L . . f;
V . .... V, V . . . , . . . V .2 1.
.. .anMTn . H . .. , . , .. . . ,9; .4“...
V o . V . V . . . .c».
“m“... . , . .V . . V ,V . . .muvt.
. . : . . , _ . _ . . . .. PE. .3. .
“"3“??? t . . , . . . : . . . V. . .
r 333%“. . . . A ., . V V . . . . . . V ﬂwuzwa . . n.
.V. I . . . V . . .... . . .. V. V: .12“. .. r. . ,
.mmﬁ: 2 . .. V V _ V V. . J “N ivdaﬁﬂu .

. '5. ‘x 1.. V. r
«354.3 r; .1;
n. Dart?» ‘ "A
travhurﬁuhuw r a. .I

.AMWW 3w“. v.1.
w ._ Vm

 

w...
, Ag

.9 - '1 .rr:
std VF.

. .513?!
.v: I: .

 

. .

.ﬁ . m. u L - .
.11.). «rad? MW u? .

. in]... L...
V 3.322%) um :
. V ... .5. uﬂ 1/
!.(.7.b,..lh . dull/mmwamgm... ..
. 1,1]...‘3. . . f .

a

 

.V awn...

HHKLI it.” .

V twhnﬁmxﬂu yuan. .

. Wink... u. .

Junta-41H"

3?

V 11.5.5}er
5| AW! I749.

I.
n

}V

...

    

5-:

 

.1;

  

uﬁrﬁnuu...5w..wm...o ... : . . V
. V. . tVV . .. - . fr... .‘\ .\.V.l.....MV...|hU«..rd.V napkﬁey.4w4u.tn&mﬂﬂv:. V n

I. t 3!; . u v 1.3,... . .tff I!» (v.3. 25:... ... V. . f V - I JV .o. V 3.3402? .R'H: ; «L135. .l.... .4... y.v...v0n. .2. A. ..Inv0ex.a..b>t -V:

 

2 IIllllljlg‘lllllllimglmll

" LIBRARY 1"

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

' \ thesis entitled

Fishing in the Parks: A Prototype Research-based
Outreach Program in Fisheries and
Aquatic Ecosystems

presented by
Jeffery D. Rupert

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Fish. & Wildl.

7Wg¥ W

Major professor

Date 5/7 J Q7

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

' .. A .i e' ' 6
PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

I .JUN 2 5 2000 :1
I, I ' "I‘d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ __ —:—:—]:

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Afﬁrmative ActionlEqud Opportunity lnetltmon

 

FISHING IN THE PARKS: A PROTOTYPE RESEARCH-BASED OUTREACH
PROGRAM IN FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

By

Jeﬂ‘ery D. Rupert

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1997

ABSTRACT

FISHING IN THE PARKS: A PROTOTYPE RESEARCH-BASED OUTREACH
PROGRAM IN FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

By

Jeffery D. Rupert

In 1995, a new research-based ﬁsheries outreach program called “Fishing in the
Parks” began as a university-agency-organization collaboration. The focus of this
research project was to understand outreach program participants and to assess whether
this program was eﬂ‘ective in recruiting anglers. At the completion of each program in
1995 and 1996, surveys were administered to a total of 2,374 adult and youth participants;
a 77% corrected response rate was achieved. The program attracted the targeted
audience of families with young children who never ﬁsh or ﬁsh very little. Most adults
(79%) attended with their own child, and most had never ﬁshed before or ﬁshed very little.
Most adults were very satisﬁed with the program, 92% intended to ﬁsh again, and 75%
either had or intended to purchase a ﬁshing license after the program. Most youth
participants were satisﬁed with the program, 99% intended to ﬁsh again, and 83%
intended to buy equipment after the program. Carefully targeted research-based outreach
programs allow ﬁsheries agencies to provide opportunities to non-traditional clientele in

an eﬁ‘ort increase public involvement with and stewardship of aquatic resources.

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my loving father, Don A Rupert and in memory of my
two grandfathers, Albert H. Rupert and Leslie 0. Clemmons for taking me ﬁshing during
my childhood. Without an early exposure to ﬁshing from these individuals, I would never
have become interested in ﬁsheries related research. I look forward to many more years

of ﬁshing with my father at our family farm in South Carolina.

GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication is a result of work ﬁlnded by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Division, Dingell-Johnson Project #230658.

I wish to express my appreciation to the many individuals who helped in the
planning and execution of this research. I am particularly grateﬁrl to my committee
chairperson, Dr. Shari L. Dann for her constant support, encouragement and mentorship.
I also wish to sincerely thank my other committee members, Dr. William W. Taylor and
Dr. Kirk L. Heinze, for providing many helpful comments and opportunities throughout
the course of this project.

I would like to acknowledge the following for their assistance and support: John
Robertson and the MDNR Fisheries Division Management Team; Ron Spitler, MDNR
Fisheries Division; George Rob, MDNR Parks and Recreation Division; Denise Mogos,
MDNR Communications; Starre Jumey, MDNR Fisheries Division; Todd Grischke,
Michigan United Conservation Clubs; Mary Jamieson, Heidi Prather, and Kim Harke,
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; the ﬁve 1995 Fishing
Instructors; the ten 1996 Adventure Rangers; and the 13 Research Aides ﬁ'om Michigan
State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the “Fishing in the Parks” program

partners: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries and Parks & Recreation

iv

Divisions, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan State University Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, and the American Sportﬁshing Association.

On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge the following for their
scholarship support: American Fisheries Society, Skinner Memorial Award Committee;
West Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Safari Club International, Michigan
Involvement Committee; and Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and

Wildlife.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... . 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. . 1
Description of the Program ................................................................................. 3
Overarching Research/Evaluation Questions... ................................................... 4
Speciﬁc Research/Evaluation Objectives .................................................. 4
Literature Cited... .......................... -. .................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2
BLENDING MARKETING STRATEGIES WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT... .. 7
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7
Why Blending Marketing with Resource Management is Necessary ..................... 8
Additional Rationale for Blending Marketing Strategies with Resource
Management ............................................................................................ 9
What is Marketing? ........................................................................................... 12
Marketing Concepts for Resource Managers ..................................................... 14
Making Marketing Work ................................................................................... 17
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 19
Literature Cited ................................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER 3
FISHING IN THE PARKS RESEARCH ...................................................................... 23
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 23
Research-Outreach Model Development ........................................................... 27
Research Basis for the Fishing In The Parks Program ........................................ 29
Fishing in the Parks Program Design ..................................................... 31
Fishing in the Parks Evaluation Research Design ............................................... 33
Fishing in the Parks Results and Discussion ....................................................... 36
Programming Eﬁ‘ort and Evaluation Survey Response Rates .................. 36
Description of Participants Attracted to Fishing in the Parks .................. 38
Evaluation of Marketing and Publicity Eﬁ‘orts ....................................... .42

vi

Assessment of Participant Reactions Immediately Post-Program .......... 43
Assessment of Participant Intentions to Participate in Fishing........ . . . . . .. 45

Programming Emciency and Overall Participant Satisfaction ................ . 46
Discussion and Implications for Fisheries Management .................................... . 48
Setting Objectives for Retaining New/Novice Anglers ........................... 49
Research Limitations ............................................................................. 50
Recommendations ................................................................................. 51
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ 57
Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 4
MANAGING OUTREACH PROGRAM PARTICIPANT INFORMATION USING
COMPUTER LICENSING RETAIL SALE SYSTEMS ..................................... 61
Background ..................................................................................................... . 61
Methods ............................................................................................................ 63
Results .............................................................................................................. 64
Recommendations ............................................................................................. 65
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. 66
Literature Cited ................................................................................................. 67
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Approval Letter from UCHRIS and AUCAUC Notiﬁcation ...................... 68
Appendix B: Program Registration Form ....................................................................... 72
Appendix C: 1995 Pilot Youth and Adult Participant Surveys ....................................... 73
Appendix D: 1995 Revised Youth and Adult Participant Surveys .................................. 85
Appendix E: Participant Survey Results ........................................................................ 96
Appendix F: Fishing in the Parks 1996 Communication Campaign ............................... 115
Appendix G: Fishing in the Parks Lesson Plans ............................................................ 122
Appendix H: Program Instructor and Adventure Ranger Feedback .............................. 137
Appendix 1: Supplemental Data Analysis ..................................................................... 141

vii

Tat

Tat

Tat

Tab

Tab

Tab.

Tab}

Tab}

Tab;

Table 3-1.

Table 3-2.

Table 3-3.

Table 3-4.

Table 3-5.

Table 3-6.

Table 3-7.

Table 3-8.

Table 3-9.

Table 3-10.

Table 3-11.

Table I-l.

LIST OF TABLES

Fishing in the Parks programming effort in 1995 and 1996 ........................ 36
Fishing in the Parks participation and response rates for 1995 and 1996....37
1995 and 1996 youth and adult previous ﬁshing experience and

indicators of levels of involvement of those who indicated that they

had ﬁshed before ..................................................................... 39

Adult responses regarding who they accompanied to the program,
in 1995 and 1996 ....................................................................................... 40

Program participants’ reported ethnicity from 1995 and 1996
pooled data ........................................................................... 41

Reported household income of adult participants from 1995 and 1996
pooled data ....................................................................................... . ....... 42

Youth satisfaction with selected elements of the program from 1995 and
1996 pooled data ....................................................................................... 44

Adult satisfaction with selected elements of the program from 1995 and
1996 pooled data ....................................................................................... 44

Youth intentions after completing the program, from 1995 and 1996
pooled data. .............................................................................................. 45

Adult intentions after completing the program, ﬁ'om 1995 and 1996
pooled data ............................................................................................... 45

Overall program satisfaction for adults and youth on a scale of poor =1
to excellent =5 ........................................................................................... 48

Description of youth participants in Fishing in the Parks in 1995
and 1996 ............................................................................ 141

viii

Table 1-2.

Table 1-3.

Table 1-4.

Table I-S.

Table I-6.

Table I-7.

Table I-8.

Table [-9.

Table I-lO.

Nominal data description of youth participants in Fishing in the Parks
in 1995 and 1996 ..................................................................................... 142

Satisfaction levels of youth participants in Fishing in the Parks in 1995
and 1996 ................................................................................................. 143

Expectations of youth participants concerning catching ﬁsh at Fishing
in the Parks in 1995 and 1996 .................................................................. 144

Post-program intentions of youth participants in Fishing in the Parks in

1995 and 1996 ......................................................................................... 145
Description of adult participants in Fishing in the Parks in 1995 and

1996 ................................................................................. 146

Nominal data description of adult participants in Fishing in the Parks in
1995 and 1996 ......................................................................................... 148

Satisfaction levels of adult participants in Fishing in the Parks in 1995
and 1996 ................................................................................................. 152

Expectations of adult participants concerning catching ﬁsh at Fishing
intheParksin 1995 and 1996 .................................................................. 153

Post-program intentions of adult participants in Fishing in the Parks in
1995 and 1996 ......................................................................................... 154

Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3.

Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Resource management depicted as three overlapping circles representing

the three principle components of management (Nielsen 1993)... ............... 11
A continuum of resource management strategies ........................................ 11

The elements of successful agency sponsored facilities, programs or
services (Mahoney 1995) ........................................................................... 18

The elements of an eﬁective outreach program model ................................ 29

Bryan’s (1979) Specialization Theory (modiﬁed) to illustrate the stages
individuals move through while becoming a specialized angler ................... 50

St:

F151

and

all)”

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Division has
invested time, staﬁ‘, and money into informational eﬁ‘orts such as brochures and Free
Fishing Days. Through these eﬂ‘orts, division staﬂ‘ hope to attract individuals into ﬁshing,
and therefore expand the agency’s base of supportive clientele. Unfortunately, many of
these programs attract mainly existing clients. Additionally, many angling promotion
materials, programs, and activities of agencies and industry have been targeted at those
already involved in ﬁshing, thus missing a large segment of potential supportive clientele,
such as non-angling families, non-traditional anglers, and novice anglers (ASA 1997).

These efforts represent undifferentiated marketing due to the agency’s attempt to
meet the needs of all; in the process, these eﬁ‘orts may fail to meet the speciﬁc needs of
new or non-anglers. Undifferentiated marketing is not occurring by design but rather by
default, because little or no information has been collected regarding target markets
served, or responses by target markets/program audiences to agency materials, programs,
or activities. Furthermore, these eﬂ‘orts and programs have not utilized marketing
approaches to segmenting, splitting clientele into meaningﬁil groups, and targeting,

selecting one of the segmented groups as an appropriate audience for these programs.

of

IN
trar

Ina

POP

300

2
Substantial literature exists on social marketing, which may be deﬁned as “the use

of marketing to advance a social cause, idea or behavior (Kotler l982:490).” However,
public resource agencies have not used this knowledge eﬁ‘ectively to increase their
eﬁciency in recruiting and retaining satisﬁed as well as supportive clientele through target
marketing. Incorporating social marketing into MDNR Fisheries outreach eﬁ‘orts will
allow for the determination of new angler and novice angler wants and needs, in order that
the division can create programs and services to meet those demands and increase the
division’s clientele base.

Fisheries managers have an obligation to provide for the broadest possible beneﬁts
ﬁom the use of public trust resources, to foster public understanding of ﬁsheries
management, and to contribute to cultivating public stewardship of resources (MDNR
1994, Dann 1993). Therefore, there is a great need to identify audiences and target
market ﬁsheries opportunities to non-traditional clientele in an eﬂ‘ort to increase public
involvement with and the stewardship of aquatic resources. In the broadest sense, non-
traditional audiences can be deﬁned as those who have never ﬁshed or who ﬁsh very little.
In addition, other non-traditional clientele include minorities, handicappers, single
mothers, and urban residents, all of whom have speciﬁc needs that should be identiﬁed so
measures can be taken to involve these segments of society in aquatic stewardship. Several
recent publications address important demographic changes occurring in the US.
population and the possible impacts these changes will have on ﬁsheries management
(Ditton 1995, Dwyer 1994, Murdock et al. 1992, Schramm and Edwards 1994, US.

Bureau of the Census 1992).

3
To reach some of these new audiences, the MDNR Fisheries Division has

supported and collaborated with other organizations to develop a new research-based
outreach program called “Fishing in the Parks.” A great need exists to understand
outreach program participants and to assess if these programs are effective in recruiting
participants as supportive clients of the MDNR Fisheries Division. Currently, over 90%
of the MDNR Fisheries Division’s annual budget is generated by the sale of ﬁshing
licenses and the Federal matching funds from excise taxes on ﬁshing related equipment
(MDNR 1997). Thus, the agency has a vested interest in ensuring that public participation
in angling is sustained (e.g., through programs which encourage participation of novices
interested in ﬁshing) thus maintaining revenue bases for management. Collecting
information from these entry level program'participants allows the division to have greater

knowledge about a larger, more informed, and active constituency for ﬁsheries

management.

Description of the Program

“Fishing in the Parks” is a research-based outreach program in ﬁsheries and
aquatic ecosystems intended to attract non-angling families with young children and
novice anglers. The speciﬁc goal of this program is to enhance participants’ ﬁshing skills
in the hope that they will become more active anglers and committed customers of the
MDNR Fisheries Division. The objectives of the program were to teach the basics of
ﬁshing in accessible locations which allow for repeat experiences during the summers of
1995 and 1996. These programs were held in selected underutilized Michigan State Parks

within close proximity to urban areas. Sponsors of the “Fishing in the Parks” program

4
included the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries and Parks &

Recreation Divisions, in partrership with the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
Michigan State University, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and the American

Sportﬁshing Association. Additionally, local volunteers were reunited through the

program partners to assist as instructors for the programs.

Overarching Research/Evaluation Questions

There are two main goals of the research portion of this project: (1) to develop
and evaluate an innovative research-based outreach model; and (2) to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Fishing in the Parks program in order to make recommendations to

improve the program.

Smiﬁc Rmch/Evaluation Objectives
Objective 1: To describe participants attracted to the Fishing in the Parks programs.
Objective 2: To evaluate marketing efforts for the program.
Objective 3: To assess participant reactions to the program immediately post-program.
Objective 4: To assess participants’ intentions to participate in ﬁshing in the ﬁxture.
Objective 5: To collect participant re-contact information and develop a database

compatible with the MDNR’s retail sales licensing system.

In an eﬁ‘ort to disseminate the results of this research in a timely fashion, I have
written each chapter of this thesis as a journal article. The second chapter contains

information about marketing concepts that resource managers will ﬁnd useful while

5
developing future outreach programs. Chapter three focuses speciﬁcally on the “Fishing

in the Parks” program and associated research questions. The fourth chapter discusses
how the new computerized, point-of-sale licensing system can be used as a marketing tool,
a means of program evaluation, and for future human dimensions research. Each article,

contains information concerning future implications and recommendations for ﬁsheries

managers.

literature Cited

American Sportﬁshing Association. 1997. Marketing is not a four letter word. ASA
Bulletin No. 462. pp. 1-5. Alexandria, VA

Dann, S.L. 1993. Youth recruitment into ﬁshing: the inﬂuence of familial, social and
environmental factors and implications for education intervention strategies to
develop aquatic stewardship. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI. 363 pp.

Ditton, B. 1995. Fisheries professionals: preparing for demographic change. Fisheries.
20(1):40.

Dwyer, 1F. 1994. Customer Diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation.
General Technical Report RM-252. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 58 pp.

Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for nonproﬁt organizations 2nd ed. Prentice -Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliﬁ‘s, NJ. 528 pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division. 1997. Michigan ﬁshing
guide. MDNR Lansing, MI. 64 pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division. 1994. Fisheries Division
strategic plan. MDNR, Lansing, MI. 137 pp.

Murdock, SH, K. Backrnan, RB. Ditton, MN. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1992.
Demographic change in the United States in the 19903 and the twenty-ﬁrst
century: Implications for ﬁsheries management. Fisheries. 17(2): 6-13.

6

Schramm H.L., Jr. and 6.8. Edwards. 1994. The perspectives on urban ﬁsheries
management: results of a workshop. Fisheries. 19(10):9-15.

US. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical abstracts of the United States. US.
Government Printing Oﬁce, Washington, DC.

CHAPTER 2
BLENDIN G MARKETING STRATEGIES WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Introduction

The call for incorporating marketing strategies into resource management is not
new. According to Schick et al. (1976), to broaden income sources, agencies need to
oﬁ‘er innovative programs guided by modern marketing principles. The realization that
marketing tools could be adapted for use in government and social institutions occurred in
the late 1970’s (Kotler 1982, Crompton and Lamb 1986). However, the avoidance of
marketing techniques is primarily due to the perception that the public service sector is
markedly different ﬁ'om private business and, therefore, would not be suitable for a
marketing program (Kotler 1982). Many ﬁsheries and wildlife managers believe that
marketing does not have and should not have anything to do with resource management.
This belief arises from several major related beliefs: 1) the belief that agencies should not
spend public monies on marketing, 2) the belief that “marketing” has connotations such as
selling, manipulation, and coercion, and 3) the belief that resource managers shouldn’t
have to market management ideas to their publics, because managers know what is best
for the resource.

In the past 20 years, many ﬁsheries colleagues have called for the incorporation of
marketing strategies into the resource management process (Ditton 1995, Duda et al.
1989, Haney and Field 1984, Pajak 1994, Scheﬁ‘er 1976, Schick, 1976, and Thorne et al.

7

1992). Yet as a profession, ﬁsheries management has been slow to recognize the value of
incorporating marketing strategies, and, therefore, implementation has been limited at
best. Schick (1976) warned that implementation requires capital investment, with
probably little immediate return, but that marketing should be considered for the potential
long-term rewards to the agency. Ifthe long-term rewards for the profession are positive,
why has blending marketing strategies into resource management been proceeding at a
snail’s pace? Quite ﬁankly, the resistance to incorporate marketing strategies, albeit
resourcemanagersreadilytalkaboutthem, hasbeenduetothesteadyfrmdingbasefrom
hunting and angling licenses and excise taxes. However, even though Scheffer (1976)
predicted declines in license sales in proportion to population growth, managers have
continued to focus on the production of ﬁsh and wildlife game animals and have not used

marketing concepts to expand the products, programs, and services oﬁ‘ered.

Why Blending Marketing with Resource Management is Necessary

The early focus in natural resource management took a resource based perspective
founded on white, Eurocentric values and traditions (Gray 1993). Today the US.
population growth rate is slowing, and population characteristics are changing: the
population as a whole is aging; minority populations are increasing; traditional, married-
couple family households are decreasing; and single—parent female-headed households are
increasing (Murdock 1992). Demographers and ﬁsheries trend researchers suggest that
the rate of increase in the angler population will decline, while the demand for services
ﬁom the elderly will increase, although this segment is exempt ﬁ'om license fees in many

states (Murdock 1992). In addition, older age and minority groups are likely to enjoy

greater political power in the ﬁrture; this will require managers to investigate new sources
of program ﬁrnding.

In addition, the US. is no longer a rural society, 77% of the US. population lives
in urban areas (US. Bureau of the Census 1992). Recently, 70% of anglers reported that
they reside in urban areas and all indications are for even more anglers to reside in urban
areas in the future (USFWS 1993). Furtha'more, a survey indicated that adult Americans
engaged in nonconsumptive, outdoor-related recreation outnumbered anglers and hunters
two to one, thus indicating a change in recreational values among stakeholders (U SFWS
1993). Clearly, the human element, for which resources are managed, is changing rapidly,
and natural resource management agencies are slow to change with them. Ifthis trend
continues, resource agencies will likely ﬁnd themselves without their traditional funding
sources and without suﬂicient state-allocated general ﬁrnds to operate. In other words,
agencies are faced with extinction (no funding) if managers fail to adapt with the ever

changing-environment (the needs and wants of their current and potential customers).

Additional Rationale for Blending Marketing Strategies with Resource Management
Blending marketing strategies with resource management has been difﬁcult and
slow. However, both marketers and resource managers use very similar vocabulary in
their respective work. For example, both frequently use terms such as: life cycle,
assessment, environment, adaptation, competition, extinction, survival, viable, eﬁciency,
constraints, orientation, and many others that are extremely familiar to biologists and
resource managers. Biologists and managers are constantly seeking new and improved

techniques and methods to assist with research and the tasks of population management.

10

Therefore, marketing concepts should be viewed as additional techniques/methods for the
biologists’ and managers’ tool boxes which will assist in the management of the human
dimensions of ﬁsheries.

In order to discuss blending marketing strategies with resource management, basic
concepts must be reviewed to illustrate where marketing will mix appropriately with
resource management. Resource management is deﬁned as the manipulation of
organisms, habitats, and their human users to produce sustained and ever increasing
beneﬁts for people (Nielsen 1993). This deﬁnition is often illustrated as three overlapping
circles to represent the interplay between the three principle components of management:
organisms, habitats, and people (Figure 2-1). Furthermore, decisions concerning the use
of natural resources occur along a continuum ﬁ'om preservation through conservation to
exploitation (Figure 2-2) (Hardin 1968). If, as Nielsen suggests, resource managers are
expected to manipulate organisms, habitats, and their human users to produce sustained
and ever increasing beneﬁts for people, then conservation management goals and
strategies must be implemented with the involvement and support of an ever increasing
number of stakeholders. On one extreme, resource managers have stakeholders willing to
exploit resources for short-term gains (Figure 2-2). In fact, Hardin (1968) argues that in a
world of ﬁnite resources with an ever increasing human population, collective resources
are subject to competitive exploitation and resource degradation, with consequent welfare
losses for resource users. On the other extreme, diﬁ‘erent stakeholders may express the
desire to preserve areas by not allowing any human access or management treatments to

be conducted.

ll

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-1. Resource management depicted as three overlapping circles representing the three principle
components of management (Nielsen 1993).

