5% 146 8% 925 5% 8,445 5%
Suburban 5,297 65% 26,269 35% 1,253 68% 5,851 31% 60,334 39%
Small Towns 85 1% 4,459 6% 27 2% 1,038 6% 7,941 5%
Rural 990 12% 28,332 38% 241 13% 7,093 38% 52,903 34%
Total 8,122 100% 75,476 100% 1,839 100% 18,665 100% 156,816 100%
Tapestry Segmentation
Table 27 shows the top ten Tapestry™ segments across the hunter groups. These ten segments describe
two-thirds of all hunters. Across hunter groups there is some variation in the rankings of Tapestry™
segments. The Great Outdoors and Green Acres segments account for 20% of Retained and Lapsed
hunters, but less than 5% of Recruited and Reactivated hunters, indicating that interest in hunting from
within these segments may be decreasing. These groups are more likely to live in the Metro Cities (In
Style, Front Porches, and Set to Impress segments). Within the suburban communities, hunters
categorized as Savvy Suburbanites or Pleasantville are more likely to Recruited or Reactivated hunters, as
compared to Retained or Lapsed hunters.
Table 27. Northeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry™ Segmentation.
Hunter status in 2020 All Hunters

Tapestry™ Tapestry™ Urban/Rural
Rank Code Description Classification # % # % # % # % # %
1 23 The Great Outdoors Rural 317 4% 15,286 20% 84 5% 3,858 21% 27,950 18%
2 21 Green Acres Rural 553 7% 7,211 10% 118 6% 1,793 10% 14,497 9%
3 18 Parks and Rec Suburban 875 11% 5,150 7% 198 1% 1,471 8% 12,500 8%
4 4 Savvy Suburbanites Suburban 986 12% 5,292 7% 255 4% 929 5% 11,159 7%
5 7 Pleasantville Suburban 1,069 13% 4,078 5% 237 3% 973 5% 10,432 7%
6 17 In Style Metro Cities 207 3% 4,941 7% 32 2% 1,383 7% 9,802 6%
7 37 Front Porches Metro Cities 371 5% 2,388 3% 64 4% 798 4% 6,132 4%
8 54 Set to Impress Metro Cities 88 1% 2,000 3% 23 1% 592 3% 4,210 3%
9 13 Soccer Moms Suburban 358 4% 1,624 2% 110 6% 324 2% 3,810 2%
10 33 City Lights Urban Outskirts 442 5% 1,494 2% 93 5% 346 2% 3,733 2%
Total 5,266 65% 49,464 66% 1,214 66% 12,467 67% 104,225 67%
Southeast Regional Results
Churn Rates
Within the Southeast region, churn rates among resident hunters were consistent and ranged from
18% to 20%. Among nonresident hunters, the churn rate is slightly higher at 26% to 29% (Table 28).
Table 28. Southeast Churn Rates.

