Participation in Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Missouri

Every five years. The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation has been conducted about every five years since 1955. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Single best source. The survey is the single best source of information about participation and spending patterns related to fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching. There is no other nationwide survey conducted in a similar statistically valid way. There is no better source of information. Results in recent surveys have been reported for each state. More information about the survey and how it is conducted is available here.


No statistical change between 1991 and 2001 for Missouri. The report for Missouri from the National Survey, available here, indicates there was not a statistically significant change in fishing, hunting, or wildlife-viewing participation away from home between 1991 and 2001 in Missouri. You can see in the chart here that there was a slight numerical decline in the estimates of participation for all but viewing around the home, which did have a statistically significant decline.

New data available soon from 2006. Preliminary results from the 2006 survey are being released now and the final reports will be available soon. I am very interested in seeing the results, especially to compare with previous years.

Why the survey is better than license sales to understand participation. In Missouri, a variety of fishing and hunting participation does not require a permit. For example, individuals under the age of 16 and those 65 and older do not need a permit for most fishing and hunting opportunities. Landowners of parcels five acres and larger do not need a permit for many fishing and hunting activities on their own property, except for needing transportation tags for deer and turkey and for appropriate waterfowl permits. More information about fishing and hunting licenses in Missouri is available here and a library of information about who needs a permit and who is exempted is available here. License sales are certainly useful to monitor trends, but don't show the entire range of participation.

The National Survey uses a statistically valid random sample of Missourians to estimate the levels of participation and expenditures for fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related recreation. The survey provides the best overall estimate of fishing and hunting available in Missouri. The Missouri Department of Conservation does conduct its own surveys and studies of permit numbers to gain additional information that is not collected in the National Survey.

In general, for the activities of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching that do have results reported in the National Survey, the survey numbers provide the best picture of participation.

Missourians Who Worry "A Fair Amount" and "A Great Deal" About Selected Conservation Issues

When asked about a variety of conservation issues, the pollution of drinking water had the highest level of personal worry by Missourians when the responses of "a fair amount" and "a great deal" are added together.

This "top two" approach provides an indication of the more strongly held opinions of Missourians about the selected conservation issues in this question.

Almost 80 percent or more of Missourians worry about drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, and air pollution. A clear majority of Missourians worry about the loss of natural habitat for wildlife and not enough regulation for housing, business, or shopping developments. About one-half of Missourians worry about urban sprawl and a significant number of Missourians worry about channelized or altered streams.

The strongest held opinions, those that worry "a great deal," increase as the overall level of worry increases (the green shaded areas on the right in the chart) for the conservation issues in the list. For each issue, the number of Missourians that worry "a fair amount" (the areas shaded yellow on the left) is about the same.

In this chart, the overall ranking stays the same compared to the rankings obtained if only the levels of "a great deal" are compared in a chart or if the levels of all Missourians who had any inclination to worry about the issues are compared. Although I would be comfortable reporting any of the three ranking charts, the "top two" approach in the chart here provides a very clear perspective about what a majority of Missourians feel about the selected conservation issues.

Even a quick inspection of the chart indicates that the top four issues have the highest levels of worry by Missourians, including the issues of drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, air pollution, and the loss of natural habitat for wildlife.

These results for how Missourians personally worry about conservation issues are from a conservation opinion survey conducted for the Missouri Department of Conservation by the University of Missouri in 2003. The survey was conducted by mail and a statistically valid random sample of Missouri adults from every Zip Code in Missouri were asked to provide their opinions. A total of 6,352 Missourians provided completed survey forms.

The Levels of Worry by Missourians for Selected Conservation Issues

Yesterday I provided a link to a report from the Brookings Institute about changes in population and where people live in Missouri and showed a chart using results from a conservation opinion survey about how Missourians worry about several conservation issues. In the chart, I included an overall total for the responses of "only a little," "a fair amount," and "a great deal."

It is often useful in survey analysis to compare the different responses to a question and look beyond the overall totals.