 

 

 

preservation conservation exploitation

<—————————————->

Figure 2-2. A continuum of nanual resource use decisions.

 

Therefore, the resource will not produce sustained and ever increasing beneﬁts for people.
In the past, lobbying eﬁ‘orts and pressure ﬁ'om extremist stakeholders was much less
frequent, and resource managers could manipulate natural systems without involving
multiple stakeholder groups. All indications today suggest that managers will continue to
have a growing number of stakeholders requiring to be involved in management decisions.
In order to continue managing resources optimally, marketing research and strategies must
be blended into the human dimensions components of comprehensive resource

management plans as well as agency strategic plans. Marketing oﬁ‘ers managers new tools

 

 

12

to assist them in eﬁ‘ectively incorporating an increasing number of stakeholders now and

intothenextcentury.

What is Marketing?

Marketing is

“the analysis, planning, implementation, and control of carefully formulated

programs designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of values with

target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It

relies heavily on designing the organization’s oﬁ‘ering in terms of the target

markets’ needs and desires, and on using eﬁ‘ective pricing, communication,

and distribution to inform, motivate, and service the markets (Kotler

1982:6).”

More recently, scholars and practitioners have observed that marketing has shifted
ﬁ’om a product and service orientation to now focusing on and emphasizing customers,
and providing products and services to try to satisfy their needs (V aitilingam 1993, Bell
1994). Marketing has also been deﬁned more speciﬁcally in the resource management
context as

“the deliberate and orderly process of understanding ﬁsh and wildlife

publics in order to provide them with quality ﬁsh and wildlife experiences

within the constraints of resource protection, and to foster positive ﬁsh and

wildlife attitudes and behaviors toward the resource (Duda 1990: 1).”

Duda’s deﬁnition illustrates the need for resource managers to understand ﬁsh and wildlife
publics. Recently, resource managers and biologists have offered many educational and
promotional programs to encourage non-traditional resource users to participate in
outdoor recreation. However, the problem with the evaluation of these programs is that

program staff typically only count the number of participants and fail to implement any

more in-depth evaluation of the program (Thomas and White 1995, Burroughs and Reef

13

1996). Evaluative research and rc-contact information collected at these programs could
serve as a means of understanding ﬁsh and wildlife publics by providing managers with
demographic data, psychographic data, information about level of ﬁshing involvement,
distance traveled, willingness to pay for ﬁsheries resource opportunities, and numerous
amounts of other valuable information about these users. The re-contact information
(e.g., names, addresses, phone numbers and birth dates) would be entered into a database
and used for future research projects, for direct mailings concerning other programs, and
even to track each person’s participation in related programs sponsored by the agency.
Resource managers should collect this information as ﬁ'equently as they collect
population estimates about the ﬁsh and wildlife managed in their jurisdictions. Since
people are one of the three main components of resource management, managers should
be as knowledgeable about the human component as they are about populations and
habitat components, or the components will not be integrated properly into management
decision making. Additionally, knowledge about stakeholders is useful in developing
communication campaigns and marketing plans for the agency’s stakeholders. For
example, many states have oﬁ‘ered introductory ﬁshing programs that have reached
thousands of people. However, without any further evaluation it is unknown if those
programs attracted people who already knew how to ﬁsh, whether they enjoyed the
program, or whether the program should be improved or discontinued. In addition, when
participant names, addresses and phone numbers are not collected, these clientele cannot
be asked to provide management-related input at a later date. Without this “baseline”
infomration, resource managers cannot provide quality programs that resource users will

attend and support.

14

Marketing Concepts for Resource Managers

Many marketing concepts show considerable promise for resource managers and
include such topics as segmentation, targeting, strategic planning, situation analysis,
competitive positioning, and marketing mix. Although all of these topics are of value to
natural resource management a full discussion of each subject is well beyond the scope of
this paper. For example, many sources of information are readily available which will
assist in the development of strategic plans for agencies (see Bryson 1988, Dolan 1991,
Foxall 1981, Schnaars 1991, and Wilson et al. 1992).

Market segmentation is a useﬁrl tool for managers especially in light of the many
new stakeholder groups such as landowners, nonconsumptive users, and special interest
groups which are making demands on natural resource agencies. Segmentation identiﬁes
recreationists into meaningful groups which might merit separate products and/or
marketing mixes, deﬁned here as the mix of programs, facilities, products, and services.
Market segmentation requires identifying the diﬁ‘erent bases for segmenting the market,
developing proﬁles of the resulting market segments, and developing measures of each
segment’s participation in the program (Kotler 1982). In many cases, staﬁ‘ of resource
agencies believe that they cannot segment because a public agency must serve all citizens
without discrimination. Segmentation is not a tool for discriminating, but rather a method
of separating out groups with similar needs, desires, or interests so that the agency can
better identify those needs and ﬁll them if possible. Clearly, resource agencies cannot
serve every market and be all things to all people (Kotler 1982), although many an agency
has tried this approach and has failed. The main purpose of market segmentation is to

deﬁne the variables which uniquely describe various groups and to classify individuals into

15

these groups (Crompton and Lamb 1986). Markets can be segmented based on
demographics, psychographics, behaviors, attitudes, and so on (Kotler 1982). For
example, one of ﬁsheries management’s markets consists of recreational anglers. This
market could be segmented based on individuals’ participation levels in ﬁshing (e.g.,
advanced / high, intermediate / moderate, and novice / low). After identifying segments,
the next step is to target these groups with an appropriate program or service.

Target marketing is equally useful for resource managers and is the act of selecting
one or more of the market segments and developing a positioning statement and marketing
mix strategy for each (Kotler 1982). Target marketing is most helpﬁrl in assisting
managers to identify market opportunities and develop more attractive products,
programs, and services. The advantages of targeting as opposed to mass marketing, (is.
attempting to attract everyone) are not always so obvious. Public agency managers often
feel that high program participation rates are always best, and that targeting will exclude
publics. Targeting does exclude (or may dissatisfy) those groups for whom the program
or service was not intended. For example, if the agency mass markets a ﬁshing education
program to all citizens of the state, expert anglers will be disappointed in the program
when they ﬁnd that it consisted of introductory rigging, baiting, and casting skills
instruction. On the other hand, beginning anglers will be disappointed as well, because if
experienced anglers are present, novices may feel. that they did not receive enough
individualized instruction and may feel intimidated by the knowledge level of the other
more advanced participants. In this case the agency would have been better oﬁ‘ targeting

people with little or no ﬁshing experience. Then the program would be aligned with the

16

participants’ expectations, and learners would be satisﬁed with the program and leave with
a positive image ofthe agency and its staff.

Competitive positioning is deﬁned as the art of developing and communicating
meaningful diﬂ’erences between one’s oﬁ‘er and those of competitors serving the same
target market (Kotler 1982). Most states have one centralized natural resource agency
which usually does not compete with any other agency for resource users. Thus,
“competitive” positioning initially seems unnecessary for resource managers. While it may
be true that agencies rarely compete with each other for target markets, agencies are
competing with the other ways their target markets can choose to recreate. For example,
a family could choose to go ﬁshing at a state park or choose to go to the mall for a movie
instead. By developing a competitive positioning strategy, agency managers can attract
targeted audiences to their facilities and programs. Positioning strategies go well beyond
catchy slogans and advertising. These strategies involve developing a marketing mix to
attract the targeted audience.

The classic view of a marketing mix involved blending the controllable marketing
variables known and the “four Ps”: product, price, place, and promotion (Kotler 1982).
While many other variables can be added to the marketing mix, products, programs,
facilities, services, and promotion seem to serve resource managers more appropriately
than the four Ps. In most cases, “price” (e.g., entrance fees, license prices) are established
by the state’s legislature. Therefore, resource managers can control other marketing
variables (e.g., products, programs, facilities, services, and promotion) to attract targeted
audiences. In ﬁsheries outreach terms the marketing mix variables are described as

follows: products refer to quality ﬁshing areas where participants have a good chance of

l7

catching ﬁsh; programs can range from special one day ﬁshing events to seasonal activities
like weekly ﬁshing programs; facilities include ﬁshing piers, rest rooms, and adequate
parking; services include environmental education/interpretation, maintenance, visitor
safety, law enforcement, etc; and promotion ranges ﬁom word of mouth to

comprehensive communication campaigns.

Making Marketing Work

The development of a marketing culture in an agency is dependent on leadership
ﬁom the top and the education and training of staﬁ‘. Successﬁrl implementation should be
both top-down and bottom-up, and founded on comprehension and commitment rather
than sanctions (Dolan 1991). The agency’s staff must be informed, trained and involved
for real progress to occur. Managers must be part of the process of empowering staﬁ‘ to
allow change in the organization’s culture, values, and beliefs (V aitilingam 1993). For
successful implementation of marketing principles and practices, resource managers need
to: l) recognize the nwd for taking a customer-based marketing approach to developing
future facilities, products, programs, and services, 2) make the necessary investments to
train and encourage staﬁ‘ (incentives) to support a marketing approach, 3) look for and
remove barriers to implementation, 4) evaluate at least a sample of all programs (at a
minimum collect enough information to allow for participant re-contact at a later date), 5)
utilize the expertise of individuals both internal and external to the agency, and 6) consult
with and build partnerships to assist the agency in achieving and implementing a marketing
approach (Bell 1994, Dolan 1991, Crompton and Lamb 1986, Kotler 1982). Before

implementing new facilities, products, programs, or services, managers should verify that

18

theresourcewillbeneﬁt, stakeholderneedsand expectationsaremet, andthataresource
management message is communicated that is consistent with the agency mission (Figure

2-3).

 

     
      
  
 

Successful

Resource element mix

Management
Message

/esource
‘Beneﬁts
Stakeholder

Needs &
Expectations

  

    
  
 

Agency
Mission

   
   
  
    

Figure 2-3. The elements of successful agency sponsored facilities, programs or
services (Mahoney 1995).

 

 

 

19

Conclusion

The importance of implementing a customer-based marketing approach cannot be
overstated. Resource managers need to implement and actively utilize the tools of
marketing in order to: build partnerships; improve agency image; effectively develop
positive relationships with publics such as the media, legislators, activists, volunteers,
traditional users, and non-traditional users; aligr facilities, progams, products, and
services; and be responsive and adaptive to stakeholders as their needs and wants change.
Speciﬁc theories and practices in marketing, such as segnenting, targeting, and
positioning, have proven useful in the for-proﬁt business arena and are easy-to-adapt to
the natural resource management environment. Blending marketing strategies with
resource management allows managers to focus on speciﬁc goals for the human
dimensions of ﬁsheries management, thus assisting in the allocation of the use of public

trust resources.

Literature Cited

Bell, CR. 1994. Customers as partners: building relationships that last. Bard and
Stephen Book, Austin, Texas. 235 pp.

Bryson, J.M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and nonproﬁt organizations. Jossey-
Bass Pubs, San Francisco, CA

Burroughs, TM. and M.J. Reeﬁ‘. 1996. Latino outreach: outreach and education
recommendations for state aquatic education programs. International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC

Crompton, IL. and CW. Lamb, Jr. 1986. Marketing government and social services.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, Chichester, Bisbasne, Toronto, and

Singapore. 485 pp.

20

Ditton, B. 1995. Fisheries professionals: preparing for demogaphic change. Fisheries
20(1):40.

Dolan, RJ. 1991. Strategic marketing management. Harvard Business School, Boston,
MA 656 pp.

Duda, M.D., S.I. Cerulean, and 1A. Gillan. 1989. Comprehensive wildlife education
planning in Florida: the value of human dimensions research. Trans. N.A Wildl. &
Nat. Resour. Conf. 54:455-467.

Duda, MD. 1990. Marketing in a ﬁsheries and wildlife agency. Proc. Organ. Wildl.
Planners Conf. 5 pp.

Foxall, GR 1981. Strategic marketing management. A Halsted Press Book, Croom
Helm, London. 271 pp.

Gray, G.G. 1993. Wildlife and people: the human dimensions of wildlife ecology.
University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 11. 260 pp.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243-1248.

Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for nonproﬁt organizations 2nd ed. Prentice -Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 528 pp.

Mahoney, EH. 1995. Personal Communication. Michigan State University Department
of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. East Lansing, MI.

Murdock, S.H., K. Backman, RB. Ditton, N. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1992. Demogaphic
change in the United States in the 1990’s and the twenty-ﬁrst century:
implications for ﬁsheries management. Fisheries 17(2):6-13.

Nielsen, L. A 1993. History of inland ﬁsheries management in North America Pages 3-
31 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, eds. Inland Fisheries Management. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 594 pp.

Pajak, P. 1994. Urban outreach: ﬁsheries management’s next frontier? Fisheries
19(10):6-7.

Scheﬂ‘er, VB. 1976. The future of wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 4:51-54.

Schick, B.A., T.A More, RM. DeGraaf; and DE. Samuel. 1976. Marketing wildlife
management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 4:64-68.

Schnaars, SP. 1991. Marketing strategy: a customer driven approach. The Free Press,
New York, NY. 319 pp.

21

Thomas, P.W. and TM. White. 1995. South region urban ﬁshery project annual progress
report: Wallop-Breaux project F-68-4. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Lakeland, Fl.

Thorne, D ..,H E. K. Brown, and D. J. Witter. 1992. Market information. matching
management with constituent demands. 57th North American and Natural
Resources Conference. 20 pp.

US. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical abstracts of the United States: 1992. US.
Government Printing omce, Washington, DC.

US. Department of the Interior (US. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. 1993 national
survey of ﬁshing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. US. Government
Printing Oﬁce, Washington, DC.

Vaitilingam, R. 1993. Industrial initiatives for environmental conservation. Pitrnan
Publishing, London. 206 pp.

Wilson, R.M.S., C. Gillian, and DJ. Pearson. 1992. Strategic marketing management:
planning implementation and control. Butterworth and Heinemann, Jordan Hill,
Oxford. 644 pp.

Additional references

Chandler, RC. 1992. The organizational culture of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Unpublished report. 20 pp.

Haney, W,G, and DR. Field. 1984. Agiculture and natural resources: planning for
educational priorities for the twenty-ﬁrst century. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
183 pp.

Mandese, J. 1989. Who are the targets. Market. and Media Decis. 24(7):29-35.

Piasecki, B.W. 1995. Corporate environmental strategy: the avalanche of change since
Bhopal. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 180 pp.

Schlegehnilch, BB. and AC. Tynan. 1989. The scope for market segnentation within
the charity market: and empirical analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics.
10(2): 127-134.

Smith, D. 1993. Business and the environment: implications of the new
environmentalism. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY. 194 pp.

22

Snavely, K. 1991. Marketing in the government sector: a policy model. Amer. Rev.
Publ. Admin. 21:311-326.

Willig, J.T. 1995. Auditing for environmental quality leadership: beyond compliance to
environmental excellence. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New Yorlc NY. 331 pp.

CHAPTER 3
FISHING IN THE PARKS: A RESEARCH-BASED OUTREACH PROGRAM

Introduction

The “Fishing in the Parks” outreach program began in 1994 to teach families with
young children the basics of ﬁshing in accessible locations which allow for repeat
experiences. These progarns were held in selected underutilized Michigan State Parks
within close proximity to urban areas during the summers of 1995 and 1996. Sponsors of
the “Fishing in the Parks” program included the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) Fisheries and Parks & Recreation Divisions, in partnership with the
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, MichiganiUnited
Conservation Clubs, and the American Sportﬁshing Association.

The term “outreach” is relatively new to the ﬁeld of resource management and has
quickly become a popular “buzz word” among ﬁsheries professionals. The term outreach
is commonly used to refer to programs that: teach people rules and regulations, oﬁ‘er
classes or clinics, provide recreational opportunities, and give the general population a
chance to experience and become involved in the multitude of outdoor related activities
(Burroughs and Reeﬁ‘ 1996). Land-grant universities tend to take a different, research-
based approach and deﬁne outreach as the process of generating, transmitting, applying
and preserving knowledge for the beneﬁt of extemal audiences in ways consistent with the

organization’s overall mission (MSU, 1992). A recent discussion has emerged at the
23

24
Federal level concerning differences between outreach and education projects. Currently,

the Federal Aid outreach prog'am deﬁnition implies that projects should be desigred to
conununicate information to allow publics to make informed decisions regarding Federal
Aid prog'ams (i.e. those funded through the Sportﬁsh Restoration Act) (Federal Aid
Outreach Team, 1996). In contrast, an aquatic education project is designed to teach
people about ﬁsheries, aquatic habitats, and responsible angling as required by Section
8(c) of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (Federal Aid, 1996). For the purposes of the
FishingintheParksprog'am, outreachisdeﬁnedﬁ'omastateagencyandlandgrant
university perspective as initiating two-way information ﬂow by providing and targeting
research-based educational services and or progams for stakeholders, including non-
traditional audiences, in accessible locations that extend beyond the agency’s current or
The importance for ﬁsheries managers to provide eﬁ‘ective outreach progamming
that target today’s nonanglers can not be overstated. Americans have become increasingly
concerned about governmental leadership and more knowledgeable and active in
governmental decision making regarding resources (MDNR Fisheries Div. 1994). Yet
several trends of concern to ﬁsheries managers may affect the ﬁrture stewardship of
aquatic resources. These trends are: 1) increasing urbanization, 2) increasing numbers of
single parent households, predominantly headed by females (Ditton 1995 and Murdock et
al. 1992), 3) declining avidity and participation in ﬁshing and hunting (ASA 1997,
Matthews 1996, and SFI 1991), and 4) an increasing number of choices for ways youth
can spend their leisure time. While some of these activities such as sports, scouting, and

4-H are positive, many choices can be detrimental.

25
Fisheries managers have an obligation to provide for the broadest possible beneﬁts

ﬁ'om the use of public trust resources, to foster public understanding of ﬁsheries
management, and to contribute to cultivating public stewardship of resources (Fisheries
Div. 1994, Dann 1993). Therefore, there is a great need to identify audiences and target
market ﬁsheries opportunities to non-traditional clientele in an effort to increase public
involvement with and the stewardship of aquatic resources. In the broadest sense, non-
traditional audiences can be deﬁned as those who have never ﬁshed or who ﬁsh very little.
In addition, other non-traditional clientele include minorities, handicappers, single
mothers, and urban residents, all of whom have speciﬁc needs that should be identiﬁed so
measures can be taken to involve these segnents of society in aquatic stewardship. Several
recent publications address the changes occurring in the US population and the possible
impacts these changes will have on ﬁsheries management (Ditton 1995, Dwyer 1994,
Murdock et al. 1992, Schramm and Edwards 1994, US Bureau of the Census 1992).

In an attempt to increase participation in recreational ﬁshing, agencies have
invested time and money to create outreach and aquatic education programs. Many of
these programs have not taken a marketing approach and have lacked an evaluation
component. There exists a geat need to understand the clientele who attend these ﬁshing
outreach progams, in order to assess whether the selected targeted audiences are being
attracted and to determine whether the programs are meeting the participants’
expectations and needs. Additionally, evaluative research allows the sponsoring agency to
improve the program’s quality and increase progamming eﬁiciency.

One of the major challenges facing ﬁsheries agencies is the lack of an integated

research-based outreach approach to educational programming which is easy to use as

26
well as eﬁ'ective. In the past ﬁsheries managers have relied on older family members to

recruit younger generations into ﬁshing within family contexts. Recently, managers have
used the “build it and they will come” philosophy of outreach progamming, where access
sites are constructed but not marketed or a ﬁshing progam is oﬁ‘ered and publicized
mainly by announcements in the outdoor section of the local paper. Unfortunately, the
readership of the outdoor section tends to be composed of those already exposed to
ﬁshing. Furthmnore, these progams have been evaluated by counting the number of
participants and dividing by the amount of money spent on the progam (Thomas and
White 1995, Burroughs and Reeﬂ‘ 1996). This method does not constitute eﬁ‘ective
program evaluation, because it does not allow for participant feedback about the program,
or establish whether targeted audiences were attracted, or whether speciﬁc outcomes were
achieved.

The goals of this paper are: 1) to present a research-based outreach model, 2) to
present how this model was used to develop a research-based outreach program in
ﬁsheries and aquatic resources, and 3) to present the results of evaluative research
conducted concerning the outreach programs. The speciﬁc evaluation/research objectives
were: a) to describe participants attracted to the Fishing in the Parks prog'ams, b) to
evaluate marketing and publicity eﬁ‘orts, c) to assess participant reactions to the program
immediately post progarn, and d) to assess participants’ immediate post-program

intentions to participate in ﬁshing in the future.

27
Research-Outreach Model Development

Resource management agencies have already begun to develop comprehensive
research-outreach approaches to proganuning. In 1993, the New York State Division of
Fish and Wildlife implemented a model to change public attitudes and behavior associated
with ﬁsh and wildlife resources. This model was considered a “stewardship” model,
because it included a central role for the public and took a marketing approach instead of a
selling approach to foster public involvement (Bamhart et al. 1993). Furthermore, this
customer-based model was desigred to assist agencies in meeting public demands
consistent with long-term ﬁsh and wildlife resource stewardship.

Another model included a blueprint that operated as a template for eﬁ‘ective
communication and included the following "steps: (1) evaluation by reviewing the
surroundings, setting goals and objectives, identifying target audiences, developing
strategies, organizing tasks, selecting media formats and channels; (2) preparing the
materials; (3) understanding evaluation and steps for performing eﬂ‘ective evaluation; and
(4) conducting the evaluation techniques (Beech and Drake 1992). This “blueprint” can
be applied to a variety of outreach issues and progarns. However, neither of the above
models ﬁt exactly with the Fishing in the Parks program objectives.

The ﬁrst goal of the Fishing in the Parks project was to develop a more
comprehensive research-based outreach model (Figure 3-1). The elements of an effective
outreach progam model must be research-based. The research base is the foundation of
the program model, where knowledge is applied in developing an outreach program based
on previous research and where knowledge is generated ﬁ'om evaluative research on

feedback ﬁ'om the outreach program. Operating within the research-base context are four

28
elements in which knowledge must be applied in an appropriate mix to develop an

eﬁ‘ective outreach progam. The ﬁrst element of an effective outreach progarn is its
aligunent with and support of the agency’s or division’s mission. For example, the
mission of the MDNR Fisheries Divisions is

“to protect and enhance the public trust in populations and habitat of ﬁshes

and other forms of aquatic life, and promote optimum use of these

resources for the beneﬁt of the people of Michigan. In particular the

division seeks to foster and contribute to public stewardship of natural

resources.” (MDNR 199426).