Renewing Renewing
Year Range N % N %
2016 to 2017 356,436 18% 74,466 26%
2017 to 2018 377,054 20% 77,803 27%
2018 to 2019 342,129 19% 77,402 28%
2019 to 2020 315,196 18% 79,728 29%
Age
Among resident hunters, only 16% of Retained hunters are between 25 and 34 years old, while 263 of
recruited hunters fall within this age group. Retained hunters are also much older, as 39% are at least
55 years older as compared to the cohort of Recruited (29%) and Reactivated (34%) hunters. As
expected, the median age for Retained hunters is higher (48 years), compared to Reactivated and
Lapsed (45 years each) and Recruited hunters (40 years) (Table 29).
Becoming a Lapsed hunter starts at the 25 – 34-year age category (20%) and continues through all age
classes (16% to 19%), consistent with the group’s median age of 45. The largest category, Retained
hunters, show a steady decline in age classes and peak at 65+ (20%). This is indicative of an aging
hunter population that is recruiting a proportionately smaller percentage of people into hunting.
Table 29. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Age.
# % # % # % # % # %
18 - 24 34,094 16% 115,377 10% 7,433 12% 42,547 14% 354,105 12%
25 - 34 48,433 23% 188,052 16% 11,364 19% 61,685 20% 542,109 19%
35 - 44 39,870 19% 216,151 18% 11,131 19% 52,839 17% 515,096 18%
45 - 54 29,644 14% 214,543 18% 9,624 16% 45,554 15% 463,595 16%
55 - 64 35,345 17% 225,273 19% 9,272 16% 48,281 15% 476,630 16%
65+ 25,562 12% 244,502 20% 11,050 19% 64,290 20% 551,895 19%
Total 212,948 100% 1,203,898 100% 59,874 100% 315,196 100% 2,903,430 100%
Median age 40 48 45 45 43
Gender
Although a higher proportion of females are found in the southeast, males comprised the majority of hunters
and account for between 62% (Lapsed) and 86% (Retained) of the resident hunting population. However, a high
percentage of genders were “Unknown” for the Recruited group; thus, the percentage may be skewed overall
(Table 30).
Table 30. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender.
# % # % # % # % # %
Male 131,640 62% 1,029,103 86% 46,435 78% 230,563 73% 2,226,689 77%
Female 42,317 20% 138,081 12% 9,963 17% 55,791 18% 445,459 15%
Unknown 38,991 18% 36,714 3% 3,476 6% 28,842 9% 231,282 8%
Total 212,948 100% 1,203,898 100% 59,874 100% 315,196 100% 2,903,430 100%
Lifestyle Profile
Overall, 39% of all hunters lived in suburban areas; however, that was driven largely by Retained hunters. A
much higher percentage of Reactivated (68%) and Recruited (65%) hunters lived in the suburbs. Thirty-four
percent lived in rural areas, which again is driven by Retained hunters. Reactivated (13%) and Recruited (12%)
hunters were much likely to live in a rural setting. These data indicate, at least for the states examined, that
new hunters are coming from the suburbs. In general, Lapsed hunters lived in areas most similar to the
Retained group (Table 31).
Table 31. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification.
# % # % # % # % # %
Urban Centers 259 3% 423 1% 27 2% 225 1% 1,771 1%
Metro Cities 825 10% 12,012 16% 145 8% 3,533 19% 25,422 16%
Urban Outskirts 666 8% 3,981 5% 146 8% 925 5% 8,445 5%
Suburban 5,297 65% 26,269 35% 1,253 68% 5,851 31% 60,334 39%
Small Towns 85 1% 4,459 6% 27 2% 1,038 6% 7,941 5%
Rural 990 12% 28,332 38% 241 13% 7,093 38% 52,903 34%
Total 8,122 100% 75,476 100% 1,839 100% 18,665 100% 156,816 100%
Tapestry™ Segmentation
Table 32 shows the top ten Tapestry™ segments across the resident group types. These ten segments describe
more than half (56%) of all hunters. Across hunter groups there is little variation in the rankings of Tapestry™
segments. The Southern Satellite segment accounts for between 11% and 14% of all resident hunters. Up and
Coming Families (8%) was the second largest segment among all resident hunters. Of note, four segments
accounted for 5% each of the hunting population (Rooted Rural, Diners & Miners, Boomburbs, Middleburg).
Table 32. Southeast: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation
Hunter status in 2020
All Hunters

Tapestry™ Tapestry™ Urban/Rural
Rank Code Description Classification # % # % # % # % # %
1 46 Southern Satellites Rural 23,222 11% 168,728 14% 8,497 14% 42,054 14% 382,281 13%
Up and Coming
2 27 Families Suburban 22,007 11% 86,676 7% 4,388 7% 24,793 8% 231,461 8%
3 47 Rooted Rural Rural 8,131 4% 74,742 6% 2,875 5% 14,801 5% 152,960 5%
4 48 Diners & Miners Rural 9,280 4% 61,723 5% 3,590 6% 16,889 6% 143,405 5%
5 3 Boomburbs Suburban 11,724 6% 56,343 5% 2,617 4% 13,962 5% 138,523 5%
6 15 Middleburg Small Towns 9,618 5% 55,206 5% 3,268 6% 16,221 5% 136,531 5%
Southwestern
7 32 Families Urban Outskirts 11,532 6% 49,432 4% 2,408 4% 12,685 4% 125,355 4%
8 21 Green Acres Rural 7,414 4% 52,771 4% 2,371 4% 11,636 4% 114,658 4%
9 13 Soccer Moms Suburban 7,761 4% 41,240 4% 2,312 4% 11,364 4% 101,606 4%
10 30 Barrios Urbanos Urban Outskirts 6,929 3% 32,516 3% 1,409 2% 8,499 3% 81,839 3%
Total 117,618 56% 679,377 57% 33,735 57% 172,904 56% 1,608,619 56%
Midwest Regional Results
Churn Rates
Within the Midwest, churn rates among both resident and non-resident hunters were consistent
among years. Overall, resident churn was 16% - 18%, while non-resident churn was slightly higher and
ranged from 30% to 35% (Table 33).
Table 33. Midwest Churn Rates.

