The figure above reports the states’ and NGOs’ perceptions of the perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies' or organizations' missions. Twenty-seven states indicated that hunter R&R was very important to achieving the agencies' missions, while twenty-one states indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant to achieving the agencies' missions. Ten NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very important (7) or somewhat important (3), while nine NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant. One NGO did not answer this question.
A speculative explanation for this bi-modal response is that some state wildlife agencies and NGOs may consider their missions primarily to conserve wildlife/habitat or provide member services. Though largely philosophical, this question does provide a framework for additional discussion within the hunting-conservation community on the relative importance of hunter recruitment and retention efforts.
While there is some possibility that the question was misunderstood, it is unlikely since subsequent, similarly-worded questions did not elicit bi-modal responses.