The Fishing in the Parks outreach program is aligred with and supportive of the overall
mission; the mom goals are to foster use of ﬁsheries resources, presumably leading to
increased stewardship or at least an ongoing, continued relationship with the resource and
the agency through ﬁshing.

A second element of the model must be an effective resource management message
aligied with the agency’s conservation and stewardship mission. For example, an
effective ﬁshing related outreach program should inform participants about why ﬁshing
rules are necessary to ensure sustainable use of the resource over time. This information
may help to encourage voluntary compliance to ﬁshing regulations in the ﬁrture. A third
model element is that the resource must ultimately beneﬁt. In other words, the progam
participants should become better stewards and advocates for the resource through
participating in the program. For example, ﬁshing program participants should be
informed that funds generated by the sale of ﬁshing licenses and excise taxes on ﬁshing
equipment are used speciﬁcally for ﬁsheries management. Finally, the fourth model

element is that stakeholder needs and expectations must be met. For example, if the

ﬁsheries division sponsors non-targeted “ﬁshing clinics,” both novice and advanced

29
anglers may participate in the program. The advanced angler would not be satisﬁed

because the program was for beginners, and the beginner may feel intimidated by how

much the other participants know.

 

    
  

Research Base

Target

  
 

Resource
Management

 
 
   

Resource
Beneﬁts

    

  

Mission

  
 

Stakeholde
Needs 8.
Expectation

 
   
   

 

figure 3-1. The elements of an effective outreach program model.

 

 

Research Basis for the Fishing In The Parks Program

The research base for the development of Fishing in the Parks, an innovative
research-based outreach progam in ﬁsheries and aquatic ecosystems, has been ﬁrmly
established by a study of licensed anglers in Michigan. This research found that childhood
and teen involvement in ﬁshing was sigriﬁcantly related to current ﬁshing involvement

(Dann 1993). Furthermore, licensed anglers with the highest levels of current ﬁshing

30
involvement reported having: 1) family ﬁshing backgounds, 2) participation in ﬁshing-

related institutional events (clinics, camp, school, or youth organizations), 3) direct hands-
on contact with ﬁshes during early ﬁshing activities, and 4) greater levels of satisfaction
with thdr earliest ﬁshing experience (Dann 1993). These ﬁndings support the suggestion
that ﬁsheries outreach progams be developed that target young families, teens, urban
audiences, and females (Dann 1993). These recommendations are further supported by
the MDNR Fisheries Division’s Strategic Plan (1994241).

“Fishing participation will only gow in the long term if the rate of

recruitment exceeds the rate of dropout. Growth will likely not come from

the ranks of the highly active and experienced groups of anglers who are

probably ﬁshing at their maximum level. Growth will come from urban

areas, the less aﬁluent, women and children. Opportunities must be

created and progarns must be designed to make ﬁshing easily available to

these groups.” '

At the same time, as a starting point for the development of this innovative
outreach program, we reviewed marketing literature for pertinent research-based insights.
Chapter 2 discusses marketing in more detail. However, a few main points are needed
here for clariﬁcation. Marketing is the deliberate and orderly process of understanding
ﬁsh and wildlife publics to provide them with quality experiences to foster positive
attitudes and behaviors toward the resource (Duda 1990). Targeting and segnenting are
probably the most useful marketing tools for ﬁsheries managers and outreach coordinators
(e.g., aquatic educators and public affairs staﬁ). Segnentation is used to identify then
classify stakeholders into meaningful goups which merit separate programs based on
individuals’ diﬁ‘ering needs. For the “Fishing in the Parks” program the initial segnent
included those who have never ﬁshed or ﬁsh very little. Targeting is selecting one or more

of those segnents and providing them with appropriate programs or services (Kotler

31
1982). Families with young children were selected as the initial target based on Dann’s

(1993) research. Both segnentation and targeting are critical to achieving participant
satisfaction by attracting the right audience and meeting their needs and expectations.
Additionally, targeting and segnenting are useful tools for developing progam partners

and recruiting volunteers.

W

In the fall of 1994, a goup of representatives ﬁ'om various progam partners were
brought together to create the Fishing in the Parks steering committee. This committee
undertook the task of designing and implementing a ﬁshing outreach progam during the
summer of 1995. Since the committee members represented the diﬁ‘erent sponsoring
organizations, these individuals contributed diversity to the group based on their varying
expertise, backgounds, and perspectives. This diversity of knowledge proved useful in
makingFishingintheparksareality.

During the summer of 1995, MDNR Fisheries Division hired two ﬁshing
instructors to travel to diﬁ‘erent Michigan State Parks each weekday evening. Throughout
each week, the instructors visited ten different parks. Two other instructors and one
coordinator were hired to travel to eight State Parks to host weekend ﬁshing workshops.
Additionally, the coordinator recruited volunteers ﬁ'om the local communities to assist the
instructors with the progarns. The steering committee reviewed a variety of materials in
order to select a ﬁshing curriculum to be used in the Fishing in the Parks progams.
Although several curricula (e.g., “Hooked On Fishing-Not On Drugs” and “Pathways to

Fishing”) were identiﬁed, the steering committee decided to develop a training manual

32
ﬁ'om these and other existing materials for the program’s instructors to use in designing

lesson plans speciﬁcally for the Fishing in the Parks progams (see Appendix G).

Between 1995 and 1996, the steering committee used the evaluative research to
make sigriﬁcant progam modiﬁcations. Progarn evaluation information ﬁ'om 1995
indicated that sponsoring ﬁshing programs each night of the week in two diﬁ‘erent
locations in lower Michigan was confusing to progam participants and diﬂicult for the
media to communicate. The steering committee used this information to justify using
Adventure Rangers, already stationed in selected State Parks, to teach the progam in
1996. The Adventure Rangers also eliminated the need to hire separate instructors and
eliminated the travel costs of Fisheries Division instmctors. In both 1995 and 1996 the
weekday programs were held at: Muskegon State Park, Ionia State Park, Yankee Springs
Recreation Area, Fort Custer Recreation Area, Pontiac Lake Recreation Area, and Island
Lake Recreation Area. In 1996, Maybury State Park, Seven Lakes State Parlg and Proud
Lake Recreation Area were replaced with Metamora-Hadley Recreation Area, Walter J.
Hayes State Park, and Sterling State Park. These park changes were necessary either
because the park did not have an Adventure Ranger or the ﬁshing facilities were deemed
inadequate for the program (based on feedback ﬁ'om 1995 staﬂ‘ and participants. The data
and instructor feedback suggested the weekend progams were generally not eﬂ‘ective or
eﬁcient at attracting the targeted audience of families with young children. For example,
instructors reported that weekend progams attracted mainly youth without their parents
(Appendix H). Therefore, the committee eliminated weekend programs for 1996. During
both years the ﬁshing instructors/adventure rangers taught each participant basic ﬁshing

knots, rigging, casting, baiting, basic ﬁsh identiﬁcation, and additional skills. Every

33
participant in the program actually ﬁshed with an instructor present to answer questions

and to assist.

In an eﬁ‘ort to eliminate confusion about the progam night, in 1996 Tuesday
nights were selected to standardize media messages (e.g., Fishing in the Parks will be held
every Tuesday night at 6:30 pm. at these 10 state parks...) Additionally, selected parks
were traditionally underutilized on Tuesday evenings. By offering Fishing in the Parks
then, this allowed the progam to be aligied more directly with the Parks and Recreation
Division’s mission of promoting the use of the State Parks.

For the 1995 programs, traditional mediated interactions such as news releases
were used to promote the progam. The evaluation information indicated a need for a
more strategic communications campaigr to be developed and implemented by the spring
of 1996. The campaigr was developed by: consulting with extension communication
specialists, nonanglers, and students, and by consensus building among progam partners
on the steering committee (Appendix F). The message selected for 1996 and beyond was
“Fishing is family fun that lasts a lifetime.” Additionally, the 1995 progam name, “Take
a Friend Fishing” was changed to “Fishing in the Parks” starting in 1996. The new title
was thought to better promote the missions of the MDNR Fisheries and Parks &

Recreation Divisions.

Fishing in the Parks Evaluation Research Design
At the beginning of each “Fishing in the Parks” progam each adult participant was
asked to complete a registration form in order to participate. Using this form, progam

staﬁ‘ collected the names, addresses, phone numbers, and birth year of each individual

34
attending Theadrdtsregsteredtheyouthinanardanceunththmnandsigiedastatmnent

that provided consent for the youth attending the progam to participate in the evaluative
research conducted at the progam’s conclusion (see Appendices A and B).

During both years of the program, researchers from Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife administered questionnaires to participants.
Immediately following the completion of the program, each adult participant (age 18 years
and older) was requested to voluntarily complete an “adult” questionnaire. Youth (ages 5
through 17 years old) were also given the opportunity to voluntarily complete a “youth”
survey.

The youth survey was substantially shorter, easier to read than the adult survey,
and did not contain questions that would be redundant in light of the information collected
ﬁom the adult survey. Both youth and adult evaluative instruments were developed using
pre-existing questionnaires (Dann 1993, Gigliotti 1989, Wong-Leonard 1992, and Fridgen
et al. 1986). The surveys were piloted during the ﬁrst four weeks of the 1995 program.
Pilotdatawerethenanalyzedtodetermineifanyoftheiternsorinstructionsinthe
questionnaires needed clariﬁcation. In the adult survey, there were a few questions that
were rewarded, and some minor formatting/layout adjustments made instructions more
clear and reduced the number of pages in the survey.

The youth survey required substantial changes after piloting. The pilot youth
survey (see Appendix C) was written with a Flesch-Kincaide readability grade level of 6.5.
After the ﬁrst four weeks, results indicated the average youth participant was going to
enter the ﬁfth grade in the following fall. Additionally, the pilot indicated that many of the

questions were redundant with the adult survey. Aﬁer rewarding and deleting several

35
questions in the youth survey (see Appendix D), the Flesch-Kincaidc readability gadc

level was lowered to 3.6.

This evaluative research and re-contact information collected on the registration
form was considered an integal part of the progam by the steering committee. As a
research-based outreach progam, this information allows for a two way communication
ﬂow between the agency and its cheats. Participants provide feedback for the steering
committee to use in evaluation and for progam improvements. Additionally, participants
can be contacted in the future for longitudinal studies, and their ﬁshing activity can be
tracked over time by using the state’s computerized licensing system. The intent of
collecting this information is to be one of the ﬁrst ﬁshing related outreach programs to
document the extent of its contribution to developing long-term anglers and aquatic
stewards.

The data collected from surveys conducted during 1995 and 1996 were analyzed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 6.11 (SPSS, Inc. 1994). Data
entry accuracy was determined by re-entering 14% of the surveys. In the adult surveys,
nine errors in 4,343 total keystrokes resulted in a 0.002 error rate. In the youth surveys,
two errors in 3,168 keystrokes resulted in a 0.0006 error rate. Since the probability of
transcription error from the original document was well below the usual, expected error
rate of 2-4% (Karweit and Meyers 1983), it was determined unnecessary to re-key all the
arrveys. Summary statistics, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare 1995 and 1996
results and were performed on the same SPSS software. The data were tested for
sigriﬁcant differences between 1995 and 1996 using chi-square and t-tests (see Appendix

I). The results of this analysis indicated relatively few sigriﬁcant differences and justiﬁed

poolingthe 1995 and 1996 data The pooled data and sigriﬁcant diﬁ‘erences are reported

in the “Fishing in the Parks Results and Discussion Section.” Additionally, a participant

database was developed ﬁ'om the information on the registration forms using Microsoft

Access 3.0 (Microsoft, Corp. 1994) (see Chapter 4).

Fishing in the Parks Results and Discussion

 

The progamming effort included a total of 106 programs in 1995 and 81

programs in 1996 (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Fishing In The Parks progamming effort in 1995 and 1996.

 

 

 

Year Potential Cancelled due to Total
programming rain programming
effort eﬂ'ort
1995 1 12 6 106
1996 90 9 81
Totals 202 15 187

 

 

 

 

 

37
Duringthetwoyesrs, 852 adults and 1,522 youth participated inFishing inthe

Parks (Table 3-2). Overall, these participation rates were satisfactory given that on the
average, a progam had approximately 12 to 13 participants. This goup size allows for
optimal instructor/participant interaction which may positively inﬂuence participant
satisfaction with the progam. When comparing the number of participants between 1995
and 1996, it is important to note that during 1996 there were 25 fewer progams and 94
more participants, thus indicating an increase in progamming eﬁciency due to changes
made after evaluation conducted in 1995.

The adult and youth response rates for 1995 and 1996 are presented in Table 3-2.
The adult response rate produced 326 useable cases in 1995 and 296 useable cases in
1996. In 1995, there were 29 adult and 48'youth who attended more than one progam
for a 7% repeat participation rate. In 1996, 35 adults and 58 youth attended more than
one program yielding repeat rates of 8% for adults and 7% for youth. Repeat participants
during the same year did not complete a second survey. The adult response rates were
corrected for repeat participants resulting in 326 usable cases in 1995 and 296 cases in
1996. Youth response rates were corrected for repeat participants and those under ﬁve
years of age (participants under 5 years of age were considered too young to take the

youth survey) resulting in 348 useable cases in 1995 and 481 usable cases in 1996.

Table 3-2. Fishing In The Parks participation and response rates for 1995 and 1996.

 

 

 

Year # Adult # Youth Total # % of Adult % of Youth
participants participants participants responding respondinL

1995 423 716 1139 83 63

1996 429 806 1235 82 82

Total 852 1522 2374

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38
Theyouthresponseratewassigriﬁcantlyhigherin 1996thanin 1995. Onereason

for the low youth response (63%) in 1995 may have been that youth tended to wander oﬂ‘
during the weekend programs. Another reason may be that in 1995, researchers asked
adults to assist their youth in completing the youth survey alter adults had already spent
10 or more minutes ﬁlling out an adult questionnaire. In 1996, MSU staﬁ‘ interviewed
youth toward the end of the progam, while the parents were completing their own adult
questionnaires. This procedure allowed the youth to have additional ﬁshing time and
probably contributed to the increased response rate of 82%. The overall response rates
were quite satisfactory. Non-response occurred randomly; non-respondents tended to be

people who needed to leave early, were late to dinner at camp, or moved on to another

event happening in the park.

 

One of the research objectives was to describe program participants and to
determine if targeted segnents were attracted to the progam. Both youth and adults
were asked about previous ﬁshing behavior to assess their level of involvement in ﬁshing

(Table 3-3).

 

39

Table 3-3. 1995 and 1996 youth and adult previous ﬁshing experience and indicators of
levels of involvement of those who indicated that they had ﬁshed before.

 

 

 

Fishing Activity Indicator Youth Adult

Fished before 89% 86%

Membership in a ﬁshing related organization na 3%

Of those who ﬁshed before:
Had a current ﬁshing license as 43%
PurchasedalicenseSofthepastSyears na 24%
Purchasedalicense3or4ofthepast5years na 14%
PurchasedalicenselorZofthepastSyears na 26%
Had not purchased a license in the past 5 years na 36%
Fished 5 of the last 5 years 29% 33%
Fished 3 or 4 of the last 5 years 27% 17%
Fished l or 2 of the last 5 years 39% 28%
Had not ﬁshed in the past 5 years 5% 22%
Days ﬁshed last summer ' median = 5 median = 3
Days ﬁshed last fall median = O median = 0
Days ﬁshed last winter median = O median = 0
Days ﬁshed this spring median = 0 median = O

 

 

Although 89 percent of youth and 86% of adults reported they had ﬁshed in the
past, other questionnaire items indicate that many of these participants had very low
ﬁshing activity rates (see Appendix E). The median days ﬁshed for youth in the past year
was 5 days of summer ﬁshing and none during the rest of the year. Adult survey results
revealed a median of 3 days of ﬁshing during the summer and a median of zero during the
rest of the year. Additionally, 39% of the youth indicated they ﬁshed only once or twice
in the past ﬁve years, and 36% of adults indicated they had not purchased a license in the
past ﬁve years. Results also indicated that 3% of all adults participating in the program
belonged to a ﬁshing related organization. These results indicate the targeted “never

ﬁshed” and “novice” audiences were being attracted to the program.

40
The program was also targeted to attract families with young children. Adults

participating in the program were asked who they attended the program with to assess
whether the family target was being attracted (Table 3-4). The data indicate that 79% of
adult participants attended the program with their own child and 25% attended with their
spouse.

When adults were questioned about their household composition, ‘7 5% of
participants indicated they lived in a household consisting of two adults and child(ren).
Fiﬁeen percent were adults who did not live with children and 9% indicated living alone
with a child(ren). One segment that seems to be underrepresented is the single parent
group, because only 9% of adults indicated living alone with children.

Table 3-4. Adult responses regarding who they accompanied to the program, in 1995 and
1996.

 

 

 

 

 

I am attendmram with: Percent of adultsI
With my own child 7 9%
With someone who has never ﬁshed before 35%
With my spouse 25%
With other children 18%
With my grandcth 9%
With another adult 9%
Alone 3%
Other 5%
With a teenage ﬁ'iend <l%

 

Percent will not sum to 100% because of multiple responses.

 

41
General demographic information also allowed assessment of what types of

participants were attracted. During the two years, youth had a pooled mean age of9.5
yearsoldandindicatedtheywouldbeenteringtheﬁﬁhgradeinthefall. Thevast
majority, 90%, of youth were residents of Michigan, and 58% of the youth were male.
The Fishing in the Parks program did not attract an ethnically diverse audience (Table 3-
5). The lack of diversity may be a result of suburban and rural locations of most of the

State Parks.

Table 3-5. Program participants’ reported ethnicity (1995 and 1996 pooled data).

 

 

 

 

Participant responses in percent
Are you... White Black Hispanic Asian Multiracial Other
Youth 92% 4% 2% <1% <1% <1%
Adults 94% 3% 2% <1% <1% <1%

 

 

Additional demographic information collected ﬁom adults indicated that 84% were
currently married, 44% lived in urban areas, 93% were residents of Michigan, 2 years of
college was the median education level, 42 was the mean age, and 53% of adults were
male. When adults were asked about their household income, most program participants

reported middle and upper middle class incomes (Table 3-6).

 

42
Table 3-6. Reported household income of adult participants (1995 and 1996 pooled data).

 

 

 

Annual household income before taxes Percent of adults responding

Less than $10,000 2%
$10,000 to $19,999 4%
$20,000 to $29,999 9%
$30,000 to $39,999 12%
$40,000 to $49,999 25%
$50,000 to $59,999 14%
$60,000 to $69,999 28%
$70,000 to $79,999 2%
$80,000 to $89,999 1%
$90,000 to $99,999 1%
$100,000 and above 3%
Chose not to answer 21%

 

 

Adult participants were asked about their Michigan State Park usage. While 90
percent indicated they had visited a Michigan State park in the past, 29% indicated it was
their ﬁrst visit to that particular park. Additionally, 41% indicated they visited speciﬁcally
to attend the Fishing in the Parks program. There were signiﬁcantly more campers (64%)
participating in the program during 1996 than expected based on the 44% camping rate of
1995 (Chi-sq.=24.23, ldf, p<.001). This increase in camper participation may have been
caused by having the park’s Adventure Ranger as the instructor. The Rangers indicated

they advertised the programs more aggressively in the campgrounds in 1996 than in 1995.

Ev ion f Marketin lici Eﬂ‘
When adults were asked how they ﬁrst heard about the “Fishing in the Parks”
program, participants reporting they ﬁrst heard through park contacts (e.g., posters or

rangers) signiﬁcantly increased ﬁ'om 55% in 1995 to 70% in 1996. This increase may be

 

43
due to the more active role of the Adventure Rangers by having them instruct and

therefore take ownership ofthe program in their park in 1996. Additionally, in 1996
programs were not oﬁ‘ered at Maybury State Park, which is a day-use only Park.
Participants reporting they ﬁrst heard through printed mediated interactions (e.g.,
newspaper and magazine articles) also increased signiﬁcantly in 1996. In 1995 5% of
adults reported they ﬁrst heard ﬁom printed mediated interactions, while 19% of adults
reported hearing through printed mediated interactions in 1996. This increase may be
attributed to the coordinated communications campaign which included increased press
releases, increased articles in magazines, and the uniform print media message. In 1996,
there was a signiﬁcant decrease in the proportions of participants hearing of the program
through other mediated interactions (e.g., word of mouth, TV, and radio). In 1995, 40%
of adults reported they ﬁrst heard from other mediated interactions, while 11% of adults
reported hearing through other mediated interactions in 1996. These signiﬁcant changes
between park contacts, print media, and other mediated interactions (Chi-sq. = 71.09, 2df,
p<.001) seem to indicate the communications campaign was more effective in reaching

target markets during 1996.

 

Another research question was to assess whether the program met the needs and
expectations of the program participants. Overall, 52% of adult participants indicated
they expected to catch ﬁsh, and 69% actually caught ﬁsh. Additionally, 76% of youth
participants indicated they expected to catch ﬁsh, and 78% actually caught ﬁsh. Thus

both groups’ expectations for catching ﬁsh were met or exceeded. To better assess if

44

nwdsmdapeaaﬁomwmmwmmmdywmwaeaskeimdighdydiﬂaemmys

to what extent they were satisﬁed with selected objectives of the program (Tables 3-7 and

3-8).

Table 3-7. Youth satisfaction with selected objectives of the program (1995 and 1996

 

 

 

 

 

pooled data).
Percent of youth responding }
Not important

Did this progam help you... to me Yes Sort-of No
To learn new ﬁshing skills 2% 78% 16% 4%
To ﬁsh on my own 3% 66% 19% 12%
To learn about ﬁsh 3% 57% 25% 15%
To get better at my ﬁshing skills 2% 77% 16% 5%
To be better able to use my equipment 3% 78% 13% 6%
To meet new people 4% 64% 18% 13%
To become more interested in ﬁshing 2% 73% 17% 7%
To enjoy time outdoors 1% 85% 10% 4%

 

 

Table 3-8. Adult satisfaction with selected objectives of the program (1995 and 1996

 

 

 

 

 

pooled data).
Percent of adults reminding

To what extent are you satisﬁed that Not an DissatisﬁedI NeutralI SatisﬁedT
this program helped you.» important

reason to attend
Tolearnnewﬁshingskills 8% 3% 11% 78%
To ﬁsh by myself 12% 3% 18% 67%
To learn about ﬁsh 10% 5% 28% 57%
To get better at my ﬁshing skills 9% 3% 18% 70%
To be better able to use my equipment 9% 3% 17% 71%
To be with family 5% 2% 10% 83%
To be with friends 16% 2% 22% 60%
To meet new people 17% 3% 27% 53%
To become more interested in ﬁshing 12% 2% 17% 69%
To enjoy time outdoors 4% 3% 7% 86%

 

‘ Satisfaction was measured using a 5 point Likert type scale where 1 = very dissatisﬁed,
2 = dissatisﬁed, 3 = neutral, 4 = Satisﬁed, and 5 = very satisﬁed.