Renewing Renewing
Year Range N % N %
2016 to 2017 230,972 17% 29,998 30%
2017 to 2018 303,410 18% 53,329 32%
2018 to 2019 282,022 17% 54,694 33%
2019 to 2020 247,914 16% 54,899 35%
Age
As expected, Retained hunters are much older than any other group; 41% are over 55 years
old and the median age is 50. They also outnumber every other group by a factor of 5x (Lapsed) to 25x
(Reactivated). Conversely, most Recruited hunters are under 34 (43%), with a median age of 38 years.
Reactivated hunters fall somewhat in the middle as 35% are between 35 and 54 years old. Finally,
Lapsed hunters also exhibit a fairly even distribution of age classes, which ranged from 15% to 19% (
Table 34).
Age distributions of the various groups is indicative of trends in hunter numbers across the Midwest.
The majority are older and will eventually “age out.” While a high percentage of Recruited hunters are
young, their numbers are relatively small, despite extensive R3 efforts undertaken by states.
Table 34. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Age.
# % # % # % # % # %
18 - 24 24,461 18% 112,612 9% 7,725 16% 36,713 15% 307,378 13%
25 - 34 34,142 25% 184,065 15% 10,231 21% 47,787 19% 427,334 18%
35 - 44 25,113 19% 199,071 17% 8,635 18% 38,508 16% 390,433 16%
45 - 54 19,876 15% 217,282 18% 8,149 17% 37,056 15% 394,330 17%
55 - 64 17,234 13% 249,850 21% 7,847 16% 39,969 16% 430,780 18%
65+ 14,593 11% 233,178 20% 6,012 12% 47,881 19% 441,570 19%
Total 135,419 100% 1,196,058 100% 48,599 100% 247,914 100% 2,391,825 100%
Median age 38 50 41 45 45
Gender
Overall, 87% of Midwest hunters were male. As expected, much of that was driven by Retained hunters, who
represent both the highest numbers and percentage of males (93%). However, the percentage of males was
much lower for the Recruited group (78%). Among the Reactivated and Lapsed groups, 84% each were male
(Table 35). This indicates an increase in female hunters overall, even though males still outnumbered them.
Table 35. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender.
# % # % # % # % # %
Male 105,248 78% 1,109,423 93% 40,652 84% 208,785 84% 2,090,385 87%
Female 29,937 22% 86,549 7% 7,947 16% 39,108 16% 301,035 13%
Unknown 234 0% 86 0% 0 0% 21 0% 405 0%
Total 135,419 100% 1,196,058 100% 48,599 100% 247,914 100% 2,391,825 100%
Lifestyle Profiles
Overall, nearly half of all hunters reside in a rural setting (46%). Among the groups, Recruited hunters are
slightly less rural (42%), which may be indicative of their younger age and trends of urbanization overall.
Roughly equal percentages of hunters live in small towns (18%), suburban areas (14%), and metropolitan cities
(14%); there were also no differences among the hunter groups in where they lived (Table 36).
Table 36. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification.
# % # % # % # % # %
Urban Centers 463 0.3% 1,669 0.1% 93 0.2% 614 0.2% 4,683 0.2%
Metro Cities 23,354 17% 154,795 13% 6,976 14% 38,662 16% 341,302 14%
Urban Outskirts 11,750 9% 85,885 7% 3,562 7% 20,377 8% 182,342 8%
Suburban 21,731 16% 161,914 14% 6,616 14% 38,116 15% 341,362 14%
Small Towns 21,581 16% 220,378 19% 8,718 18% 41,981 17% 422,335 18%
Rural 56,206 42% 568,827 48% 22,546 47% 107,513 44% 1,094,050 46%
Total 135,085 100% 1,193,468 100% 48,511 100% 247,263 100% 2,386,074 100%
Tapestry™ Segmentation
Table 37 shows the top ten Tapestry™ segments across the resident hunter group types. These ten
segments describe 72% of all hunters. The Salt of the Earth segment accounts for at least 17% of all
hunters, regardless of group. Hunters characterized as part of the Heartland Communities or Green
Acres segments account for 10% each. The remaining groups in the top 10 were all less than 10% of
resident hunters.
Table 37. Midwest: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation

Tapestry™ Urban/Rural Recruited Retained Reactivated Not renewed (2016-2020)
Rank Code Tapestry™ Description Classification # % # % # % # % # %
1 22 Salt of the Earth Rural 23,157 17% 244,813 21% 9,077 19% 44,440 18% 460,342 19%
2 26 Heartland Communities Small Towns 12,419 9% 127,168 11% 4,844 10% 24,432 10% 244,676 10%
3 21 Green Acres Rural 12,234 9% 118,267 10% 4,935 10% 22,994 9% 229,757 10%
4 25 Rural Resort Dwellers Rural 7,281 5% 80,079 7% 3,754 8% 14,942 6% 155,848 7%
5 57 Traditional Living Metro Cities 10,261 8% 68,022 6% 3,096 6% 16,995 7% 150,935 6%
6 19 Rustbelt Traditions Urban Outskirts 7,645 6% 57,190 5% 2,464 5% 13,378 5% 121,335 5%
8 24 Prairie Living Rural 5,535 4% 45,795 4% 1,567 3% 9,088 4% 89,651 4%
9 47 Rooted Rural Rural 3,644 3% 38,588 3% 1,628 3% 7,582 3% 76,031 3%
Total 91,872 68% 876,856 73% 35,155 73% 172,391 70% 1,712,291 72%
Western Regional Results
Churn Rates
Within the Western region, churn rates among resident hunters range between a low of 33% to a high
of 70% (Table 38). Given that there were only two states represented in the Western region, and both
limit the number of licenses available to hunters, churn rates for this region should be viewed with
caution.
Table 38. Western Churn Rates.

Renewing Renewing
Year Range N % N %
2016 to 2017 78,037 60% 78,037 60%
2017 to 2018 93,904 70% 93,904 70%
2018 to 2019 25,002 33% 25,002 33%
2019 to 2020 28,645 35% 28,645 35%
Age
Among resident hunters, only 16% of Retained hunters are between 25 and 34 years old, while 25% of Recruited
hunters fall within this age group. Retained hunters are also much older, as 37% are at least 55 years older as
compared to the cohort of Recruited and Reactivated (24% each) hunters. As expected, the median age for
Retained hunters is higher (47 years), compared to Reactivated (40 years), Lapsed (41 years) and Recruited
hunters (38 years).
Becoming a Lapsed hunter starts at the 25 – 34 and 35 – 44 age categories (21% each) and continues through all
age classes (12% to 15%). The largest category, Retained hunters, show a steady decline in age classes and peak
at 35 – 44 (22%) (Table 39).
Table 39. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Age
# % # % # % # % # %
18 - 24 11,696 17% 14,788 8% 4,170 14% 11,963 16% 122,528 15%
25 - 34 16,934 25% 30,227 16% 6,828 24% 16,116 21% 176,056 21%
35 - 44 14,062 21% 40,257 22% 6,580 23% 16,222 21% 180,000 21%
45 - 54 9,366 14% 32,318 17% 4,474 15% 11,566 15% 131,386 16%
55 - 64 8,280 12% 28,952 16% 4,144 14% 10,810 14% 111,249 13%
65+ 8,210 12% 39,002 21% 2,799 10% 9,313 12% 118,614 14%
Total 68,548 185,544 28,995 75,990 839,833
Median age 38 47 40 41 40
Gender
Although most Western hunters were male, the highest proportion of female hunters came from this region.
Slightly over 20% of Recruited and Reactivated Western hunters were female, as compared to 15% for the
Retained group (Table 40).
Table 40. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Gender.
# % # % # % # % # %
Male 52,737 77% 155,784 84% 23,109 80% 59,530 78% 634,895 76%
Female 14,563 21% 28,940 16% 5,836 20% 16,066 21% 200,463 24%
Unknown 1,248 2% 820 0.4% 50 0.2% 394 1% 4,475 1%
Total 68,548 185,544 28,995 75,990 839,833
Lifestyle profiles
Over 50% of residents in all four groups reside in a suburban setting characterized by suburban
families balancing desirable neighborhoods with proximity to amenities, entertainment, and work.
This finding is not surprising given the overall distribution of people around the Phoenix and Salt Lake
City metropolitan areas. Of note, nearly 70% of Recruited hunters live in a suburban area, which is
also likely indicative of the overall trend of people moving to the suburban communities. The next
highest percentage was small town, with the greatest share of the Reactivated group (18%) coming
from this area. Overall, only 9% of 2016 – 2020 hunters live in a rural area (
Table 41).
Table 41. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Urban/Rural Classification.
# % # % # % # % # %
Urban Centers 1,805 4% 3,127 2% 248 1% 852 1% 12,522 2%
Metro Cities 2,883 7% 7,009 6% 2,420 9% 4,944 8% 65,846 10%
Urban Outskirts 1,650 4% 5,810 5% 2,038 8% 4,015 6% 57,359 8%
Suburban 28,520 70% 79,012 62% 13,968 53% 34,456 55% 395,440 58%
Small Towns 3,339 8% 19,035 15% 4,791 18% 11,295 18% 97,191 14%
Rural 2,589 6% 13,873 11% 2,840 11% 7,436 12% 58,760 9%
Total 40,786 127,866 26,305 62,998 687,118
Tapestry segmentation
Table 42 shows the top ten Tapestry™ segments across the resident and nonresident hunter group
types. These ten segments describe more than half of hunters in each group. Across resident hunter
groups there is little variation in the top ranking of Tapestry™ segment (Table 42). Rural Resort
Dwellers account for between 9% and 13% of the resident hunters within a group. Among nonresident
hunter groups, those characterized as part of the Green Acres segment account for the largest portion
of these groups.
Table 42. Western: Resident Hunter Groups by Top Ten Tapestry Segmentation.