In the chart here, I have broken out the responses for each issue. Note in the chart that as the overall total level of worry for a specific issue increases, the number of Missourians who worried "only a little" decreases (the red shaded areas on the left) and the number that worry "a fair amount" stays about the same (the yellow shaded areas in the middle). It is the number of Missourians who worry "a great deal" that steadily increases as the overall level of worry increases (the green shaded areas on the right).

This suggests increasing awareness and concern for the conservation issues that have the highest levels of worry. Something about the issue itself has a stronger emotional meaning or seems more important. It could be that the issues that have the highest level of worry seem closer, or more personally "real" to Missourians.

Tomorrow, I'll look at just the top two responses for each conservation issue in the question. I want to see how the issues compare using the strongest levels of concern, including the responses of "a fair amount" and "a great deal," to see if this "top two" approach provides a different perspective about the level of importance of these issues to Missourians.

Missourians Personally Worry About Conservation Issues

When asked about a variety of conservation issues, the pollution of drinking water had the highest level of personal worry by Missourians.

Almost all Missourians worry about drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, air pollution, and the loss of natural habitat for wildlife. A clear majority of Missourians also worry about not enough regulation for housing, business, or shopping developments, urban sprawl, and channelized or altered streams.

Many of these kinds of conservation issues were also discussed in a report published by the Brookings Institute in December, 2002 entitled Growth in the Heartland: Challenges and Opportunities for Missouri. The executive summary of that report is available here.

The Brookings Institute report describes Missouri as:

"Situated in the heartland, Missouri reflects the full range of American reality. The state is highly urban yet deeply rural. It contains two bustling metropolises, numerous fast growing suburbs, and dozens of typically American small towns. Elsewhere lie tranquil swaths of open country where farmers still rise before dawn and the view consists mainly of rich cropland, trees, and sky. Missouri sums up the best of the nation, in short."

The Brookings Report executive summary closes with:

"In the end: Citizens and localities have choices about how their communities grow, and can meaningfully shape their communities' futures for the better. Hopefully Growth in the Heartland will help Missourians make the best possible choices to ensure their state grows in a fiscally responsible and high-quality manner for generations to come."

For me, the most important message from the Brookings report is that Missourians are moving away from the truly urban and truly rural areas. The resulting increase of suburban areas will continue to have impacts on a variety of conservation issues. It is obvious that many Missourians personally worry about those conservation issues.

The results of how Missourians personally worry about conservation issues are from a conservation opinion survey conducted for the Missouri Department of Conservation by the University of Missouri in 2003. The survey was conducted by mail and a statistically valid random sample of Missouri adults from every Zip Code in Missouri were asked to provide their opinions. A total of 6,352 Missourians provided completed survey forms. The results reported here include the responses of "a little," "a fair amount," and "a great deal."

Missourians Watch Programs on TV About the Outdoors

In a survey where 6,352 Missourians responded, 80 percent of the individuals indicated that they had participated in the last 12 months in watching programs on TV about the outdoors. And the number was slightly higher for households, at 82 percent.

Missourians living in the outstate areas were slightly more likely to watch programs about the outdoors than those living in Missouri's largest urban areas. Men were more likely to watch, at 86 percent, than women, at 74 percent.

Those individuals who identified themselves as hunters, anglers, and environmentalists, and those who were more familiar with the Missouri Department of Conservation, were much more likely to watch programs about the outdoors.

If the household had children in the home, they were about the same in the level of watching as those without children, and age categories were about the same, except for those over 70 who were less likely to watch compared to those of age 21 to 69 years.

And the participation in outdoor TV program watching was much higher for those with a high level of outdoor activity (93 percent) compared to the level of participation in TV watching for those with a low level of outdoor activity (61 percent).

Thinking about these numbers, the following observations and conclusions from a study about national park visits does not seem to fit with the Missouri data.

John Whitehead, an economist at Appalachian State University, writes in his blog on environmental economics:

"Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices."