 

45
The surveys indicate this program may be beneﬁcial in providing the basic skills

and meeting important expectations needed to increase participation in ﬁshing. Seventy
eight percent of both adult and youth participants were satisﬁed with their new ﬁshing
skills. Additionally, 71% of adults and 78% of youth reported they felt better able to use
theirequipment, and 67% ofadultsand 66% ofyouthwere satisﬁedthattheycould ﬁsh

ontheirownattheendoftheprograrn.

WW
One of the purposes of this research was to determine to what extent an ongoing
relationship was started between the agency and stakeholders. Both youth and adults
were asked, in slightly diﬁ‘erent ways, about their ﬁshing-related intentions after

participating in the program (Tables 3-9 and 3-10).

Table 3-9. Youth intentions after completing the program, (1995 and 1996 pooled data).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of youth responding
Alter this prpgrarn will you... Yes Maybe No
Go ﬁshing again? 87% 12% 1%
Buy your own ﬁshing rod or tackle? 49% 34% 17%
Go to another ﬁshingmgram? 49% 42% 9%

 

 

Table 3-10. Adult intentions after completing the program, (1995 and 1996 pooled data).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of adults responding
In the next year do Deﬁnitely Probably Maybe No Undecided
you intend to...
Go ﬁshing again? 60% 20% 12% 6% 2%
Purchase equipment? 33% 29% 21% 15% 2%
Attend another clinic? 24% 25% 33% 13% 5%

 

46
The results indicate that participants have intentions to become more committed to

ﬁshing. Thirty seven percent of 1996 adult participants had a license, and an additional
38% indicating that they would deﬁnitely, probably, or might purchase a license alter
participating in Fishing in the Parks. These results suggest that up to 75% of adults
already have or intend to buy a license after attending the program. Fifty nine percent of
adults and 87% of youth indicated they will deﬁnitely ﬁsh again, and an additional 34% of
adults and 12% ofyouth indicated they probably or might ﬁsh again. These results
indicate that 92% of adults and 99% of youth intend to ﬁsh again alter completing the
program. This high level of intention to ﬁsh again indicates the program is eﬁ‘ective in
preparing and motivating individuals to continue ﬁshing. These high intention rates are
encouraging to ﬁsheries managers, considering that angling participation may be related in

some way to aquatic stewardship (Dann 1993).

MW

By utilizing the Adventure Rangers as program instructors for 1996, the cost of
the program was signiﬁcantly reduced in 1996. In 1995, ﬁshing instructor salary, travel,
and miscellaneous supplies (e.g., mainly bait) cost $26,800, or $23.53 per program
participant. In 1996, program costs were signiﬁcantly reduced to $5,000, or $4.05 per
participant. These totals do not include evaluative research costs or in-kind support from
the program’s partners such as photocopying, mailings, or salary support for the steering
committee members.

One overarching question is: did participant ratings of overall program quality

decrease by increasing programming eﬁciency between 1995 and 1996 by using

47
Adventure Rangers as instructors? The data indicate that adult participant program

quality ratings diﬂ’ered signiﬁcantly (t=2.42, df=537, p=.016) between the two years;
increasingﬁ'omameanof4.3 in 1995 toameanof4.5 in 1996 ona5 pointLikerttype
scale (where 5 = excellent) (Table 3-11). The youth data indicate a signiﬁcant decrease in
overall program quality ratings between 1995 and 1996. Youth program quality ratings
weremeasuredonascaleofpoor= 1, good=3, andexcellent=5. Youthmean ratings
were 4.6 in 1995 and decreased to 4.2 in 1996. There are several possible reasons for this
decrease in ratings by the youth participants. First, it is possible the youth perceived that
program quality actually did decrease. However, this is unlikely in light of the adult
program participant data This signiﬁcant diﬁ‘erence in youths’ program ratings could be
due to non-response bias ﬁom youth surveys conducted in 1995. The youth response rate
in 1995 was 63%; possibly, the youth who chose to participate in the survey were the ones
who thought the program was excellent. Another factor may have been caused by the
diﬂ‘erence in youth data collection between 1995 and 1996. In 1995, parents were asked
to assist their youth in completing the survey. Because the youth response rate was low in
1995, research assistants for 1996 were asked to interview youth toward the end of the
program while the parents were completing adult questionnaires. This procedure
increased the youth response rate to 82% and may have eliminated parent biases because
interviewers read the questions and marked the answer the youth provided. In 1995,
parents may have coached their youth by saying, “don’t you think the program was better

than just good?”

48

Table 3-11. Overall program quality rating for adults and youth on a scale of 1 = poor to
5 = excellent.

 

 

 

 

Overall quality 1995 1996 t-value d.f. p
' mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.L
Adult 4.3 (0.74) 4.5 (0.72) 2.42 537 .016
Youth 4.5 Q83) 4.2 (1.02) 6.80 753 <.001

 

Discussion and Implications for Fisheries Management

The Fishing in the Parks program was designed using an innovative outreach
programming model that began with a sound research base. Additionally, the program
was developed to target an appropriate mix of the four operational components of the
model by: 1) aligning with the agency’s mission, 2) communicating a resource
management message, 3) ultimately beneﬁting the resource, and 4) meeting stakeholder
needs and expectations to effectively extend knowledge. The evaluative research allowed
for organizational learning, program improvement, and increased programming eﬁciency,
and the re-contact information is being used to initiate two-way communication ﬂow with
newly recruited ﬁsheries clientele. Two other elements were important to the success of
Fishing in the Parks. First, taking a marketing approach to segment audiences, and
targeting a speciﬁc audience for this program may have inﬂuenced the high overall
program satisfaction levels among participants. Second, the development of a sound
conununication campaign was eﬁ‘ective in establishing a clear program message that
attracted the targeted audience to the progranr, and assisted in recruiting volunteers for

the program.

 

49

After a ﬁsheries agency has provided clientele with an initial exposure to ﬁshing at
an outreach program, ﬁrture objectives should be to retain those new anglers as committed
customers. Agency staﬂ‘ may consult research from several sources for clues about
retaining new/novice anglers and encouraging angler commitment (Bryan 1979, Dann
1993, Ditton et al. 1992). One angler specialization theory states that anglers tend to
specialize over time and illustrates the stages through which most individuals progress
while becoming an angler (Bryan 1979). Bryan suggests four stages. For ﬁrrther '
clariﬁcation, two additional early stages have been added, “never ﬁshed” and “novice,”
stages in which a person has tried ﬁshing and may or may not intend to ﬁsh again (Figure
3-2). Bryan’s stages begin with the “occasional stage” where ﬁshing is a family activity
for catching any ﬁsh, using any tackle, and usually using live bait. The “generalist” takes
pride in catching his/her limit, uses spinning tackle, and ﬁshes with ﬁiends. The
“technique specialist” concentrates on catching large ﬁsh, uses specialized equipment,
ﬁshes with peers, and takes ﬁshing related vacations. The ﬁnal stage is the “technique and
setting specialist,” because he/she uses specialized equipment in speciﬁc conditions (e.g.,
coldwater streams), ﬁshes with fellow specialists, and focuses his/her recreation (and ‘

maybe even their lives) around the sport of ﬁshing.

50

 

 

Technique & setting specialist (specialized equipment and
conditions, ﬁsh with specialists, center lives around sport)
Technique specialist (catching large ﬁsh on specialized
equipment, with peers and take ﬁshing related vacations)
Generalist (catching limit on spin tackle, with friends)

Occasional (any ﬁsh, any tackle, usually use live bait, with family)
Novice (tried ﬁshing, may or may not intend to ﬁsh again)

Never ﬁshed

 
  
   
   

Figure 3-2. Bryan’s (1979) Specialization Theory (modiﬁed) to illustrate the
stages individuals move through while becoming a specialized angler.

 

Results from “Fishing in the Parks” indicate the program is successful at providing
participants with a hands-on ﬁshing experience and enough ﬁshing skills to allow them to
move ﬁom the “never ﬁshed” or “novice” stages to the “occasional” stage in which they
can express intentions to continue ﬁshing. Additionally, the stages suggested by Bryan
provide a solid link between the ﬁsheries research base and potential segmentation and
target marketing opportunities for other ﬁshing outreach efforts. The stages could be
used to establish marketing objectives (e.g., to move program participants ﬁ'om the novice
ﬁshing stage to the occasional stage), and previous Fishing in the Parks program
participants could be targeted for existing angling opportunities such as Free Fishing Days.
These additional exposures to ﬁshing opportunities allow participants to start developing a

lifetime relationship with ﬁsheries resources and their related management agencies.

mm
This research has provided very good baseline information that describes the

participants attracted to the Fishing in the Parks program, their reactions to the program,

 

5 1
and their intentions to participate in ﬁshing in the ﬁrture. However, the results only show

the participants’ intentions to ﬁsh again. Whether the participants actually ﬁsh again after
theprogramandatwhatlevel shouldbethefocusofﬁrtureresearch.

Fishing in the Parks program staﬁ‘ provided training and support for several urban
ﬁshing programs in 1996. However, the surveys from the Fishing in the Parks research
project were not administered at any of the urban ﬁshing programs. Currently, the
majority of urban ﬁshing programs were coordinated with local summer programs, and
youth were bussed to ﬁshing sites under the supervision of camp counselors. The ﬁshing
trip was a onetime event for the summer and youth received a preliminary exposure to
ﬁshing. Most of the urban programs did not use a standard lesson plan and had a much
higher participant-to—instructor ratio than Fishing in the Parks. As a general observation,
urban ﬁshing programs need to have standardized lesson plans for consistency between
programs, and to keep instructors from having to create their own when it would be more
eﬁcient to use those ﬁ'om the Fishing in the Parks program. The urban programs also
require additional instructors or volunteers to provide more individual ﬁshing instruction
and to handle on-the-spot equipment repairs. Additionally, urban ﬁshing programs using
the Fishing in the Parks model should strive to provide opportunities for repeat

participation in ﬁshing within a family context.

R m n r n
The results ﬁ'om the Fishing in the Parks evaluative research support
recommending the continuation, development, and expansion of the Fishing in the Parks

program. The program was very well received by participants who were highly satisﬁed

52
with their experience and indicated high levels of intentions to: ﬁsh again, purchase

licenses, and buy equipment. Additionally, by utilizing the Adventure Rangers as the
primary instructors the overall cost per participant was signiﬁcantly reduced in 1996.
Therefore, the cost ofadding additional State Parks to the program is minimal ifthe park
employs an Adventure Ranger and has adequate ﬁshing opportunities. The research
results justify the following recommendations for the program: 1) maintain the
communication campaign message to continue attracting the targeted audience; 2)
encourage Adventure Rangers to make local media contacts by providing them with press
releases, tip sheets, and radio spots; 3) provide more training to Adventure Rangers about
ﬁsh identiﬁcation, biology, and habitat; each ranger should be given a ﬁsh identiﬁcation
poster to use during the programs; 4) train the Adventure Rangers in a few Project Wet
activities to use with children less than ﬁve years old, or those who have diﬁculty with the
knot tying; and 5) at a minimum, continue to collect program participant re-contact
information (e.g., name, address, phone number, and birth date).

There are several reasons that justify collecting participant re-contact information.
First, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently invested in the development
of a computerized retail sales system for hunting and ﬁshing licenses. This retail sales
system is a database that stores information about each license purchaser such as their
name, address, date of birth, drivers license number, date of purchase, etc. This system is
capable of being used as a tool for strategic database marketing for the MDNR.
Currently, the system can be used to track an individual’s license purchasing preferences
(e.g., daily, annual, with or without a trout stamp, purchase location, etc.) over a period of

years. This information is very useful for tracking angler retention and license purchasing

53
patterns. However, individuals who purchase ﬁshing licenses tend to be already

committed to angling.

By adding the outreach program participant re-contact information to this
database, ﬁsheries managers will be able to track the recruitment rate of these new
potential customers. Second, the re-contact information can be used to directly inform
these outreach participants of additional ﬁshing experiences (such as Free Fishing Days),
or for promoting new initiatives like the young angler license. Third, the re-contact
information provides a name and address pool that can be used in longitudinal research
projects to assess the eﬂ‘ectiveness of Fishing in the Parks or other outreach initiatives.
Fisheries biologists ﬁ'equently use mark and recapture as a technique to monitor ﬁsheries
populations. In this case the re-contact information serves as the “mark” or tag, and
participants are “recaptured” when their re-contact information is matched in the license
sales data in years following their program participation. Lastly, the names and addresses
of the Fishing in the Parks participants can be used by other MDNR divisions to promote
their outreach eﬁ‘orts (such as the Becoming an Outdoors Woman (BOW) program).
Conversely, the re-contact information ﬁom the BOW program could be used to inform
these participants about Fishing in the Parks.

Using registration re-contact information to track program participants over time
may prove challenging especially in light of the average age of youth participants. In many
cases, seven to ten years will pass before the youth age cohorts will begin to be identiﬁed
as adult license holders. In Michigan, the new voluntary youth angler license may allow
for youth tracking to begin several years earlier. Additionally, it is extremely diﬂicult to

track youth over time. This is especially true if the youth does not have a drivers license

54
which by law, must have an up-to-date address to be valid (Chapter 4). However,

ﬁsheries managers should not be discouraged by this long-term challenge. The collection
of re-contact information is easily justiﬁed by the other short-term uses already discussed.

TheFishingintheParksProgram shouldbere-evaluated everythreeto ﬁveyears,
as long as the major program elements and target audiences are not changed. This
evaluation provides important feedback about the program and allows ﬁsheries managers
the opportunity to become more familiar with the program participants and the division’s
potential new customers. Like other ﬁsheries management strategies, outreach efforts are
expensive to develop and maintain. Therefore, these outreach programs need to be
evaluated carefully and oﬁen to determine how the new recruits and the program are
progressing.

While collecting the data for this research project, on many occasions participants’
fears and negativistic attitudes toward aquatic resources (i.e. “I’m not touching that ﬁsh,
it’s yuckyl”) seemed to be eliminated through hands-on contact and the eﬂ‘orts of
instructors and volunteers. Additional research should determine if the Fishing in the
Parks program is an eﬁ'ective eﬁ‘ort to allow participants to: 1) establish longer-term
involvement in ﬁshing, 2) eliminate misconceptions about basic ecology principles, 3)
eliminate negative attitudes toward aquatic resources, and 4) encourage long-term
involvement in ﬁshing and aquatic stewardship. This information could be determined
through the use of pre and post testing or longitudinal research designs.

Initial observations indicate that teaching Fishing in the Parks has positive effects
on the Adventure Rangers and other program staff. Many of the 1996 Adventure Rangers

assigned to State Parks pre-selected for Fishing in the Parks, indicated that their

55
knowledge about and experience with ﬁshing were very limited. However, at the

conclusion of the summer, many of the Adventure Rangers reported that Fishing in the
Parks was their most popular and favorite program. Additionally, other rangers reported
making substantial investments while purchasing their own specialized ﬁshing equipment.
In the case of several 1996 Adventure Rangers, the program recruited new clientele ﬁ'om
an unexpected source. Future research should evaluate what impacts teaching the
program has on the Adventure Rangers’ interest in ﬁsh, ﬁshing, and aquatic ecosystems.
This qualitative assessment could be accomplished by collecting journals, conducting
interviews, or pre and post surveys, and by having the Adventure Rangers compare the
Fishing in the Parks Program to other natural resource programs.

Outcomes from this project suggest that the Fisheries Division should develop and
market programs speciﬁcally for teens. Only 10% of all youth participating in the Fishing
in the Parks program were teens (ages 13 to 18 years). Current research tells us that
today’s most committed anglers reported that some type of signiﬁcant experience during
the teen years occurred to deepen their involvement in ﬁshing (Dann 1993). The next
logical question is: what can ﬁsheries managers do to provide teens with a signiﬁcant
experience so they continue to become anglers? One suggestion is to build additional
partnerships with teen organizations (e.g., scouting, 4-H, church youth groups) to allow
teens to have peer group ﬁshing experiences and outings. As another suggestion for
extending the Fishing in the Parks program, is that partners could sponsor an event at a
Becoming an Outdoors Woman Program. This program allows women to have a hands-
on experience with diﬁ‘erent outdoor recreational activities. Given the increasing number

of single-parent households headed by women and the evidence that they were not

56
reached by Fishing in the Parks, the Becoming an Outdoors Woman Program provides an

additional opportunity to reach women and potentially their children.

The Fishing in the Parks survey results indicate that the initial target offamilies
with young children was attracted to the program. However, to state that ethnic diversity
was greatly lacking in the Fishing in the Parks program is an understatement. All
indications are that during the next 25 to 30 years minority groups such as Aﬁican
Americans and Hispanics will continue to be the fastest growing segments in the US,
totaling over 30% of the US. population by 2025 (Waddington 1995). Ifﬁsheries
managers intend to target minorities in an effort to increase angler diversity, a needs
assessment should be completed to determine if ﬁshing outreach programs, like Fishing in
the Parks, would be desired by these underrepresented segments. The results from Fishing
in the Parks clearly indicate that this program does not attract these segments to the State
Parks. The needs assessment will allow ﬁsheries managers to determine if new programs
need to be developed or if new locations such as metro and urban parks would be
suﬁcient. Additionally, the assessment will help determine the appropriate target (e. g.,
families, youth groups, schools).

The urban ﬁshing programs need to have common goals, objectives, and target
audiences. These common features across the urban ﬁshing programs may help to
increase programming efﬁciency and make future evaluation eﬁ’orts comparable. One
suggestion to increase eﬁiciency could be to offer Fishing in the Parks instructor training
to urban parks staff. This combined training eﬁ'ort would provide common instruction
methods and lesson plans for all MDNR supported ﬁshing outreach initiatives.

Additionally, urban program research methods should be developed to evaluate these

57
programs. At a minimum, re-contact information should be collected at all programs for

the continued development of a clientele database and for ﬁrture research to assess
participants’ follow through on their stated future ﬁshing intentions.

In conclusion, the ﬁndings of this researchobased outreach program (Fishing in the
Parks) provide strong support for the recommendation that the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources and other agencies should utilize marketing approaches and incorporate
a strong research base to develop and execute new outreach programs in the ﬁrture.
Additionally, all programs should include an evaluation component that is capable of
adding information to the outreach program’s research base. At a minimum, re-contact
information should be collected and added to the clientele database. Future outreach
programs should continue to speciﬁcally target segments of society underrepresented in

ﬁsheries clientele groups in an eﬁ‘ort to increase angler diversity.

Acknowledgments

This publication is a result of work ﬁrnded by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Division, Dingell-Johnson Project #230658. The “Fishing in the
Parks” program partners included Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries
and Parks & Recreation Divisions, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan State
University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the American Sportﬁshing
Association.

Additionally, the Fishing in the Parks Steering Committee members are
acknowledged for their dedication and support: John Robertson and the MDNR Fisheries

Division Management Team; Ron Spitler, MDNR Fisheries Division; George Rob, MDNR

58
Parks and Recreation Division; Denise Mogos, MDNR Communications; Starre Jumey,

MDNR Fisheries Division; Todd Grischke, Michigan United Conservation Clubs; Dr.
Shari L. Darin, Jeﬁ‘ery Rupert, and Mary Jamieson, Michigan State University Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife; the ﬁve 1995 Fishing Instructors; the ten 1996 Adventure
Rangers; and the 13 Research Aides ﬁom Michigan State University Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife.

On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge the following for their
scholarship support: American Fisheries Society, Skinner Memorial Award Committee;
West Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Safari Club International, Michigan
Involvement Committee; and Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife. I would also like to recognize the faithful dedication of Heidi Prather and Kim

Harke, undergraduate research assistants.

Literature Cited

American Sportﬁshing Association. 1997. Marketing is not a four letter word. ASA
Bulletin No. 462. pp. 1-5. Alexandria, VA.

Barnhart, GA, R. Henshaw and l. Proud. 1993 Values, mission and vision: A recipe for
success in the twenty-ﬁrst century. Trans. North American Wildlife & Natural
Resources Conf. 58:241-247.

Beech, R.M., and AF. Drake. 1992. Designing and effective communication program: a
blueprint for success. US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago,
IL. 133 pp.

Bryan, H. 1979. Conﬂict in the great outdoors. University of Alabama, Bureau of Public
Administration, Sociological Studies 4, Tuscaloosa, AL. 28-47 pp.

Burroughs, T.M. and MJ. Reeff. 1996. Latino outreach: outreach and education
recommendations for state aquatic education programs. International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC.

59

Dann, S.L. 1993. Youth recruitment into ﬁshing: the inﬂuence of fanrilial, social and
environmental factors and implications for education intervention strategies to
develop aquatic stewardship. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI. 363 pp.

Ditton, RB., D.I(. Loomis, and S. Choi. 1992. Recreation specialization: re-
conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. Journal of Leisure Research.
24(1 )133-5 1.

Ditton, RB. 1995. Fisheries professionals: preparing for demographic change. Fisheries.
20(1):40 -

Duds, MD. 1990. Marketing in a ﬁsheries and wildlife agency. Proc. Organ. Wildl.
Planners Conf. 5 pp.

Dwyer, J.F. 1994. Customer Diversity and the ﬁrture demand for outdoor recreation.
General Technical Report RM-252. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 58 pp.

Federal Aid Outreach Team. 1996. Outreach Deﬁnition. National Federal Aid Outreach
Team, Outreach Subcommittee and the Rules and Regulations Subcommittee.
US. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

Fridgen, J.D., E. Mahoney, and CM. Nelson. 1986. Michigan State Park study. Parks
and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Gigliotti, L.M. 1992. No-kill ﬁshing regulations: an assessment of the social and
recreational characteristics and behaviors of Michigan stream trout anglers on
selected sections of the Au Sable river. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Karweit, N. and ED. Meyers. 1983. Computers in survey research. Pages 379-414 in
P.H. Rossi, I.D. Wright, and AB. Anderson, eds. Handbook of Survey Research.
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. 755 pp.

Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for nonproﬁt organizations 2nd ed. Prentice -Hall Inc,
Englewood Cliﬂ‘s, NJ. 528 pp.

Matthews, BE. 1996. Recruiting, training and retaining hunters and anglers: challenging
the natural resources education community. SAREP Resource Publication #96—1.
Cornell University, Ithica, NY. 16 pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division. 1994. Fisheries Division
strategic plan. MDNR, Lansing, MI. 137 pp.

60
Michigan State University Provost’s Committee on University Outreach. 1992.
University outreach at Michigan State University: Extending knowledge to serve
society. MSU, East Lansing, MI. 12 pp.

Microsoft Corporation. 1996. Microsoft Access rational database management system
for Windows 95: Version 7.0. Microsoft Corporation, printed in USA

Murdock, S.H., K. Backrnan, RB. Ditton, M.N. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1992.
Demographic change in the United States in the 19903 and the twenty-ﬁrst
century: Implications for ﬁsheries management. Fisheries. 17(2):6-13.

Thomas, P.W. and T.M. White. 1995. South region urban ﬁshery project annual progress
report: Wallop-Breaux project F-68-4. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Lakeland, Fl.

Schramm H.L., Jr. and GB. Edwards. 1994. The perspectives on urban ﬁsheries
management: results of a workshop. Fisheries. 19(10):9-1S.

