The Relationship between Wildlife Recreationists' Familiarity with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Recreation Identity, and Future Financial Contributions

Abstract

AbstractNorth American fish and wildlife management has long been supported by the financial contributions of anglers and hunters to state fish and wildlife agencies; however, stagnation in angling participation and declines in hunting participation threaten the stability of this user‐pay support system. While engaging recreationists beyond those with consumptive interests may assist in addressing limitations of the current user‐pay benefit approach, anecdotal evidence suggests differences in recreationists' familiarity with agencies, and perceived benefits of financial contributions may dissuade certain wildlife recreationists from providing agency support. Using focus groups (n = 83) and a survey (n = 1,016) of Virginia residents, we explored how recreationists' familiarity with an agency differed among three categories of wildlife recreationists (i.e., recreation groups)—consumptive (anglers and hunters), nonconsumptive (birders and other wildlife viewers), and multi‐recreationists (those who participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities)—relative to non‐wildlife recreationists (those who do not participate in fish and wildlife recreation). We further examined whether familiarity with an agency and recreation group influenced the future likelihood of financial contributions across voluntary (not required for access or use of natural resources) and user‐pay (required for access or use of natural resources) funding mechanisms. We found that consumptive recreationists and multi‐recreationists had greater familiarity with the agency than nonconsumptive recreationists. Approximately 40% of nonconsumptive recreationists were likely to support the agency through either user‐pay or voluntary mechanisms, while approximately 80% of consumptive recreationists preferred user‐pay mechanisms. Further, all recreationists expected tangible outcomes from their contributions and transparency about how their contributions would benefit their activities (e.g., newsletters detailing angling access funded by their support). We recommend that agencies build familiarity among wildlife recreationists, especially within their nonconsumptive constituency, and demonstrate how current funding mechanisms benefit and are derived from multiple recreation groups.