He was referring to a recent abstract of a study published in the Journal of Environmental Management:

"After 50 years of steady increase, per capita visits to US national parks have declined since 1988. This decline, coincident with the rise in electronic entertainment media, may represent a shift in recreation choices with broader implications for the value placed on biodiversity conservation and environmentally responsible behavior. We compared the decline in per capita visits with a set of indicators representing alternate recreation choices and constraints. The Spearman correlation analyses found this decline in NPV to be significantly negatively correlated with several electronic entertainment indicators... Multiple linear regression of four of the entertainment media variables as well as oil prices explains 97.5% of this recent decline... We may be seeing evidence of a fundamental shift away from people's appreciation of nature (biophilia, Wilson 1984) to ‘videophilia,’ which we here define as “the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media.” Such a shift would not bode well for the future of biodiversity conservation."

From the Missouri survey, when asked to choose, 56 percent of Missourians selected outdoor activities, like hiking, camping, birdwatching, fishing, or hunting, as the activities they enjoy most, compared to reading or watching TV (34 percent) and structured sports (9 percent) like tennis, softball, or bowling.

I'll want to read the article more closely to see how the study was conducted and how those conclusions might relate to Missouri.

Conservation Professionals, Careers, and Human Dimensions

I've given many talks to young people and asked them what they'd like to do for a career.

Regardless of their answer, I tell them there is a place for them in conservation and resource management. Want to be a pilot? Forestry and wildlife management tasks need good pilots. Like to produce films and design interactive computer games? Conservation education needs outstanding videographers and computer experts. Like to work with money, figures, and design a budget? Conservation success depends upon accountable and accurate business practices.

There is a place in conservation for almost every area of expertise that I can think about. Experts in the traditional fields of fish, forest, and wildlife management have long recognized that the success of biologists and managers requires a wide variety of skills. This view continues to expand. I have what would be considered two traditional degrees in wildlife management and one in food animal production. While in school I became very interested in the people and policy aspects of resource management and gained some experience working in that area. I have used both the traditional education and my policy research experiences for almost 20 years in the area of human dimensions of resource management to help other more "traditional" resource managers make decisions.

Michael Hutchins, the Executive Director/CEO of The Wildlife Society, writes in the Spring, 2007, issue of The Wildlifer newsletter (available here):

"So, who are these wildlife professionals? A more traditional view would have us include only those individuals who have a degree in wildlife biology, ecology or management and who are working in a job in which they: (1) conduct scientific studies of wildlife biology or ecology; or (2) actively monitor and manage wildlife populations and/or their habitats."

and

"There are many professionals who play significant roles in wildlife management and conservation today that do not fit into this traditional mold. Among the most significant of these non-traditionalists are those who work on the human dimensions of wildlife management and conservation. Such individuals may have training in psychology, sociology, anthropology or economics. They may study human attitudes toward wildlife or wildlife management and utilization, cultural traditions that impact wildlife, or economic factors that influence our ability to sustain wildlife populations over the long-term. Since most of the challenges facing wildlife managers and conservationists today are anthropogenic in origin, it is critical that we understand the many complex issues that lie at the human-wildlife interface. Human dimensions will undoubtedly play a critical role in our ability to manage and conserve wildlife now and into the future."

I'm pleased to see this super-sized view of how many areas of expertise are needed to achieve conservation success. In the article there is discussion about the need for other types of expertise in addition to human dimensions.

More information about education programs in wildlife management is available here, and information about The American Fisheries Society is available here. Information for students from the Society of American Foresters is available here and information about the Soil and Water Conservation Society is available here.

Career and education information about human dimensions is in many places online. Purdue University has information here, there is a human dimensions research unit at Cornell University, available here, and information about the School of Natural Resources at the University of Missouri is available here.