Sport Fishing Institute. 1991. Sport ﬁshing license sales. SFI Bulletin No. 420, pp. 1-2.
Washington, DC.

SPSS, Inc. 1994. SPSS 6.1 for Windows Update. SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL.

Waddington, D.G. 1995. Participation and expenditure patterns of black, hispanic, and
women hunters and anglers. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 28

pp.

Wong-Leonard, CJ. 1992. Effects of wildlife cartoons on children’s perceptions of
wildlife and their use of conservation material. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

US. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical abstracts of the United States. US.
Government Printing Oﬁce, Washington, DC.

CHAPTER 4
MANAGING OUTREACH PROGRAM PARTICIPANT INFORMATION USING
COMPUTER LICENSING RETAIL SALES SYSTEMS

Background

As a method of collecting information about ﬁsheries populations, agency
managers allocate staﬂ; equipment and ﬁrnding to conscientiously collect and record data
about ﬁsh communities (Ney 1993). After analysis, this information is used to make
ﬁsheries management decisions. Today, resource management decisions require the
incorporation of social science methods to collect information about human populations
for whom resources are managed (Weithman 1993). Just as ﬁsh population data are
stored and managed for decision making, so too, should human dimensions information be
collected and managed.

Recently, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and several other
states began the process of automating the sale of ﬁshing and hunting licenses and permits.
Michigan DNR’s “Automated Retail Sales System” became operational in March of 1995.
The business and marketing literature refer to this type of system as a “marketing
information system.”

“A marketing information system is a continuing and interacting structure

of people, equipment, and procedures designed to gather, sort, analyze,

evaluate and distribute pertinent, timely, and accurate information for use

by decision makers to improve their marketing planning, execution, and
control (Kotler 1982: 151).”

61

62

Currently, the trend in marketing is to use these marketing information systems (i.e.
clientele databases) as strategic marketing tools to establish and nurture customer
relationships through niche marketing. In the past, marketers used more mass marketing
approaches with one-size-ﬁts-all type approaches. Niche marketing allows database
information to be used to focus resources on the customer as an individual (Jackson and
Wong 1994). For example, the ﬁsheries division could use retail sales system to segmart
its customers based on the frequency and types of ﬁshing licenses purchased (e.g., daily,
annual, with or without a trout stamp), agency staﬁ‘ could then tailor speciﬁc messages for
these segments to initiate ongoing communications with anglers.

While the technical jargon may seem discouraging at ﬁrst, most adults are to some
extent familiar with the ﬁrnctions of marketing information systems. For example, quick
changeoil servicesmakeuseofthesesystans.1heﬁrstﬁmeoneoftheseservicecarters
changes a customer’s oil, an attendant collects information about the type of vehicle, the
vehicle’s mileage, and the license plate number. While this information is important for
the attendant to install the correct type of ﬁlter, the most critical information collected for
the manager is the owner’s re-contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number).
Aﬁer compiling this information in a database, the manager can use the data to administer
questionnaires about the quality of their service, to send reminder notices, and to make
customers aware of special discounts or other oﬁ‘ers. Additionally, the system is used to
track the customer’s consistency of visits, so that coupons or other incentives can be
directlyoﬁ‘ered ifthecustomerhasnotretumedto haveanoil changewithinacertain

period of time.

63
A ﬁrll discussion about marketing information systems and automated retail sales

systems for ﬁshing and hunting licenses is well beyond the scope of this paper. The goal
ofthispaperistosharehowthesetypesofsystemscanbeusedinconjunctionwith
agency outreach programming efforts and to make recommendations as to the type of

information program staﬁ‘ should collect.

Methods

During the summer of 1995, a program called “Fishing in the Parks” was
implemented in Michigan to teach families with young children the basics of ﬁshing in
accessible locations which allow for repeat ﬁshing experiences. At the beginning of each
“Fishing in the Parks” program, every attending adult was asked to complete a registration
form in order to participate. The purpose of the registration forms was to collect
information to allow the tracking and re-contact of program participants in order to test
the effectiveness of this outreach program over a longer period of time. Additionally, the
re-contact data can be used to develop an ongoing two-way communication ﬂow between
ﬁsheries managers and their clientele, thus meeting needs and expectations while involving
more publics in longer-term, sound resource management.

Using the registration form, program staﬂ' collected the names, addresses, phone
numbers, and birth years of each individual attending. The adults registered the youth in
attendance with them, and adults provided the youth’s name, address if diﬂ‘erent, and birth
year. Additionally, adults signed a, statement that provided consent for the youth attending
the program to participate in the evaluative research conducted at the program’s

conclusion (see Chapter 3).

54
To compile and manage the information collected ﬁom the registration forms, a

participant database was developed using Microsoﬂ Access 7.0 (Microsoft, Corp. 1994).
This software package was selected because of its compatibility with Michigan’s Retail
Sales System.

Once the data were compiled, a query allowed us to compare the program
participant database to the retail sales system database to determine to what extent adults
who participated in Fishing in the Parks subsequently purchased or already had a ﬁshing
license (a query is a computer command that allows questions about data stored in a
database to be answered by the retrieval of the appropriate data [Microsoft Corp. 1996]).
Thisinitial query ontheFishingintheParksand licensedataserved as apilot test forthe

feasibility of using this customer database as part of a larger information system.

Results

During the ﬁrst comparison between the participant database and the retail sales
system, the system was queried for 850 adults names, birth years, and zip codes. Out of
the 850, a total of 248 participant names matched the retail sales system 1995 and 1996
ﬁshing license database. Although comparisons could be made by sorting by name,
address, and birth year, popular names in the Fishing in the Parks database (e.g., Floyd
Brown, John Finn, Mark Jones) often had more than one match with the Retail Sales
System (i.e. several Floyd Browns born in 1950 would be identiﬁed as a match between
the two databases). The initial query indicated 80 name and birth year matches. In these
instances the address had to be veriﬁed by the person conducting the query to conﬁrm

which one of the name matches actually attended the program. Before any conclusive

65
results are presented, more trial queries and data veriﬁcation processes are needed.

However, the preliminary results indicate that comparing information between multiple
databases is highly feasible, and will be very useﬁll in making management decisions about

future outreach programming.

Recommendations

While collecting outreach program participants’ names, addresses, phone numbers
and birth years may seem like enough information to be able to easily compare participants
to the licensing database, our results indicate the comparison would be easier ifdlivers’
license numbers or social security numbers were used. However, what is the feasibility of
collecting this type of information, especially ﬁ'om youth participants, at non-formal
outreach programs? Data collected at the Fishing in the Parks programs indicated that
youth participants (ages 5 to 18 years) had a mean age of 9.5 years and would be entering
the ﬁfth grade in the fall. At these ages, none of the youth would have a driver’s license,
and the majority are unlikely to know their social security number or have it in their
possession. Furthermore, adults are likely to be unable or even reluctant to release this
type of information about themselves or about the youth accompanying them to the
program. As an alternative, the complete month, day, and year of birth could be collected
in addition participants’ name, address, and phone number. Having the complete birth
date will allow for a greater probability of accurately matching individuals during queries.

In addition to using this information to track participants over time and checking
toseeiflicenseswerepurchasedbyparticipants,thedatabasecanbeusedasastrategic

marketing tool. As in the oil change service example, ﬁsheries managers may use this

66
information: for selecting random samples of participants for ﬁrture research projects, for

direct mailings about other new or existing programs, and to share names and addresses
with the agency’s other divisions for their outreach eﬁ‘orts. Additionally, program
participant databases may be a useful tool in recruiting volunteers to assist with ﬁlture
outreach programming efforts. For example, participants who attend one outreach
program several times or over a number of years, could be invited to serve as volunteer
instructors.

As additional states invest in and operationalize computerized license sales
systems, there is strong justiﬁcation for these same states to collect re-contact information
at their outreach programs. The additional cost of collecting this information and entering
it into a database may be minimal when compared to the beneﬁts of being able to track
outreach participants’ longer-term ﬁshing behaviors and license purchases. Furthermore,
these databases will allow ﬁsheries managers to take marketing approaches in ﬁrture
projects. For example, the Fishing in the Parks participant database has already been used
to target market Michigan’s new volunteer youth angler license. By using these databases
as information management systems, agencies will be able to use the latest technologies to

assist in the human dimensions of ﬁsheries management.

Acknowledgments

This publication is a result of work ﬁlnded by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Division, Dingell-Johnson Project #230658. The “Fishing in the
Par ” program partners included Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries

and Parks & Recreation Divisions, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan State

67
University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the American Sportﬁshing

Association.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Christine Larson and Douglas Jester of
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division for their assistance with
Retail Sales System. Christine was very helpﬁrl in running the queries comparing the
Fishing in the Parks participants database to the ﬁshing license database. Doug’s insights

were helpful in determining what information we needed to collect ﬁ'om participants.

Literature Cited

Jackson, R and P. Wong. 1994. Strategic database marketing. NTC Business Books,
Lincolnwood, IL. 262 pp.

Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for nonproﬁt organizations 2nd ed. Prentice -Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliﬂ's, NJ. 528 pp.

Microsoft Corporation. 1996. Microsoft Access rational database management system
for Windows 95: Version 7.0. Microsoft Corporation, printed in USA

Ney, J.J. 1993. Practical use of biological statistics. Pages 137-158 'm C.C. Kohler and
W.A Hubert, eds. Inland Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, MD. 594 pp.

Weithman, AS. 1993. Socioeconomic beneﬁts of ﬁsheries. Pages 159-177 i_n_ C.C.
Kohler and W.A Hubert, eds. Inland Fisheries Management. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, NH). 594 pp.

APPENDICES

 

museum
FAX 511/432-1111

lbuommSmUan
unshmmmuoneq
(Mow

lﬁvcmahNMhnvl
mmmeanmum

   
 
  

68
APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE

U is l \l E ii S l 1' Y

June 12, l995

J ffer Ru rt
TO: 4: Natzralpaeeourcee Bldg.

as: tans: 95-302

rrrtr: rtsaruc In rat PARKS: a Paororrre
assesses-Basso ouraaaca raocaax IN rrsaaatss AND
aquarrc acosrsraxs
asvrsron Requesrso: n a
caracoar: -c
arraovas oars: 06/12/95

The University Committee on Research involving Human Sub ecte'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv so that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are ap ropriatggt
herefore. the UCRIHS approved this projeCt and any rev eione l 0 ed
above.

I‘ﬂlﬂlbl ucaxus a roval is valid for one calendar ear, beginni with
the apprgsal date shown above. lnveetigatgrs planning 23

continue a project be nd one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original :sproval letter or when a
prolzﬁg is renewed) to seek u at certification. There is a
max of four such expedit renewals esible. Investigators
wishing to continue a roject beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete rev .

nzvxSIOISr UCRIHS must review any changes in ﬁ:oceduree involving human
subjects, rior to in tiation of t change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an ap roved protocol at an 0 her time during the year
send your wr tten request to the CRIBS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's the I and title. Include
in our request a descr ption of the change and any revised
ins ruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

2:2l0883/ Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work, investi ators must noti y UCRIHS romptly: 11) robleme
(unexpected e de effects comp aints, e c.) involv ng
subjects or 1:; changes in
information icating greater risk to the human sub ecte than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed a approved.

the research environment or new

n be of an future hel ' lease do not hesitate to contact us
i: igliisss-zrao o¥ rax (srvlrgi-Irrr. .

Sincerel

  
 

avid E. Wright. Ph.o.
CRIBS Chair

ozwtkaa/lcp
cc: Shari L. Dann

 

OWCEG‘
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

Innovate-mamas

517055-21”
FAX 5I77432-IIII

ﬂIHommSmMmmmv
nannmuuuaumw
fmﬂnankun

IGUumaummeamn
Imeenmmqnmuul

 

69
APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY
July 21. 1995

TO: Jeffe Ru rt
AR Ragzralpaesources Bldg.

RE: IRBI: 95-302
TITLE: FISHING IN IRE PARKS: A PROTOTYPE
RESEARCH-BASED OUTREACH PROGRAM IN PISHERIES AND
A UATIC ECOSYSTEHS
REVISION REQUESTED: O [IO/9S
CATEGORY' l-C

APPROVAL'oara: 06/12/95

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Sub ects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv se that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
.herefore. the UCRIHS approved this project and any rev sions liIted
above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planni to
continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original :gproval letter or when a
pro ect is renewed) to seek u at certification. There is a
max of four such expedit renewals ssible. Investigators
wishing to continue a roject beyond tha time need to submit it
again or complete rev ew.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the reen renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any 0 her time during the year
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB I and title. Include
in our request a description of the change and any revised
ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLENS

CIANOE83’ Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: ll) Rroblems
(unexpected side effects, comp aints, e c.) involv ng uman
subjects or {2) changes in the research environment or new
information ndicating greater risk to the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can
at (517)355-2180 or Fax (517)4

. \ér

d E. wright, Ph.D.
RIHS Chair

DEH:kaa/lcp

cc: Shari L. Dann

be of any.future helpé please do not hesitate to contact us

Sincere

  
 
  

 

OHIIOF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

lhhudhlbmmwmum

hmmsﬁenms
ﬂKmﬂBI

ItmmnSunUmevn
Inknmmmenamwn
huhmwwlwmgm
ASSN-I046

517/355-2lm
FAX 517162-11"

MWMM
Weasel-ovum
[Mum

KWstWunmnn
amammmenwum

70
APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

June 10, 1996

To: Jeffe R rt
4A RaEKrangesources Bldg.

RE: IRES: 95-302
TITLE: FISHING IN THE PARKS: A PROTOTYPE
RESEARCH-BASED OUTREACH PROGRAM IN FISHERIES AND
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
REVISION REQUESTED: 05/31/96
CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 06/07/96

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'IUCRIHSI
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
b:refore, the UCRIRS approved this project and any reVisions listed
a ve.

REREHRL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a
prOJect is renewed) to seek u te certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedite renewals ssible. Investigators
wishi to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it
again or complete reView.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects. rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any 0 her time during the year
send your written request to the CRIBS Chair. requesting revised
approval and referenCing the project's IRB I and title. Include
in r request a description of the change and any revised
ins ruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEIIS/

CRANGES: ShouldIeither of the followin arise during the course of the
work. investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (lI roblems
(unexpected side effects, comp aints. e c.) involving uman
subjects.or 52) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future hel , lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (51")4 2- 171.

.D'

id 8. wright. Ph.D.
U RIHS Chair

DEH:bed

  

' cerely.

 
 
 
 
 

cc: Shari L. Dann

71
APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WWONANIMALUSEANOCARE EASTLANSINGOMICHIGANOMK-IM!
C more 0 OJNICAL CENTER
WOW) ill-$064

MEMORANDUM

TO. Dr. Shari L. Dann
Jeffery D. Rupert
Fisheries and Wildlife

13 Natural Resources 36:;“25 '3‘,”—

FROM' Dr. Steven J. Bursian. Chairperson

All University Committee on Animal Use and Care
DATE: June 6. 1996
RE: ”Fishing in the Parks“

It is the opinion of the All University Committee on Animal Use and Care that an animal use form is not
required for this activity. Thank you for your inquiry.

SJB/cjf

MSU is en Affirmative Aaron/Equal ()pmlrusuy Immune»

72
APPENDIX B

TAKE A FRIEND FISHING PROGRAM
REGISTRATION FORM

Please complete the information below. By completing this form, you will be registered
for this free program, and we’ll know how to contact you to let you know about similar
ﬁshing and outdoor programs in the future.

 

 

 

 

ADULT REGISTRATION

Name: Year of Birth: 19—
Mailing Address:

City: State: __ Zip Code:
County of your residence: Home Phone: ( )

 

 

Is this the ﬁrst time you have attended a Take a Friend Fishing Program in 1995? YES NO

YOUTH REGISTRATION

If you are in attendance with any minors under 18 years of age (as a parent(s), legal
guardian, or adult accompanying a youth) please sign below indicating consent for these
minors’ participation.

The minors listed below are assenting to participate in the Take a Friend
Fishing program and its evaluation surveys, and I: am providing my
consent for them to participate.

 

Signature: Date:
Please complete the information below for anyone under age 18 attending this
program with you. If the youth’s address information is NOT different from yours, just
complete the name block and year of birth for each youth.

Name: Year of Birth: 19

Complete Address (if different):

 

Home Phone:( )
Name: Year of Birth: 19

Complete Address (if different):

 

Home Phone: ( ) (additional blocks on the back)

 

73
APPENDIX C

Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Youths Attending the Program

 

 

Instructions to parent, guardian, or adult accompanying youth to this program: At the
completion of the program, please take about 10 minutes to complete this survey. If the youth
accompanying you are between the ages of 12 - 17, you may allow them to complete this survey on
their own. If they are between the ages of 5 - ll, please help by reading this survey to them and
assisting them in answering the questions. When you are ﬁnished, hand this survey to a Fisheries
Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger.

 

The following questions are asked in a variety of ways. Some of the questions will rcqﬁlre you to
circle the most appropriate response, others will require checkrng' , and where appropriate you
should ﬁll in the blank.
1. I am attending a: DAILY or WEEKEND PROGRAM
2. Have you attended any other Take a Friend Fishing program in 1995? YES NO

2a. If yes, how many other clinics or workshops have you attended?
3. Have you ever attended any other ﬁshing clinics, derbies, or other events? YES NO

3a. If yes, were these activities held during Free Fishing Days (typically the second
weekend in June)? YES NO

 

The following questions ask about your involvement with ﬁshing. I

 

4. Have you ever ﬁshed before? YES (Please continue with the next question.)
NO (Skip to question 9 on page 2 '9 9.)

5. Please check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year during the
past 5 years:

0 YEARS l or 2 YEARS 3 or 4 YEARS 5 YEARS

Please continue on the back of this page.

 

74
APPENDIX C

6. Pleaseestimatethetotalnumberofdaysyouspentﬁshingduringtheperiodoftheﬁshing
seasonlistedbelow. (Anypartofa day countsasawhole day. Ifyou did not ﬁsh inthat
period, p1easewrite“0” intheblank forthatperiod.)

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST SUMMER 1994 (June 1,
1994 to August 31, 1994).

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST FALL 1994 (September I to
November 30, 1994).

I F [SI-{ED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST WINTER 1994-1995
(December I, 1994 to March 31, 1995).

I FISI-{ED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL THIS SPRING 1995 (April 1, 1995 to May
31,1995)

7. For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities you
pursue? (Please check only ONE answer.)

MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY
MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES
IMPORTANT, BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE
IMPORTANT

ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

 

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following sentences? (Please circle one number for each
statement listed below.)

 

 

 

 

 

i i i Not
SENTENCE Agree : Neutral : Disagree : important to
I I I me
-Lissallrivztsliﬂslnrsgiaumamu ___l__-.§.__.2.-_1_-_.3_-_,i_____4 .....
.L‘lﬂﬂgll‘ﬂ‘l‘3‘1_ﬁi°l‘és_a_b2‘it§§hills__ ___1___. --Z__,I_-_§__-+_--.4 .....
-Lfresgemgcad_apgu_t§auzs__-____._ ___I___:_-z__+_-z__+---.4 .....
I ask for or buy my own ﬁshing equipment I i 2 i 3 . 4

 

Please continue on the next page.

75
APPENDIX C

 

I Thequestionsbelowaskaboutwhatyouthinkaﬁerthisprogram. ]

9. Please rate this clinic or workshop and your instructors on the following seals: poor, fair,
good, very good, excellent). (Circle one number for instructors, and one number for the

 

 

 

 

program.)
Poor TFarr iGood iVery i Excellent
® i i :Good I ©
1151939512639:-__-_-________-___.l--i -2- i _-_- i ._4__3 --_5._-_..
Overalltheprogramwas I i— 2 T T 4 T 5

 

 

10. Did youexpccttoeatchﬁshduringtheprogram? YES NO
11. Didyouoranyoneyouwerewitheatchﬁshduringtheprogram?YES NO
12. Didyouoranyoneyouwerewithkeeptheﬁshyoucaught? YES NO

13. Towhatexteruwereyousatisﬁedthatthisprogramhelpedyouineachofthe following
areas? (Please circle one number for each area.)

 

 

———ro WHAT EX'I'ENTAREYOU Not important : Satisﬁed : Neutral : Dissatisﬁed
SATISFIED THAT THIS tome ; g :
WORKSHOP HELPED YOU ...... t O . ® . ®
Ilamnﬂeﬁhirs _________ p-431--- i “1--.? “2.--? _--§____
.IQMQMEEIIS.-------__.._-l‘IL--I--l--_;-_2___:-_-2---_
.Iaaain_02ifid9;csi_n_ﬁsliies.-_-__--_.l"l-__+--1_-_,_-.2___+__-_2-_-_
-Iamesgtfisli___--i___,“"141---+--l--_;__.2.-.;+.---§___-
Iahpseﬁsiﬁaaﬂlisnuu "-211--- --l _____ 2.-- “-2---
L -- + l— 4- -
To be better able to use my NI 1 l l 2 t 3
games _______________ .. ........ ' _____ ' _____ ' _______ _
Immense; __________ t---yi_-_T__1_-ZF__2.-_T.'_-2---
-Iaacxitbﬂimés ........... aura“;_-_1___;_-2___:__-2_-_1
.Iamacmcrmlcuuuuu_____Ni-_-+__.l_-_._--.2_-_4.---2---_
-I‘lm_i‘it§ﬂ°§in.§3§£&-__----l"l-_-+_-1--.+-_2.__I._--§--_e
To enjoy time outdoors NI . I 1 2 l 3

 

 

 

 

Please continue on the back of this page.

76

 

APPENDIX C
14. After this program, will you
Go ﬁshing again? Buy your own ﬁshing equipment?
YES, DEFINITELY YES, DEFINITELY
PROBABLY PROBABLY
MAYBE MAYBE
NO NO
UNDECIDED UNDECIDED

Go to another clinic or workshop?
YES, DEFINITELY
PROBABLY

MAYBE

NO

UNDECIDED

 

 

I The following general information is being asked for evaluation purposes only.

 

For the questions below, check or ﬁll in the appropriate blank.

15. Are you: FEMALE MALE

16. Are you: WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER

 

17. In what year were you born? 19

18. In what type of an area do you currently reside? (Please check only one.)
RURAL - FARM .
RURAL - NONFARM - AREA OF LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE
SMALL TOWN - AREA OF 2,500 TO 50,000 PEOPLE
URBANIZED AREA (CITY OR SUBURBAN AREA OF GREATER THAN
50,000 PEOPLE

19. In what MICHIGAN county do you currently reside?

 

19a. If you are not a resident of Michigan, in what state do you currently reside?

20. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade level you have completed.
Elementary High School
12345678 9101112

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. We appreciate your
willingness to provide this information. Results of this survey will be provided to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division to assist in improving this program.

77
APPENDIX C

 

A SURVEY BY:
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
EAST LAN SING, MICHIGAN

 

78
APPENDIX C

Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Adults Attending the Program

At the completion ofthe program, please take about 10 minutes to complete this survey and hand it
to a Fisheries Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger.