Tapestry™ Urban/Rural Recruited Retained Reactivated Not renewed (2016-2020)
Rank Code Tapestry™ Description Classification # % # % # % # % # %
1 27 Up and Coming Families Suburban 3,615 9% 17,907 14% 5,272 20% 10,717 17% 119,496 17%
4 3 Boomburbs Suburban 1,175 3% 4,649 4% 1,410 5% 2,846 5% 34,479 5%
5 1 Top Tier Suburban 6,526 16% 10,325 8% 436 2% 2,904 5% 30,750 5%
6 4 Savvy Suburbanites Suburban 3,474 9% 7,419 6% 734 3% 2,302 4% 26,917 4%
7 14 Home Improvement Suburban 527 1% 2,350 2% 719 3% 1,480 2% 22,784 3%
8 9 Enterprising Professionals Suburban 3,850 9% 7,884 6% 312 1% 1,788 3% 20,822 3%
9 35 Bright Young Professionals Urban Outskirts 620 2% 1,644 1% 725 3% 1,450 2% 20,351 3%
10 2 Professional Pride Suburban 2,898 7% 5,482 4% 456 2% 1,645 3% 19,187 3%
Total 28,152 69% 86,197 67% 17,407 66% 41,875 66% 452,282 66%

NSSF Southwick Retaining The Surge Hunter Survey Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSSF Southwick Retaining The Surge Hunter Survey Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PO Box 6435 ■ Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 ■ Office (904) 277-9765

Retaining 2020’s Surge of Hunters and Target

June 30, 2022

Target Shooter Survey

Five-Year License Analysis

Data and Methods

Participating states were,

• Midwest: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin

Figure 1. Outgoing Survey Sample (Reactivated, Recruited, Retained), by AFWA Region.

Reactivated Recruited Retained

Reactivated Recruited Retained

License Data Analysis

Figure 3. Participating States by AFWA Region.

Figure 4. Age Classes of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group.

Figure 5. Gender of Target Shooters, by Target Shooting Group.

Figure 6. Ethnicity by Target Shooting Group.

Figure 7. Education, by Target Shooting Group.

Activity Participation Rates

Table 2. Activity Participation Rates by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Figure 8. Family/Friend Participation by Target Shooting Group.

Table 3. Family/Friend Participation by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Table 4. Expected Participation by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Consumer Purchase Information

Table 5. Firearm Ownership Noted by Target Shooters.

Target Shooting Group

Table 6. Consumer Item Ownership by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Influencing Future Target Shooting Participation and Obstacles

Table 7. What Would Influence Participation, by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Table 8. Respondent Interest in More Information, by Target Shooting Group.

Target Shooting Group

Response Rate and Demographics

Table 11. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would Do Next Year.

Figure 9. Activities Respondents Indicated They Would Do Next Year, by Gender.

Hunting of any kind 89%

Wildlife watching 67% Female

License Purchase and Hunting Behavior

25% 2020 2021

15% 13% (n=74) 14% (n=75)

Took a class Midwest

Son and/or daughter

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Knowledge About Hunting

Table 15. Knowledge About Hunting-Related Items.

Retained New 20/21

Firearm safety/handling 99%

Hunting regulations, seasons, licensing for the 93%

General outdoor skills (navigation, woodscraft) 89%

Hunting techniques 89%

Taking care of the harvest 89%

Behavior / habitat of the species I am hunting 88%

Finding somewhere to hunt 80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

90% 85% New 20/21 Retained

Midwest Northeast Southeast West

30% 30% 30%