Why Human Dimensions Information is Important for a Conservation Legacy

When I was at Purdue University in the late 1980s, Durward Allen was still alive and had an office in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. Durward Allen spent his career in wildlife management and left his own legacy of conservation through his efforts on Isle Royale in Lake Superior to begin a study of wolves and moose. He wrote many books and articles about conservation. Dr. Allen signed my copy of his book Our Wildlife Legacy and left me a legacy of memories and thought-provoking words. He wrote in the 1962 revised edition of Our Wildlife Legacy:

"If it all reduces to any dependable theme, it probably is this: that there is a harmony in the natural world which makes the right thing easy and the wrong thing chaos; that the right thing is revealed in being right, not just for now and for us, but for the earth and all those who will inherit it; that there are natural principles, if we can discover them, to guide everything men may wish to do with land and water and the life they support."

and

"What we have now is largely a matter of chance; but what we are to have cannot be left to chance. It calls for understanding and design."

He suggests:

"To boil it all down, progress in wildlife conservation will require the best research program that can be organized. It is essential, and we cannot afford the time and money wasted in second-rate performance. The era of guesswork management is past."

These words were relevant in 1962. Similar words from Aldo Leopold date to the 1930s, and John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt had similar statements at the turn of the century. Their words are still relevant today.

Today, most businesses rely on a variety of approaches to manage outcomes based on facts; a successful business can rarely afford to waste time and money on second-rate performance. They don't guess about decisions, they aspire to management by fact.

Management by fact for conservation includes the human dimensions of resource management. I believe that understanding more about the human dimensions of fish, forest, and wildlife management is equally important today as it was in 1900, 1933, and 1962. The forward thinking of Roosevelt, Leopold, and Allen included an understanding of the importance of biological, sociological, and economic research to effective resource management. In their own words, they advocated management by fact.

Using the human dimensions of conservation, or in other words, understanding the demands, opinions, participation, and satisfaction of Missourians for fish, forest, and wildlife management, is the way that the Missouri Department of Conservation is using facts to focus on results and to establish a conservation legacy for future Missourians.

More information about the history of conservation in the United States is available in a variety of books and online sources. A timeline of conservation related events from 1850 to 1920 compiled by the Library of Congress is available here.

A timeline of conservation policy successes from 1900 to today is available from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies here.

The Wildlife Society's position statement about the North American model of wildlife conservation is available here.

Information about the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, approved by Congress in 1937, is available here and information about the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act from 1950 is available here.

Additional information about the Federal Assistance Program that assists states in management efforts for fish and wildlife resources is available here. One benefit for states from Federal Aid assistance is the human dimensions information available from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation that is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finding Human Dimensions Information About Conservation in Missouri with American Factfinder

Human dimensions information about conservation, or even demographic information of any kind, used to be easy to find but was often difficult to obtain. There were relatively few books or sources and they were difficult to locate in a nearby library or expensive to purchase.

Now, it seems that because so much information is available online, specific information is harder to find, but easier to obtain. There are so many online sources for demographic information that narrowing a search to find what is needed can be difficult. Once the information is identified, it is often incredibly easier to obtain, usually requiring only a mouse click to download the file or to design custom analysis.

The most important source of information about people in Missouri or the United States, and the first place to look, is the U.S. Census Bureau and their American Factfinder Web pages available here.

For example, type in "Missouri" in the state entry box for "Get a fact sheet for your community..." and press "GO" which will yield a list of population characteristics with all sorts of variables of interest. Down the page is a listing of housing units and characteristics, as available here. If you are interested, the estimate for total housing units in Missouri for 2005 was 2,592,809.

Try entering your own community and look at the characteristics available.

Or you can view a narrative with graphs about the how the population of Missouri is distributed as available here. In the text it is stated that in 2005 there were 2.3 million households in Missouri. The average household size was 2.5 people.

You can use the American Factfinder to obtain very focused and specific information. Overall, I think it's relatively easy to use and the availability of information is incredible. Obtaining the information is very easy. And don't be overwhelmed at the amount of information. Finding what you want is usually a matter of persistence and logical searching.

Finding and obtaining information at the American Factfinder is probably easier than my new puppy's experience at selecting a plastic egg out of a basket. He was just not sure which egg to chew on first.