The following questions are asked in a variety of ways. Some of the questions will require you to
circle the most appropriate response, others will require checking, and where appropriate you
should ﬁll in the blank.
1. I am attending a: DAILY or WEEKEND PROGRAM
2. Have you attended any other Take a Friend Fishing program in 1995? YES NO

2a. If yes, how many other clinics or workshops have you attended?
3. Have you ever attended any other ﬁshing clinics, derbies, or other events? YES NO

3a. If yes, were these activities held during Free Fishing Days (typically the second
weekend in June)? YES NO

 

The following questions ask about your involvement with ﬁshing.

4. Do you belong to any ﬁshing organizations? YES NO
4a. If yes, please list:

 

5. Have you ever ﬁshed before? YES (Please continue with the next question.)
NO (Skip to question 10 on page 3 4 W.)

6. The following questions ask how often you purchase a Michigan Resident Annual Fishing
License or any one of the following Michigan Licenses: Sportsperson’s License, Daily
Fishing License, or Senior Resident Annual Fishing License.
6a. Do you currently have any of the ﬁshing licenses listed above? YES NO

6b. Please check the number of years that you have purchased any of the above ﬁshing
licenses during the last 5 year period:

OYEARS lorZYEARS 3or4YEARS SYEARS

6c. Please check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year
during the past 5 years:

0 YEARS l or 2 YEARS 3 or 4 YEARS 5 YEARS

Please continue on the back of this page.

79
APPENDIX C

Pleaseestimatedietotalnumberofdaysyouspentﬁshingduringeachofthe periodofthe
ﬁshing season listed below. (Any part of a day counts as a whole day. If you did not ﬁsh
in that period, please write “0” in the blank for that period.)

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST SUMMER 1994 (June 1,
1994 to August 31, 1994).

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST FALL 1994 (September I to
November 30, 1994).

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST WINTER 1994-1995
(December 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995).

I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL THIS SPRING 1995 (April 1, 1995 to May
31, 1995).

For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities you
pursue? (Please check only one answer.)

Immrtance of ﬁsm g mpared with m amen

__ MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY

_ MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES

_ IMPORTANT, BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT

_ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE
IMPORTANT

_ ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME

_ IT Is NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

Please continue on the next page.

80

APPENDIX C
9. Towhatextentdoyouagreeordisagreethatthe following statements describe your
involvement in ﬁshing? (Please circle one number for each statement listed below.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly i i i I 3'10“le
STATEMENT agree 1 Agree 1 Neutral 1 Disagree } Disagree
I frequently watch ﬁshing or outdoor l i 2 i 3 i 4 i 5
shows on television ' ' ' '
“reaaaa;;t;r§oigio‘naatt “““ “T“T'T‘T"3“T‘“2“T“3“‘
Lemmas Lehtghmwtsestieésmn ..... l. _____ l. _____ .L _____ .i. ......
-Lﬁmalﬂwedskeeﬁahies _______ J---L__,I---2_--,I-__2_-.I__-ﬂ___:__-§._-n
.Eishirleseysslqéhostyxfsly ______ ___1_-_' "2..-! "2-- . --5.-- . “2---
-Lsﬁssgassemxmassgossésm__-___I_--T__z.-_T__2__T__1-_T__2-_-
.ngsstcstdﬁsimnﬂanjém-.L_-l__-T___2___T__§.__T-_1__T..-§_--
I ﬁnd that a lot of my life is organized I T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5
-ygwéﬁhins _________________ .. _____ ' _____ ' _____ ' _____ ' ......
My enjoyment of ﬁshing has inﬂuenced 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5
LEXE°1°£E°B£§YE°£°JJLVE _______________ 4'- _____ 4'. _____ J. _____ .L ..... .
I maintain a membership in an I l l 1
organization directly related to ﬁsheries I : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
or ﬁsheries management (E.G., MUCC, : : : :
.Ieatllnlirylcsisﬁasa EIQ-L _______ . ______ ,'_ _____ 'T _____ .,'_ ..... 4. ......
My enjoyment of ﬁshing has influenced 1 . 2 i 3 . 4 . 5
.91 2'99: EivgeatienAestEEthga... __________ 4'. ..... ,L ..... .i. _____ .l. ______
I own a recreational property pnmanly so I 1 2 I 3 l 4 I 5
thatlcanbeclosetoﬁshing : i i l
I The followmg questions ask about those with whom you are attending tins program

 

l l. I am attending this program: (check all that apply)
alone -
with my spouse

with my own child

with my grandchild

with other children

with a teenage friend

with another adult

 

12. Please check the ONE phrase that best describes your household composition.
1 adult, no children

1 adult, with child/children How many? What agc(s)?

2 adults, no children

2 adults, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

3 adults or more, no children

3 adults or more, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

Please continue on the back of this page.

8 1
APPENDIX C

 

I3.

14.
15.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

The followinggestions ask about your use of the MicEgan State Parks. ]

Did you visit this State Park speciﬁeally to attend the Take a Friend Fishing Clinic or
Workshop? YES NO

Is this your ﬁrst visit to THIS Michigan State Park? YES NO
Have you visited ANY other Michigan State Parks before?

YES (Please go on to the next question.)

NO (Please skip to question 19.)

16. How many years have you been visiting Michigan State Parks? YEARS

17. Approximately how many days did you visit Michigan State Parks in 1994?
DAYS

18. If you did not visit Michigan State Parks in 1994, when was the last year you did
visit? 19 .

Did you purchase a DAILY State Park permit? YES NO

DISCOVERED THE PROGRAM AT THE PARK (FLYER OR POSTER)
INFORMED BY PARK STAFF

RECOMMENDATION OF A FRIEND

RECOMMENDATION OF AN ADULT FAMILY MEMBER
RECOMMENDATION OF A YOUNG PERSON

LOCAL SOURCES (e.g. gas stations or tackle shop)

FROM A PROMOTIONAL FLYER .

FROM THE 1995 MICHIGAN STATE PARKS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
THROUGH RADIO

THROUGH TELEVISION

THROUGH NEWSPAPER

THROUGH A MAGAZINE

THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION (MUCC, 4-1-1, SCOUTS)
THROUGH A SCHOOL

OTHER

 

Did you hear about this program in any other ways? YES NO
If yes, please write in any additional ways you heard about the program:

 

 

Please continue on the next page.

82

 

 

 

 

APPENDIXC
L The questions below ask about your reactions to the program you just attended. I
24. Please rateeachaspectof this clinic or workshOp onthe following scale: poor, fair, good,
verygoodmxcellent).
ASPECT OF'THEPROGRAM Poor :Pair IGood IVery iExcellent
I: i 460w !

Programcontentasdescribedinthematerials I I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5
.mgmrioxto-agsnsﬁ-ns __________________ L---.L----.1_---_I'- _______
Coverageofthe subjegt matter _ _ I__ I _2__ I __3__ I ____I 5
rPaeeof‘the TTTaTn ----- —- ~-—---_--1 "r 2 T 3 T T-—-5--—-
_-______.P-98 ........................ I“--+-_-- ' ___-+ _______
-éEIt-ugas-OEIIIEIr-ustsr-s ______________ _._--|--I _.2.- I --3-- . ----I ---5---.
-Qeality_°_fEI§I5I-ct-°Ls_--_---------------l-i-Z-:-_3_-I--4--:---5----
-9‘iall9’_°flE‘§‘£“£‘-i99________-.--._..__---_‘__' -2- I --3-- I ----I --._5___-
Qwity-o-fewﬁrziﬁ-----_--------_--1--;-Z-T--3---TI_--_-:---5----
Overall quality of the program 1 I 2 I 3 I I 5

 

 

 

 

25. Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO

26. Did you or anyone in your party catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO

27. Did you or anyone in your party keep the ﬁsh you caught? YES NO

28. To what extent were you satisﬁed that this program helped you in each of the following
areas? (Please circle one number for each area.)

 

 

 

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE Not an : Very I Dissatisﬁed T Neutral : Satisﬁed ‘. Very
YOU SATISFIED THAT Important I Dissatisﬁed I I I I Satisﬁed
THIS WORKSHOP reason for I I I I I
HELPED You ...... attending : 1 1 : 1
lac-mensesﬁsh-iIIs__--_---.I‘L|-- ' ---l--_' --_.2.--- ' --3---' --£-- ' --§---
lame-hmskies---_____II.I__I___I__-“'IZ___;_-_i__3_-_I_-:I_-I*I.-_.5._-.
To gain conﬁdence in NI I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5
-ﬁsyna ------------------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ----- ' ----- ' -_-_-
lasagna-ﬁsh--____-__.N.I_-I---I___I___;___I-_3__.-_£__;I__I_-2-_1
.IILILIIPLOXEQSIIIIIaak-i|I§--_._-_l"-|---I ---I--- I ---Z--- I --3-__I_--£-- I --2--_
To be better able to use my N1 T I T 2 T 3 I 4 T 5
-wimsns ---------- . ------ ' ------- ' ------- ' ----- ' ----- ' ------
-1299;thth ______ .__.l~I.I__IE___I-__I_--z_-_I__3.__E__;I__I--.5._--
..IQJD-C-“LIIIIIQCBQS ------- L_-l“.'-_-I._--l---I----.2.----I---3--_I_--£-....I_--§---
-IILILIEeI-IICI-IIPEOPlc---_-Jt--l“-l--_I_-__l---I_---Z---+--?I.-_I.--.€--_I_--.§--_
To become Interested In N1 I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5
fisluﬂg. - _--l ------- I _______ l _____ I _____ 1 ______
To enjoy time outdoors NI {- l T- 2 T 3 I. 4 T 5

 

 

 

Please continue on the back of this page.

83
APPENDIX C

The following questions ask about your intentions after this program

 

29. In the license year 1995 through 1996 (from April 1995 through March 1996) do you

 

intend to:

Purchase a ﬁshing license? Go ﬁshing again?
YES, DEFINITELY YES, DEFINITELY
PROBABLY PROBABLY
MAYBE MAYBE
NO NO
UNDECIDED UNDECIDED
ALREADY HAVE A LICENSE

Attend another clinic or workshop? Purchase ﬁshing equipment?
YES, DEFINITELY YES, DEFINITELY
PROBABLY PROBABLY
MAYBE MAYBE
NO NO
UNDECIDED UNDECIDED

 

The following general information is being asked for statistical purposes only.

For the questions below, check or ﬁll in the appropriate blank.

30. Are you: FEMALE MALE
31. Are you: SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED/WIDOWED
32. Are you: WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER

 

33. Inwhatyearwere you born? 19

34. In what type of an area do you currently reside? (Please check only one.)
RURAL - FARM '
RURAL - NONFARM - AREA OF LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE
SMALL TOWN - AREA OF 2,500 TO 50,000 PEOPLE
URBANIZED AREA (CITY OR SUBURBAN AREA OF GREATER THAN
50,000 PEOPLE

35. In what MICHIGAN county do you currently reside?

 

35a. If you are not a resident of Michigan, in what state do you currently reside?

36. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade level you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Level
12345678 9101112 13141516 171819202122

Please continue on the next page.

84
APPENDIX C

37. In 1994, what was your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (before taxes) from

employment and all other sources?

_ Less than $10,000
$10,000 - $19,999 $40,000 - $49,999
$20,000 - $29,999 $50,000 - $59,999
$30,000 - $39,999 $60,000 and above

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be added to this
program:

 

 

 

 

 

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be deleted from
this program:

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. We appreciate your
willingness to provide this information. Results of this survey will be provided to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division to assist in improving this program.

85
APPENDIX D

Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Youths Attending the Program

 

 

Instructions to parent, guardian, or adult accompanying youth to this program: At the completion of
the program. please take about 10 minutes to complete this survey. It the youth with you are between the
ages of 12 - 17, you may allow them to complete this survey on their own. If they are between the ages of
5 - 11, please help by reading this survey to them and assisting them in answering the questions. When

you are ﬁnished, hand this survey to 3 Fisheries Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger.

 

Please circle, check, or fill in the blanks.
1. Is this your FIRST Take a Friend Fishing program in 1995? YES NO

III
2. How many others have you been to?

3. Have you ever attended ﬁshing derbies. or other ﬁshing events? YES NO
III
Were these events during Free Fishing

Days (thesecondweekend in June)? YES NO Don't Know

4. Have you ever ﬁshed before? YES (Please go to the next question)
NO (Skip to question 7 on the back at this page)

5. Check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year in the past 5 years:
_ 0 YEARS _ 1 or 2 YEARS _' 3 or 4 YEARS _ 5 YEARS
6. How many days did you go ﬁshing last year? Please write in the total number of days you went

ﬁshing during each time listed below. Count any part of a day as a whole day. If you did not ﬁsh,
please write a “0" in the blank for that time.

I F ISHED ABOUT __ DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST SUMMER 1994 (June 1, 1994 to August 31. 1994).

I F ISHED ABOUT _ DAYS TOIAL DURING LAST FALL 1994 (September 1 to November 30. 1994).

I F ISHED ABOUT _ DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST WINTER 1994-95 (December I, 1994 to March 31. 1995).
I F ISHED ABOUT _______ DAYS TOTAL DURING THIS SPRING 1995 (April 1, 1995 to May 31. 1995).

Please go to the back of this page.

 

86
APPENDIX D

For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities? Examples of
other recreational activities are sports like baseball. or other things you do on your lree~time.
(Check only ONE answer.)

FISHING IS...

_ MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY

__ MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES
_ IMPORTANT. BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
_ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
__ ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME
_ IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME
For each sentence. decide it you think that sentence describes you.
(Circle one number for each sentence)

 

 

 

 

YES T MAYBE I No
SENTENCE this sentence I this sentence I thissentence
dosaibesme : describesme : doesnot
I I describeme
_'y§ueb_wat_ctlﬂshic1°1evideerébc’ﬁ_._-.__1_--i __.2___ i___3__-_
_'_°ﬂe_n_ta.|_k_w_i"1omengaabeu ﬂsbi21_._--.1__-T__.2_-_T___3_-_-
-Uwed'wadeeeumshim.--_---._.._.1___T-_.2_--T__.3._-_
I ask for or buy my own ﬁshing equipment 1 T 2 T 3

 

 

What do you think about this program and your instructors?

 

 

 

 

Poor i Good 1 Excellent
The instructors were... (9 1 ® I ©
_ - '- ----------------------- L — - - T — — - — r ------
This program was... 69 I (9 I ©

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO
Did you or anyone you were with catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO
Did you or anyone you were with keep the ﬁsh you caught? YES NO

Please circle one number for each line.

 

 

 

DID THIS PROGRAM HELP YOU ...... Not important I YES I SORT-OF I NO

___--___________---_____.I°_rne_- ' "<9“: --9.--‘ "9;- _
-LoleemjswhinlshiﬂsL__-____ ___.U.L___+-_.1_-_'.:__3___:___3__:..
-T.°.ﬁ§h_wassﬂ ____________ C___.N.'.-_..+__1__+___2___4____3__-_
_T_°_|eer_neéo_ut_feb_--____________._NL-_-+__1-__,_--2_-_+____3_--_
-Losst_b2tt_er_a_tmxﬂsbinwiﬂzuu ___.NI_-__+__.1__+___2___+____3___-
_T_°_b§.9939992Qﬂiimheﬂlﬂilmfﬂtn-__N'.__._+_-l___|_-__2___I.--_3._..s
-T.o_m_99t_nsv.eegde--__--_______-_N'_-_-+__1___,_.___2___+_..__3_---
19322092992meeatedjmﬁéhiagunuﬂ-__+-_1__+_-_2___L___3_-_.
To enjoy time outdoors NI 1 I l 2 l 3

 

 

87

APPENDIX D

14. After this program. will you
Go ﬁshing again? Buy your own ﬁshing rod or tackle? Go to another ﬁshing program?
_ YES _ YES _ YES

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE
_ NO _ NO __ NO
15. Are you: FEMALE MALE
16. Are you: WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER

 

17. How old are you? years old

18. DO you live in MICHIGAN? YES NO

 

it
19. I DON'T live in Michigan. I live in
20. What grade will you be going into starting this fall? grade

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THIS SURVEY.

88
APPENDIX D

 

 

A SURVEY BY:
MICHIGAN STATE UNNERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND VVlLDLIFE
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

89
APPENDIX D

Dear Participant in the 1995 Take a Friend Fishing program:

Thank you for participating in the Take a Friend Fishing daily clinic or weekend
workshop. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Fisheries Division and Parks
and Recreation Division) and Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and
“ﬁldlife are collecting information about this new program. This survey will allow you to
give us important feedback. The results will allow us to improve this program and
increase your enjoyment of ﬁsh and ﬁshing in Michigan.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all
or discontinue your participation at anytime. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Your name and address will be
kept strictly conﬁdential and will not appear in the report of survey results or be
associated in any way with your responses. Program registration records will be
maintained by the MDNR Fisheries Division, whereas survey results will be compiled at
Michigan State University.

This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete and should be turned in to a Fisheries
Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger. If you forget to turn the survey in, please mail it
to us at the address below. Your participation is greatly appreciated! If you have any
further questions or concerns about this study please contact either one of us.

Sincerely,

/ W 40
Jeffery Rupert Dr. Shari L. Dann
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University Michigan State University
13 Natural Resources Bldg. 13 Natural Resources Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 353-0308 (517) 353-0675

90
APPENDIX D
Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Adults Attending the Program

At the completion of the program, please take about l0 minutes to complete this survey and hand
it to a Fisheries Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger.

The following questions are asked in a variety of ways. Some of the questions will require you
to circle the most appropriate response, others will require checking, and where appropriate you
should ﬁll in the blank.

 

 

 

I. I am attending a: DAILY or WEEKEND PROGRAM
2. Is this your FIRST Take a Friend Fishing program in 1995? YES NO
2a. If no, how many other clinics or workshops have you attended? :_
3. Have you ever attended any other ﬁshing clinics, derbies, or other events? YES NO
3a. If yes, were these activities held during Free Fishing Days (typically tte second
weekend in June)? YES NO
The following questions ask about your involvement with ﬁshing.
4. Do you belong to any ﬁshing organizations? __ YES _ NO
4a. If yes, please list:
5. Have you ever ﬁshed before? _ YES (Please continue with the next question.)

NO (Skip to question 8 on the back of this page-9)
6. The following questions ask how often you purchase a Michigan Resident Annual
Fishing License or any one of the following Michigan Licenses: Sportsperson‘s License,
Daily Fishing License, or Senior Resident AnnualFishing License.

6a. Do you currently have any of the ﬁshing licenses listed above? YES NO

6b. Please check the number of years that you have purchased any of the above
ﬁshing licenses during the last 5 year period:

0 YEARS I or 2 YEARS 3 or 4 YEARS 5 YEARS

be. Please check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year
during the past 5 years:

0 YEARS l or 2 YEARS 3 or 4 YEARS 5 YEARS

Please continue on the back of this page.

91

 

 

APPENDIX D
7. Please estimate the total number of days you spent ﬁshing during each of the period of
the ﬁshing season listed below. (Any part of a day counts as a whole day. If you did not
ﬁsh in that period, please write “0” in the blank for that period.)
I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST SUMMER 1994 (June 1, 1994 to August 31, 1994).
I FISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST FALL 1994 (September 1 to November 30. 1994).
I F ISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST WINTER 1994-95 (December I, 1994 to March 31, 1995).
I F ISHED ABOUT DAYS TOTAL DURING THIS SPRING 1995 (April 1. 1995 to May 31, 1995).
8. For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities you
pursue? (Please check only one answer.)
I [E l . l . | | .
MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY
MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES
IMPORTANT, BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT. BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME
IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME
9. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements describe your
involvement in ﬁshing? (Please circle one number for each statement listed below.)
Strongly r F I I Strongly
STATEMENT agree : Agree : Neutral : Disagree : Disagree
I frequently watch ﬁshing or outdoor I I 2 I 3 T 4 I 5
shows on television ' ' ' '

*rrTeaaemy‘Rzirstarzs‘taTESTS;m ”'T"T""T"?"T"Z"T""§"‘
equipment related to my interest in : : . : :

-ESL‘EPE ___________________________ ' ____ ' _____ ' _____ ' ______

LLfsesaerﬂxeadabelﬂslﬂas.______. __L__T-_2__T__2__T__i_-T..-_5_--q

_':i§_h_in_s.say_53_'<1t2*1°3t_‘z*1°_'3m _____ Yul.--T__2._T--2__T-_i_-T-_§_-

Laramie.azaleas-«>329:ﬁshie.-.--_l_-_T__2__T_-2--T-_1__1__2-_i

-Lsﬁ"93.§£°£LdE‘JBLTS".°ZBE98'1"}.._-_L__T_.2__T_-2--T--1"I "2---
I ﬁnd that a lot of my life is organized I T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5
around ﬁshing ' ' ' '

"n“; Easy'm'earotazh‘arg‘h‘amRum-ed' ’ "T"T' 2 T 3 T 4 T s
az$1=2§@_01_whe_rel_'ivs ______________ ' _-__ ' _____ ' _____ ' _____
I maintain a membership in an I— T I I 7
organization directly related to ﬁsheries l : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
or ﬁsheries management (E.G., MUCC, i : : i

.I'B‘E_UBIITESd;§ESi§IC.-l _____________ . -___ . _____ . _____ . ______
My enjoyment of ﬁshing has inﬂuenced I T T 3 T 4 T S
axshsicseiesaﬂeaiesti'eﬁans .......... ' __._- ' _____ ' _____ ' ......
I own a recreational property primarily l I- -I- 3 I 4 I 5
so that I can be close to ﬁshing 1 9' j :

 

 

 

 

92
APPENDIX D

 

The following questions ask about those with whom you are attending this program.

 

I0. Are you attending this program with someone who has never ﬁshed before? YES NO

I I. I am attending this program: (check all that apply)
alone

with my spouse

with my own child

with my grandchild

with other children

with a teenage friend

with another adult

other:

 

l2. Please check the ONE phrase that best describes your household composition.
1 adult, no children

I adult, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

2 adults, no children

2 adults, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

3 adults or more, no children

3 adults or more, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

 

The following questions ask about your use of the Michigan State Parks.

 

I3. Did you visit this State Park speciﬁcally to attend the Take a Friend Fishing Clinic or
Workshop? YES NO

l4. Is this your ﬁrst visit to THIS Michigan State Park? YES NO
IS. Have you visited ANY other Michigan State Parks before?

YES (Please go on to the next question.)
NO (Please skip to question l9.)

l6. How many years have you been visiting Michigan State Parks? YEARS
l7. Approximately how many days did you visit Michigan State Parks in I994?
DAYS
l8. If you did not visit Michigan State Parks in I994, when was the last year you did
visit? l9 .

l9. Did you purchase a DAILY State Park permit? YES NO
20. Did you purchase an ANNUAL State Park permit? YES NO

2 I. Are you Camping in this State Park during this visit? YES NO
Please continue on the back of this page.

93
APPENDIX D

22. How did you FIRST hear of this Take a Friend Fishing clinic or workshop?
(Please check only ONE response.)

DISCOVERED THE PROGRAM AT THE PARK (FLYER OR POSTER)
INFORMED BY PARK STAFF

RECOMMENDATION OF A FRIEND

RECOMMENDATION OF AN ADULT FAMILY MEMBER
RECOMMENDATION OF A YOUNG PERSON

LOCAL SOURCES (e.g. gas stations or tackle shop)

FROM A PROMOTIONAL FLYER

FROM THE I995 MICHIGAN STATE PARKS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
THROUGH RADIO

THROUGH TELEVISION

THROUGH NEWSPAPER

THROUGH A MAGAZINE

THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION (MUCC, 4-H, SCOUTS)
THROUGH A SCHOOL

OTHER

 

to
b)

Did you hear about this program in any other ways? YES NO
If yes, please write in any additional ways you heard about the program:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I The questions below ask about your reactions to the program you just attended.
24. Please rate each aspect of this clinic or workshop on the following scale: poor, fair,
good, very good, excellent).
ASPECT OF THE PROGRAM Poor IFair I Good I Very I Excellent
I I l Good I
Program content as described in the materials I I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5
LLOBEEEETLOL 10.893093 __________________ ' _--' __-.. ' -_--' ______
92V39§¢.°I1h53‘ibl€°921“f£_________ __'__I_Z_I_~_3__I-1-11-1“-
Eassafﬂeyxagzam.--"_-__-__-_-- --J-_T_Z-T____T-5_-T-_.5__-_
demise!Hiatusmanuuu---“ ___'__7-Z-T-.3__T__4_-T___5____
QEaBLLOIijzausezsnu-____-___-___-_'__T___T__3__T___-T_-_5___.
32859.01’1'1593‘12".--___--..___-_- ___'-_T-__T__3.-7-5.31-3.--
.9‘Lali‘_>’_°f.2“_"i'ﬁ'ii£€5 _____________ .___'__I'-Z-T-_3__T-__-T-__5_-_I
Overall quality ofthe program I I- 2 T 3 T 4 I. 5 I

 

 

 

 

25. Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO
26. Did you or anyone in your party catch ﬁsh during the program? YES NO

27. Did you or anyone in your party keep the ﬁsh you caught? YES NO
Please continue on the next page.

94

APPENDIX D

28. To what extent were you satisﬁed that this program helped you in each of the following
areas? (Please circle one number for each area.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To WHAT EXTENT ARE Not an : Very : Dissatisﬁed : Neutraﬁ Satisﬁed I Very
YOU SATISFIED THAT important I Dissatisﬁed I I I I Satisﬁed
THIS PROGRAM reason for I : : : :

HELPED YOU ...... attendin '
Itodsastaevnsbasskias;Z-..ISLiii;i--_I-..-2---I-.3._-£--2__I--.5_--
.[OflshPXEX¥§_-__-_.___§1__+-_-L___I__-_Z---+-.3_--I.--ﬂ_-+-_.5-_-

[almebeatflébnuﬂ--JJL-+--_L-__I__-_Z.__-+s_.3_-_I.-_1__+__.5-__

To get better at my ﬁshing NI I I . 2 I 3 . 4 . 5
..SJEHE _____________ d _______ I _______ I _______ I _____ l _____ l ______

To be better able to use my NI T I T 2 T 3 I" 4 T 5
3392991.! .................. ' ....... ' _______ ' _____ ' _____ ' ______
_T_°.b£_w_itll_faeib'_-----__-_h'l__I---L_--I:__-Z--_1-}.--;-_ﬁ--:--.5_--
LT_°_b_'~'_W.itlLfLi¢_nés 3:11-- .._I F 2 +-.2.-_(__-2__+___5._--

T_°_m°_°t_'l¢lV.P£2P_l9. ..... ”-141“ --J. ...... Z ..... 3.4. -- --5.-- _-.5-__

To become more interested NI I l I. 2 I 3 I— 4 I S

iLIIEILiaIL __________ ,L ______ ' ....... ' ....... ' _____ ' _____ ' ______
i—To enjoy time outdoors NI T I T 2 T 3 I‘ 4 T 5

r The following questions ask about your intentions aﬁer this program. I

 

29. In the license year 1995 through I996 (ﬁ'om April I995 through March 1996) do you

intend to:

Purchase a ﬁshing license?
YES, DEFINITELY

 

Go ﬁshing again?

 

YES, DEFINITELY

PROBABLY PROBABLY
MAYBE MAYBE
NO NO
UNDECIDED UNDECIDED
ALREADY HAVE A LICENSE

Attend another clinic or workshop? Purchase ﬁshing equipment?

 

YES, DEFINITELY

YES, DEFINITELY

 

PROBABLY PROBABLY
MAYBE MAYBE
NO NO
UNDECIDED UNDECIDED
I The following general information is being asked for statistical purposes only. 7

 

For the questions below, check or ﬁll in the appropriate blank.

30.

3I.

32.

Are you: FEMALE MALE

Are you: SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED/WIDOWED

Are you: WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER

 

Please continue on the back of this page.

 

95

APPENDIX D
33. In what year were you born? I9
34. In what type of an area do you currently reside? (Please check only one.)

RURAL - FARM

RURAL - NONFARM - AREA OF LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE

SMALL TOWN - AREA OF 2.500 TO 50,000 PEOPLE

URBANIZED AREA (CITY OR SUBURBAN AREA OF GREATER THAN
50,000 PEOPLE)

 

35. In what MICHIGAN county do you currently reside?

 

353. If you are not a resident of Michigan, in what state do you currently reside?

36. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade level you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Level
I2345678 9IOIII2 I3I4I5I6 I7I8I9202I‘22

37. In I994, what was your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (before taxes) from
employment and all other sources? ‘

Less than $l0,000 $40,000 - $49,999 $80,000 - $89,999
$I0,000 - S I 9,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $90,000 - $99,999
$20,000 - $29,999 $60,000 - $69,999 S I 00,000 and above
$30,000 - $39,999 $70,000 - $79,999

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be added to this
program:

 

 

 

 

 

We. would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be deleted from
this program:

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. We appreciate your
willingness to provide this information. Results of this survey will be provided to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division to assist in improving this program.

96
APPENDIX E

Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Youths Attending the Program
FINAL RESULTS FOR SUMMER 1995 348 CASES

 

 

kuhucﬁonstopauntguardlanmraduhaecompanyingyouthtotﬂsprogram:Atmeoorroletionoi
meptowatnpieasetdreabouHOninutestooorwletethismvey. litheyouthwithyouarebetweenthe
agesot12-17,youmayalowtherntocormletethissurveyontheirown. limeyaebetweentheagesoi
5-11.pleasehelpbyreadingthissurveytothemmdassistingtherninansweringtl'tequestions. Whenyou
salinishedmandthis surveytanisheries Division lnstructororAdventure Ranger.

 

Please circle, check, or fill in the blanks.
1. Is this your FIRST Take a Friend Fishing progran in 1995? YES 92% so 8%

2. Howmmyothershaveyoubeento? _1_

3. Have you ever attended ﬁshing derbies, or other ﬁshing events? YES 18% NO 82%

Were these events during Free Fishing
Days (MWW'II Jim)? YES 27% NO 61% Don’t Know 13%

4. Have you ever ﬁshed before? _90%_ YES (Please go to the next question)
_10%_ NO(SltIptoquestion Tonthebacltolthis page)

5. CheckthenunberoiyeasthatyouhavegonelislingatleastonceayearinthepastSyea's:

_4%_ 0 YEARS _ 35%_ 1 or 2 YEARS _28%_ 3 or 4 YEARS _33%_ 5 YEARS

6. l-iowmmydaysdidyougoﬁshinglastyear? Pleasemiteinthetotalnmrberoidaysyouwent
lishingduringeaditimelistedbelow. Comtmypatotadayasawholeday. llyoudidnotlish,
pieasevaite a '0' in the blank for that time.

NOTE: MEDIAN DAYS FISHED ARE PROVIDED

lFlSi-EDABOUT_5_ DAYS romotmeusrswuen 1994 rm 1. 1994IoAugusr31, 1994).

I FlSI-ED ABOUT _0_ DAYS TOTAL DING LAST FALL 1994 (5mm 1 to W 3), 1994).
I FISIED ABOUT _0_ DAYS TOTAL DIRING LAST WNTER 1994-95 (Deeerrber 1, 1994 I0 March 31. 1995).

I FISI'ED ABOUT _1_ DAYS TOTAL DIRING THIS SPRING 1995 (April 1, 1995 to May 31, 1995).

 

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

97

APPENDIX E

For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities? Examples of
other recreational activities are sports like basebd. or other things you do on your tree-time.

(Check only ONE answer.)
FISHING IS...

_11%_ MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY
_20%_ MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES

_30%_ IMPORTANT, BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
_21%_ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT

_14%_ ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT
_4%_, IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

TO ME

For each sentence, decide if you think that sentence describes you.

(Circle one number for each sentence)

 

 

 

 

YES I MAYBE I no
SENTENCE thissentence I hissenIence I thissenbnce
descrbesme : Wm : doesnot
I I daubeme
Usual}.wemis*1ieueu1d291m_ ..__3_71i_- 1.3.11... i "4.216....1
lsﬂenlalkm: Messamumsbe ______ 2.9 16.. _T _ -211 1-395.- .
-Lﬁgqueaﬂx eadibeu: fishing. ______ __ .L926._T__2_72L- THEE.--
Iaskfororbuymyownﬁshingequipment 55% T 16% T 29%

 

 

What do you think about this program andyour instructors?

 

 

The instructors were...

 

This program was...

~—-------—————---—-—-—

 

 

 

Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? YES 73% NO 27%

Did you or anyone you were with catch ﬁsh during the program? YES 81% NO 19% 1

Did you or anyone you were with keep the ﬁsh you caught? YES 9% NO 91%

Please circle one number for each line.

 

DID THIS PROGRAM HELP YOU ......

---------------------
————————————————————
——————————————————
—————————————————————
———————————————
—————————————
————————————————————

_-—--———-—_--—_-——— _—

Not important to I YCEDS

 

 

To enjoy time outdoors

me I
————————— +—————
3% 79%
t__:§s§::::::es_
6% 61%
::::§s§:::i::z§s§:
_____§9&_--+__7§1_
9% 60%
.:::§i:::i:zes_
2% . 84%

sag-0F :
I
325::
4222-4.
21%
33:1:
"193-4.
21%
33:1:
10% .

--——--—

--—-—-—

 

 

98

APPENDIX E
14. After this program, will you
Go ﬁshing again? Buy your own ﬁshing rod or tackle? Go to another ﬁshing program?
_86%_ YES _44%_ YES _36%_ YES
_14%_ MAYBE _41%_ MAYBE _53%_ MAYBE
_<1%_ NO _15%_ NO _11%_ NO

15. Are you: _37%_ FEMALE -63%_ MALE

16. Are you: _90%_ WHITE _7%_ BLACK _2%_ HISPANIC _1%_ ASIAN
_0%___ AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER _<1%

17. How old are you? years old MEAN = 10 MEDIAN = 10

18. Do you live in MICHIGAN? YES 95% £10 5%

 

19. I DON'T live in Michigan. I live in

20. What grade will you be going into starting this fall? _ MEAN = 5 MEDIAN = 5_ grade

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THIS SURVEY.

99
APPENDIX E

Take A Friend Fishing Survey
For Adults Attending the Program
FINAL RESULTS FOR THE SUMMER OF 1995 326 CASES
At the completion of the program, please take about 10 minutes to complete this survey and hand it
to a Fisheries Division Instructor or Adventure Ranger.
The following questions are asked in a variety of ways. Some of the questions will require you to

circle the most appropriate response, others will require checking, and where appropriate you
should ﬁll in the blank.

I. I am attending a: DAILY 86% or WEEKEND PROGRAM 14%
2. Is this your FIRST Take a Friend Fishing program in I995? YES 97% 110 3%
2a. If no, how many other clinics or workshops have you attended? __I_
3. Have you ever attended any other ﬁshing derbies, or other events? YES 10% NO 90%

3a. If yes, were these activities held during Free Fishing Days (typically the second
weekend in June)? YES 38% NO 62%

 

The followimuestions ask about your involvement with ﬁshing.

 

4. Do you belong to any ﬁshing organizations? _4%_ YES _96%_ NO
4a. If yes, please list:

 

5. Have you ever ﬁshed before? _87%_ YES (Please continue with the next question.)
_13%_ NO (Skip to question 8 on the back of this page-))

6. The following questions ask how often you purchase a Michigan Resident Annual Fishing
License or any one of the following Michigan Licenses: Sportsperson‘s License, Daily Fishing
License, or Senior Resident Annual Fishing License.

6a. Do you currently have any of the ﬁshing licenses listed above?YES 42%NO 58%

6b. Please check the number of years that you have purchased any of the above
ﬁshing licenses during the last 5 year period:

35%_ 0 YEARS 26%_ l or 2 YEARS 13%_ 3 or 4 YEARS 26%_ 5 YRS

6c. Please check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year
during the past 5 years:

22°/._ 0 YEARS 27°/._ I or 2 YEARS 15%_ 3 or 4 YEARS 36%_ 5 YRS

Please continue on the back of this page.

100
APPENDIX E

7. PIaseedimIedretdalnumbuofdaysywspaﬁﬁshhgdurmgeadiofdiepeﬁodof
theﬁshingseasm listedbelow. (Anypartofa daycountsasawholeday. Ifyoudidnot
ﬁshbMpeﬁodpleasewrite‘DHndreblankforthatperiod.)

NOTE: RESULTS ARE MEDIAN DAYS FISHED.

IFISIEDAeour_3_ DAYS TOTAL mucusrsuuum 1994 (m1.1994toAugter31.1994).

I FISI£DABOUT_0_DAYSTOTALMNGLASTFALL1994 (SW1 I0 NW3), 1994).

IFISI'EDABOUT_0_DAYSTOTALDLRINGLASTMITER1994-95 (000811138! 1, 1994IOM8'ch31. 1995).

IFISI-EDABOUT_0_DAYSTOTALDIRNGTI'I8m1995(AptII1. 1995b May31.1995).

8. Foryouhowinportantisﬁshingconparedwithall otherrecreaticnalactivitiesyou
pursue? (Pleasedieckenlyoneanswer)

ﬁshin r ' er i
_6%_ MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY
_11%_ MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACIIVIIIES
_24%_ IMPORTANT , BUT MANY OTHER ACTMTIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
_18%_ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT , BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IM’ORTANT
_29%_ OMY SUGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME
_16%_ IT IS NOT IM’ORTANT TO ME

9. Towhatmdoywagreemdisagnedmdiefoﬂmstatanmtsdescﬁbeymr
involvementinﬁshing? (Pleasecirclecnenumberforeachstatemmtlistedbelow)

 

 

 

 

Strongly I T I I Strongly
STATEMENT aggro :Agree {Neutral IDisagreeIDisagree
Iﬁ'equmtlywatchﬁshingoroudoor 12% I23%I 28% I 14% I 23%
showsontelevisicn
Team; “““ art‘saaaraxa""‘"'irx.“f'rzo7.‘f‘5;-2‘T'is32‘T‘Ksz“
£ng related to my_interest in ﬁshing“ _____ _1______;_ _____ _L _____ _L ______
.Lﬂmeﬂlﬂdimﬁéyn 7% _I 11% I 2793 IT 13% I 25%
_Eiihmsmslem‘ﬂmy ..... . 5% I .1921 I 29"- I 24% I 32%

.Leﬁgeemmdssmam--.Iii/{II2224.12213/EZIIIBZZT'E92“
.Larsyamy-Jgimenﬁma 526.- 8% a 21% t 31% t 36%

 

 

 

 

 

I

Iﬁndthatalotofmylifeisorganiaed 3% T 4% T 19% T 31% T 43%
AM??? J— .. ............... a
Myenjoymrrttorﬁsbingbasmﬁuaioed 2% T 9% i 18% T 31% T 40%
.512 simiaeeyﬁxa _1_“--.1. _____ .I. ..... .I. ......
Imaintainamembershipinan I l I l
organizatimdirectlyrelatedtoﬁsheries 4% : 2% : 15% : 25% : 54%
or ﬁsheries management (E.G., MUCC, : I I :
.Ireatllnlilamlzeaﬁtgz -_' --- ' ..... ' _____ ' ..... 2
Mymloymalt' ofﬁshmg' hasinﬂuaiced 7% T 19% T 20% T 22% T 32%
.21): 9292 givaeéenﬁsseyioes ...... _ ..... ' ---.. ' _____ .I. ..... .I. ______

Iownarecreationalpropertyprimarilyao 2% I. 4% T- 17% I
thatlcanbeclosetoﬁsh'gg i I I

 

 

 

 

101
APPENDIX E

 

r The followig questions ask about those with whom you are attendirLg this program. I
10. Are you attending this program with someone who has never ﬁshed before?YES 35% NO 65%

I I. I am attending this program: (check all that apply)
_2%_ alone
_25%_ with my spouse
_78%- with my own child
_9%_ with my grandchild
_18%_ with other children
_<1%_ with a teenage friend
_10%_ with an«her adult
_6%_ other:

 

12. Please check the ONE phrase that best describes your household composition.
_4%_ I adult, no children

 

_8%_ l adult, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

_I I %_ 2 adults, no children

_74%_ 2 adults, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

_<1%_ 3 adults or more, no children

_2%_ 3 adults or more, with child/children How many? What age(s)?
L The following questions ask about your use of the Michigan State Parks.

 

13. Did you visit this State Park speciﬁcally to attend the Take a Friend Fishing Clinic or
Workshop? YES 44% NO 56%

14. Is this your ﬁrst visit to THIS Michigan State Park? YES 31% NO 69%
I5. Have you visited ANY «her Michigan State Parks before?
_90%_ YES (Please go on to the next question.)
_10%_ NO (Please skip to question 19.)
MEAN =20 MEDIAN =20
16. How many years have you been visiting Michigan State Parks? _ 20_YEARS

17. Approximately how many days did you visit Michigan State Parks in 1994?
_AVG = 12 MEDIAN = 10_ DAYS

I8. If you did not visit Michigan State Parks in I994, when was the last year you did
visit? l9 . MEAN = 87 MEDIAN = 89

I9. Did you purchase a DAILY State Park permit? YES 30% NO 70%
20. Did you purchase an ANNUAL State Park permit? YES 78% NO 22%

2|. Are you Camping in this State Park during this visit? YES 44% N0 56%
Please continue on the back of this page.

102
APPENDIX E

22. How did you FIRST hear of this Take a Friend Fishing clinic or workshop?
(Please check only ONE response.)

_38%__ DISCOVERED THE PROGRAM AT THE PARK (FLYER OR POSTER)
_l3%__ INFORMED BY PARK STAFF

_5%_ RECOMMENDATION OF A FRIEND

_2%_ RECOMMENDATION OF AN ADULT FAMILY MEMBER

_<1%_ RECOMMENDATION OF A YOUNG PERSON

_<1%_ LOCAL SOURCES (e.g. gas stations or tackle shop)

_2%_ FROM A PROMOTIONAL FLYER

___I %_ FROM THE 1995 MICHIGAN STATE PARKS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
__4%_ THROUGH RADIO

_0%__ THROUGH TELEVISION

_28%_ THROUGH NEWSPAPER

_<1%_ THROUGH A MAGAZINE

_<1%_ THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION (MUCC, 4-I-I, SCOUTS)
_<1%_ THROUGH A SCHOOL

_4%_ OTHER

 

23. Did you hear about this program in any «her ways? YES 14% NO 86%
If yes, please write in any additional ways you heard about the program:

 

 

 

L The questions below ask about your reactions to the program you just attended.

 

24. Please rate each aspect of this clinic or workshop on the following scale: poor, fair,
M, verygood, excellent)

 

 

 

 

 

ASPECT OF THE PROGRAM Poor irarr TOood ivtsry EExcellent
i . {Good .

Program content as describedinthe materials 1% I 6% . 31% i 36% I 26%
_XOII-saaPILOLI-o-aLI-eaﬁas ____________ ---_--I__-- ' _-_-_I.__-_I. ______ -
-Eevsaazoms Stables-"zeta- ____________ 0 2/1 -I- .3.‘:/1-I__2§:A_-I_-4QZ- 4.312». _ -
.2992 aides-P198539 ................... 0 I/g-I 53!: I 324. I 39%-I _-3§°-A- --

I-Iet-ugss-osasr-uests _________________ o _‘I/a-rPE/al_§'é_T311/'_:-§§Y°__-
.9231“!!! Lusty-9318 _________________ 0 :/:_I_SI_3/_--I__121/-_ I 321/2: "52 "1°. _ -
32339.0! 95191919 _________________ 0 :/_'._'r_..I:/!. I J52: I 221/0. I "52 "1°. _ -
.Qaa-IILV.°£2II.Ie-I_serxise_s ________________ 0 -'/:-I .220- I 392- I 311/21 _531/0- _ -
Overall quality ofthe progam 0% [4%]. 14% T38% . 48%

 

25. Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? YES 52% NO 48%
26. Did you or anyone in your party catch ﬁsh during the program? YES 68% ' NO 32%

27. Did you or anyone in your party keep the ﬁsh you caught? YES 4% NO 96%
Please continue on the next page.

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
28. To what extent were you satisﬁed that this program helped you in each of the following
areas? (Please circle one number for each area.)
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE Not an . Very . Dissatisﬁed 1. Neutral 1. Satisﬁed I Very
YOU SATISFIED THAT important I Dissatisﬁed : : : : Satisﬁed
THIS PROGRAM reason for l l I l l
-LTEEEERXQQIs-s- _______ 1119.431}. ' _______ ' ....... ' _____ ' ..... ' .......
ZIeIsa.Iue.w.I1snIaaeki_IIs-__ﬁzz-“T-_2%_-1'-__I:/-___T_§:/-._F_22.z-_’l‘_2ré_-.
1%ster __________ I 22.-".1___2:/-___1:--114».--:.I_II:/-.-;-12_°/_-_I[__2§z-_-:
:IQLeil'libﬂﬂtﬁﬂ ........ 2%.-+--21/-__-4_-_21/°___+_2_61/I.I._..-;4.I1’é_..._.19.'é__,
T0 get M3! at my ﬁshing 9% g 3% | 2% l 14% g 44% l 28%
_skills I I I I I
To be better able toTise'n'i'y' I"5%"T"3%'"T“T%'“T-ﬁ% "T HIIZ'T' 27%
aipmﬂ ------ I I I --—I ----- I ------
;Io.Iae_IzII1I_ﬁ-_In_ily_-____I-_2%._1_-_3:/-._-:_-<.I:/s_-:-§°_/~__,C_2I_°e-:_5_2_z-__:
IQEQIE‘EKIEIQS .......... I éz/a_+_-2:h._-+_-<_I:/s-_+_12:/-.+-:_I6:4-_+__2zz-_-:
-Iemeeteezvmle ________ 1 1:4.-+__3Y1-;+--1'_/°___+.231/S._}._§8.°é-_};_39°_/'__:
To become more interested 13% , 2% , 18% , 40% , 27% , 13%
Making. ________________ '_.- ' ' __-_' _ _- ' ______
To enjoy time outdoors 5% T 3% T 0% T 8% I 38% T 47%
[ 11ie following questions ask about your intentions after this program. I
29. In the license year 1995 through 1996 (from April 1995 through March 1996) do you
intaid to: ‘
Purchase a ﬁshing license? Go ﬁshing again?
_32%_ YES, DEFINITELY _61%_ YES, DEFINITELY
__l4% PROBABLY _18%_ PROBABLY
__IS% MAYBE _13%_ MAYBE
___l8% NO _5%_ NO
_4%_ UNDECIDED _2%_ UNDECIDED
_l 7%_ ALREADY HAVE A LICENSE °
Attend another clinic or workshop? Purchase ﬁshing equipment?
_25%_ YES, DEFINITELY _34%_ YES, DEFINITELY
_ZS%_ PROBABLY _30%__ PROBABLY
__32%__ MAYBE _l9%_ MAYBE
_13%_ NO _I 4%_ NO
_6%_ UNDECIDED _2%_ UNDECIDED
[ The followmﬂmeral information is being asked for statistical purposes only. 1
For the questions below, check or ﬁll in the appropriate blank.
30. Are you: _43%_ FEMALE _57%_ MALE
3|. Are you: _9%_ SINGLE _85%_ MARRIED _6%_ DlVORCED/WIDOWED
32. Are you: _94%_ WHITE _5%_ BLACK _1 %_ HISPANIC _<1%_ ASIAN
_0%_ AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 0%

104
APPENDIX E

33. In what year were you born? 19__MEDIAN YEAR=55_ AGE=40

34. In what type of an area do you currerntly reside? (Please check only one.)
_I 1%_ RURAL - FARM
__12%_ RURAL - NONFARM - AREA OF LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE
_29%__ SMALL TOWN - AREA OF 2,500 T0 50,000 PEOPLE
_49% URBANIZED AREA (CITY OR SUBURBAN AREA OF GREATER THAN
30,000 PEOPLE)

35. In what MICHIGAN county do you currently reside?

 

35a. If you are not a residernt of Michigan, in what state do you currently reside?
95% RESIDENTS OF MICHIGAN
36. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade level you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Level
12345678 9101112 13141516 171819202122
MEDIAN EDUCATION = 15

37. In 1994, what was your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (before taxes) from

employmernt and all other sources?
_2%_ Less than $10,000 _25%_ $40,000 - $49,999 __I %_ $80,000 - $89,999
_4%_ $ l0,000 - $19,999 _14%_ $50,000 - $59,999 _1%_ $90,000 - $99,999
_9%_ $20,000 - $29,999 _28%_ $60,000 - $69,999 _3%_ $100,000 and above
_12%_ $30,000 - $39,999 _2%_ $70,000 - $79,999

We would appreciate any additional commernts or suggestiorns about what should be added to this
program:

 

 

 

 

 

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be deleted from
this program:

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. We appreciate your
willingness to provide this information. Results of this survey will be provided to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Divisiorn to assist in improving this program.

l 05
APPENDIX E

1995 ADULT SURVEY OPEN ENDED TALLY

 

4. Fishing organizations list:

BASS (2) Steelheaders - Flint River Valley
BASS magazines only (2) Bass Masters

Dawn River Walleye Club In Fisherman

American Fisheries Society UMCC

4-H

ll. Attending program with other:

Nephew (3) UMCC
Son-in-law Youth volunteer
Grandmother Church group
With a residence camp group Parent

A group of teenage campers - evening activity Sister

22. How did you FIRST hear of this Take a Friend Fishing clinic or

workshop? other:
Saw it taking place (2) My daughter
Church

23. Did you hear about this program in any other ways? If yes, write in
any additional ways you heard about the program.

Park help (6) Saw ﬂyer at ranger station
Newspaper (2) Michigan Magazine

DNR (4) Flyer at Wixom Library

A friend DNR magazine

State MUCC magazine

Kalamazoo Gazette 1995 State Park Schedule
Clirnic personnel walking through camp Bulletin board at Warren Dunes
State ParkSleepy Hollow Jr. Bass Club Adventure Program ﬂyer

Husband is a ranger

 

106
APPENDIX E

Fishing in the Parks Survey
For Youths Attending the Program
FINAL RESULTS FOR SUMMER 1996 481 CASES

Instructions to parent, guardian, or adult accompanying youth to this program: At the completion of
the program. please tare about 5 minutes to complete this survey. If the youtln with you are between the
agesof12.17,youmayarlowmemrooompletethissurveyontheirown. lttheyarebetweentheagesot
5 - 11. please help by reading this survey to them and assisting them in answering the questions. When you
we ﬁnished. hand this survey to a Michigan State University Research Aide or an Adventure Ranger.

 

 

Please circle. check, or ﬁll in the blanks.

1. Is this your FIRST Fishing in the Parks program in 1996? 94% YES NO

7%

III
2. How many others have you been to? __2_
3. Have you ever attended ﬁshing derbies, or other ﬁshing events? 24% YES 76% N0

4. Have you ever ﬁshed before? _m_ YES (Pleasetlotothenext question)
_11%_ NO (Skip to question 7)

5. Check the hunter of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year in the past 5 years:

_6%_ 0 YEARS 41%_ l or 2 YEARS 27%_ 3 or 4 YEARS 27%_ 5 YEARS

6. How many days did you go ﬁshing last year? Please write in the total number of days you went
ﬁshing during each time listed below. Count any part of a day as a whole day. it you w
please write a “0" in the blankrtor that time.

Note: results are median days ﬁshed.

I Flsn£o ABOUT _'_4___ DAYS rem ourtluc usr SUMMER 1995 (June 1 to August 31. 1995)-

I Flsleo ABOUT _0_ DAYS tom warns usr FALL 1995 (86mm 1 to Number 30. 1995).
| FISHED ABOUT _0_ DAYS TOTAL m6 LAST WINTER 1995-96 (Decanter 1, 199510 March 31, 1996).

I FlSHED ABOUT _0_ ems rem ammo THIS SPRING 1996 (April 1. 1996 to May 31. 1996).

7. For each sentence, decide it you think that sentence describes you.

 

 

 

 

(Circle ONE number for each sentence) I '
YES i MAYBE r NO
dissentence ' lhissenbnce ‘ thissenhnce
SENTENCE Iimllim: “no,
r l descrinerne
_EE‘EDQEMEIMQG ............. 5.“ 1‘.-+--12L+-.L°1‘__-
'_II§IL3'_IY_W§L°l1ﬁ_8QiI19.°LQULd29!M _____ 3.7 2.I__+__2_12I._+_.I_11I.__
[creams mtieﬁiayﬂlldlm _ ._- .233.-+--2_216.-+-.§?§.--
_Ltsausaﬂx t9.=.d_a_b<_>.II1t.sI.IiI19_ ...... :r--231‘--+--2-°5--+--5-75-"
laskfororbtymyowntishingequipment 54% l 15% r 31%

 

 

 

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
8. What do you think about this program and your instructors?
Poor 1 Good Excellent
BEWE‘L'EE ______________ 51% '}£1§_£_.§§1_II__I
Tlnisprogramwas..1% I 40% I 60%
9. Did you expect to catch ﬁsin during the progran? ”%_YES 23%_NO
10. Did you or anyone you were with catch ﬁsh during the program? 76%_YES 2496310
11. Did you or anyone you were with keep the ﬁsh you caught? %_YES 91%_NO
12. Please circle (ﬂE number tor each line. j f
DID THIS PROGRAM HELP YOU ...... Not important to I YES I SORT-OF } NO
_ _____________________ L---.I!I.°.---4.-_9__-:_--@_--,'---§_-_
1°.I9.3LII_IISI1ESLIIQIIEIIS_-------_---ﬂ--- I ..ZZLJ "1212-- I "ﬁne
_I_o_II§II_om2v_m___-___-____----1I2_-_I-401I_I._-;-_21I:__;__I.Izl_-s
10.11%".32201‘191 ___________ t___12s--_+-_51I:__._-_22I:--,u-_I.IzI.-_
mmmmamets ..... ...--1I2--- . Jeaninm--. "as---
-:o_bs.IzeIIsI_a2I2eyse.e_mI__-_-aI.---:-12I2--p-_ens__1-15--..
_[°_"l°£'_"§'.v. - -__-_----__. ---!‘é---+_!!‘£_-r_-_1ﬁ--r_-_1_41__
10922022999.massed.m_tsb«29._[-__1a_-_+_19.I2_+_.Iza__,u-_1§--_
To enjoy time outdoors <1% 1 86% 1 10% l 4%
13. After this program. will you
Go listnirng aga'n? Buy your own ﬁshing rod or tackle? Go to another ﬁshing progran?
-8896- YES _52%_ YES _59%_ YES
_10%_ MAYBE _2%_ MAYBE _33%_ MAYBE
_1%_ NO _19%_ NO _8%_ NO
14. Are you: _45%_ FEMALE _55%__ MALE
15. Are you: _93%_ WHITE _2%_ BLACK _2%_ HISPANIC _1%_ ASIAN
_1%_ AMERICAN INDIAN _<1%_MULTIRACIAL OTHER .<1%_ (Note: <2% refused)
16. How old are you? _9 median and mean_ years old
17. Do you live in MCHIGAN? 90%_YES to: _NO
18. I DON’T live in Michigan. I live in
19. What grade will you be going into stating this tall? __4th__ grade

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THIS SURVEY.

108
APPENDIX E

Fishing in the Parks Survey
For Adults Attending the Program

FINAL RESULTS FOR THE SUMMER OF 1996 296 CASES

At the cornpletiorn of the program, please take about 10 minutes to complete this sumy and hand it
to a Michigan State University Research Aide or Adventure Ranger.
The following questiorns are asked in a variety of ways. Some of the questions will require you to
circle the most appropriate response, others will require checking, and where appropriate you
should ﬁll in the blank.
1. Is this your FIRST Fishing ill the Parks program irn 1996? 99%_YES J's/1.7 NO

la. If no, how many other Tuesday niynt clinics have you attended irn 1996? _2.5_
2. Did you attend one of these programs irn a State Park last summer? 6%_YES 94%_NO
3. Have you ever attended any other ﬁshing clirnics, derbies or other events? I:/. YES 89%N0

3a. If yes, were these activities held during Free Fishing Days (typically the second
weekend in June)? 37%_YES 63%_NO

 

The following questions ask about your involvement with ﬁshing.

 

4. Do you belorng to any ﬁshirng organizations? _2%_ YES _98%_ NO.
4a. If yes, please list:

 

5. Have you ever ﬁshed before? _85%_ YES (Please continue with the next queeion.)
_15%__ NO (Skip to question 8 on the back of this page-))

6. The following questions ask how otter you purchase a Michigan Resident Annual Fishing
License or any orne of the following Michigan Licenses: Sportspersorn's License, Daily
Fishing License, or Senior Resident Annual Fishing License.
6a. Do you currently have any of the ﬁshing licenses listed above? 43% YES 57%NO

6b. Please check the number of years that you have purclnased any of the above
ﬁshing licenses during the last 5 year period:

36%_ 0 YEARS 27%_ l or 2 YEARS 15%_ 3 or 4 YEARS 22%_ 5 YEARS

6c. Please check the number of years that you have gone ﬁshing at least once a year
during the past 5 years:

23%_ 0 YEARS 28%_ l or 2 YEARS 19%_ 3 or 4 YEARS 30%_ 5 YEARS

Please continue on the back of this page.

109
APPENDIX E

Please estimate the t«al number of days you spent ﬁshing during each of the period of
the ﬁshing season listed below. (Any part of a day counts as a whole day. If you did n«
ﬁsh irn that period, please write “0" in the blank for that period.)

NOTE: RESULTS ARE MEDIAN DAYS FISHED.
I FISl-ED ABOUT _3_ DAYS TOTAL DIRING LAST SUMMER1995 (June 1, 1995 to August 31, 1995).

I FlSI-ED ABOUT _0_ DAYS TOTAL DIRING LAST ”11.1995 (Septet'rbet 1. 1995 to November 30, 1995).

I FISHED ABOUT __0_ DAYS TOTAL DURING LAST WINTER 199596 (December 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996).

l FISHED ABOUT _0_ DAYS TOTAL DURING ans SPRING 1996 (April 1, 1996 to May 31, 1996).

 

 

 

 

 

8. For you how important is ﬁshing compared with all other recreational activities you
pursue? (Please check only ONE answer.)
Importance of ﬁﬂng compared with «her recreation
_4%_ MY MOST IMPORTANT RECREATION ACTIVITY
_10%_ MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES
_25%_ IMPORTANT . BUT MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
_15%_ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, BUT MOST OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
-28%_ ONLY SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT TO ME
_19%_ IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME
9. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following statements describe your
involvement in ﬁshing? (Please circle one number for each statement listed below.)
Strongly i I T i Strongly
STATEMENT ages 4 Agree 1 Neutral 1 0158ng Disaﬂ
I frequently watch ﬁshing or outdoor 10% r 18% i 29% E 17% E 26%
shows on televisiorn ' '
b1 frequently visit stores to view new 3% I— 17% T 23% CI. 23% T 35%
-E‘EIPEE‘I19139111291995.9211‘151‘128 _______ i.--___i_ ..... 4.-..--4. ......
.Lﬂesaeﬂxaeadjssﬂﬁahins.--___-.--_3°_/°__,I-_lzi/II_4___2.2°/2_4__Z.l.°/_°._.I__22°/.o__
-EishiIIs_say_-°Ie_|9t_211°2t_vxh3_lan_----.--_2°_/o__ I -1916. I _2%_ I _2%_ I _2%_-
-Leftsnenneexmassmsam".--.3:/«.-,T_29:/I_1-_2.s°/s_:_294-13%“
.Lsressszeaadﬂsiwsxsnﬂshee-.-_.Zi/o...I ___._ I -Zf’é'. I -2642- I -5910“
1- '1" '1- ‘7'
[ﬁnd thata l« ofmy life is organized 1% : 4% : 16% : 28% i 51%
around ﬁshin ‘
"KIQBISyTnETBTEsTiEiEl-ias inﬂuenced ' 2% T 7% T 16% T 25% T 50%
.91 2610992 simaeuiza _______________ ,L - --...L _____ .1. ..... .3. _____ _.
I maintain a membership in an I I I I
organization directly related to ﬁsheries 1% : 2% I l0% : 21% : 65%
or ﬁsheries management (E.G., MUCC, : : : :
.IrsutIeIIIueIIsLesaEIen _______ .. _____ . ..---.I. _____ _;_ ..... 4. ......
My enjoyment of ﬁshing has inﬂuenced 5% l 23% r 20% r 16% l 37%
.st 92.192 aﬂvasatismdssiseioni. ..... _ _____ 1.--"; _____ .L ..... _L ..... ..
Iowna recreatiornal property primarilyso 4% l 5% r 10% I 21% l 61%
that 1 can be close to ﬁshing 1 i : :

 

 

 

I 10
APPENDIX E

 

[ The following questions ask about those with whom you are attending this program. 1
10.Are you attending this program with someorne who has never ﬁshed before? 35%YES 65%NO

l 1. I am attendirng this program: (check all that apply)
_3%_ alorne
_25%_ with my spouse
_80%_ with my own child
_9%_ with my grandchild
_l8%_ with «her children
_1%_ with a teenage ﬁ'iend
_9%_ with an«her adult
_4%_ other:

 

12. Please check the ONE phrase that best describes your household composition.
_4%_ 1 adult, no children

_10%_ 1 adult, with child/children How many? What age(s)?
_9%_ 2 adults, no children

_76%_ 2 adults, with child/children How many? What age(s)?
_1%_ 3 adults or more, no children

_0%_ 3 adults or more, with child/children How many? What age(s)?

 

I The following questiorns ask about your use of the Michigan State Parks. I
13. Did you visit this State Park speciﬁcally to attend this program? 37%_YES 63%_NO
14. Is this your ﬁrst visit to THIS Michigan State Park? 28%_YES 72%_NO
15. Have you visited ANY «her Michigan State Parks before?

_87%_ YES (Please go on to the next question.)
__I 3%__ NO (Please skip to questiorn l9.)

mean=l9 median=20
16. How many years have you been visiting Michigan State Parks? YEARS

17. Approximately how many days did you visit Michigan State Parks in 19957
DAYS mean=l4 median=10

18. If you did n« visit Michigan State Parks irn 1995, when was the last year you did
visit? 19 mean=88 median=93

19. Did you purchase a DAILY State Park permit? 26%_YES 74%_NO
20. Did you purchase an ANNUAL State Park permit? 84%_YES 16%_NO

21. Are you Camping in this State Park during this visit? 64%__YES 36%__NO
Please continue on the back of this page.

111
APPENDIX E

22. How did you FIRST hear of this “Fishing in the Parks" program?
(Please check only ONE reﬁneries.)

_51%_ DISCOVERED THE PROGRAM AT THE PARK (FLYER OR POSTER)
_13%_ INFORMED BY PARK STAFF
_1%_ FROM A LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
:_0% FROM A DNR OFFICE
_3%_ RECOMMENDATION OF A FRIEND
_3%_ RECOMMENDATION OF AN ADULT FAMILY MEMBER
<I%_ RECOMMENDATION OF A YOUNG PERSON
_<1%_ LOCAL SOURCES (e. g. gas statiorns or tackle shop)
_3%_ FROM A PROMOTIONAL FLYER
_1%_ FROM THE 1996 MICHIGAN STATE PARKS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
_<1%_ THROUGH RADIO
_0%_ THROUGH TELEVISION
_l4%_ THROUGH NEWSPAPER
_2%_ THROUGH THE “MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES” MAGAZINE
_1%_ THROUGH OTHER MAGAZINE(s)
_1%_ THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION (MUCC, 4-H, SCOUTS)
_<1%_ THROUGH A SCHOOL
_5%_ OTHER

 

23. Did you hear about this program irn any outer ways? nz%_YEs 88%_NO
If yes, please write in any additiornal ways you heard about the program:

 

 

 

I The questiorns below ask about your reactiorns to the progam you just attended.

 

24. Please rate eacln aspect of this clinic or workshop on the following scale: poor. fair,

 

 

 

 

Every good, excellent).
ASPECT OFTHEPROGRAM Poorﬁ. Fair Icrood IVery IExcellent
I I 1000:! .
Program contentasdescribedinthematerials 1% I 3% I 29% I 31% I 36%
x9931! Eric-I LII-3399293 .................. 'p---.I.-- -_I_---- I. ...... u
.Qevsese-<£§Issabiee.ea§st ............. 93 é-;.f!.°é+- 2.2% ...-I- 351/0 -4.-.4£1/°.--
-ELQQCQ°P£%9----__----_--....---fl%.L-L°./2I .i3E/II.-I-}2°./°-.:.-.3.§°-/°.-.
-ésituésssﬁisstr-usse ................. 0.“. é-;. 511°: I .114. I -|.2°./II-I -.7.4°./II.-u
.Quaims'uetussts .................. II: LLB/al- 2% lags-1-53%.-.
.QEIIISY.°£'£I§LII§-I°_I.I .................. 0.? /I_I.-;. Elf/y- 2%- I.2§°/°. 4.--52°./°.--
Overallqualityoftheprogram <1% I 0% r 11% r 29% r 60%

 

 

25. Did you expect to catch ﬁsh during the program? 52%_YES 48%_NO
26. Did you or anyorne irn your party catch ﬁsh during the program? 70%_YES 30%_NO

27. Did you or anyorne in your party keep the ﬁsh you cauglnt? _4%_YES 96%_NO
Please continue on the next page.

1 12
APPENDIX E

28. To what extent were you satisﬁed that this program helped you in each of the following
areas? (Please circle one number for each area.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE Not an I Vely I Dissatisﬁed. T Neutral' I Satisﬁed' IVely
YOU SATISFIED THAT important I Dissatisﬁed : : : : Satisﬁed
THIS PROGRAM reason for i I I l I
.LIEEEEP.XQQ-a~.- ....... iﬂﬂdini ' ....... ' ....... ' ..... ' ..... ' ...... I
:IaIsasaaavﬁsiiaaakins_.---SB.-T--.2:/«».--f--9%.--T_Ls:/«z._I-21%_T-.3§%.-I
ﬁatisinmxsan. ......... L22/a-1_-.2:A»._-I‘I_-:I:'/a"LLB/L;-.3za_:-_3_I.°./o.-.
.IQLEaJEEbBHLﬁEI‘. ......... Lli/E.-+--§26.--+--3Y°.-_+-§.l:/1_I.-.§§.%-+__2_l°./°._I
Tipnget better at my ﬁshing 8% I 2% I 00/0 I 22% I 34% I 33%
s I s I I I I I
To be better able (cage-III):_P--§%--T---i%---T---Dz/:-_1_-r7zg-r—35ﬁ-T—33‘70-m
man I I I l I
:%§:Et:-:e:@3::::::::§%::::::2:/o::::::927o:::::iu3/o::;::s§a:::3§%::i
I‘L‘lﬁﬂ‘l‘f‘l‘l‘gﬁ ...... t.....L72/I’.-_I..._._2:/°__-.I_--..IY".--+-2.5:/°.-I.-.2§73-_I.-..2§Z°_-.
129111633919.----j---I.7I/°.-_I.--_§1/°.--.I.--PZ/II.--+-3.'3/1-;.-21%-.p-.22°é._.
Tobecome more lnterested 11% I 1% I <1% I 16% I 41% I- 30%
giggling ___________ I _ __ I ____ I _____ I _____ I ______
Ho enjoytime outdoors T 2% T 2% T <l% T 6% I' 38% T 52%
I The follm questions ask about your intuitions alter this program. I

 

29. In the license year 1996 through 1997 (from April 1996 through March 1997) do you

intend to:

Purchase a ﬁshing license?
_37%_ ALREADY HAVE A LICENSE
_12%_ YES, DEFINITELY
_I l%_ PROBABLY

_15%_ MAYBE
_l9%_ NO

_s%_ UNDECIDED

Attald another clinic or workshop?
_23%_ YESI DEFINITELY
_26%_ PROBABLY

_34°/._ MAYBE
13%_ No

:_5%_ UNDECIDED

Go ﬁshing again?

_59%_ YES DEFINITELY
::22% PROBABLY
“12% MAYBE

___6% NO

:2%_ UNDECIDED

Purchase ﬁshing equipment?
_3 1%_ YES, DEPlNrrELY
_28%_ PROBABLY
_24°/._ MAYBE

_16%_ No

_2%_ UNDECIDED

 

L The following general information is belg asked for statistical purposes only. I

For the questions below. check or ﬁll in the appropriate blank.

30. Are you: _52%_
31. Are you: _9%_

32. Are you: _94%_

FEMALE
SINGLE

WHITE

_48%_ MALE

_82%_ MARRIED _9%_ DIVORCED/WIDOWED

_2%_ AMERICAN INDIAN _<1%_

_2%_ BLACK _2%_ HISPANIC _0%_ ASIAN

MULTIRACIAL OTHER _0%_
Please continue on the back of this Daze.

1 13
APPENDIX E

In what year were you born? 19 Median year=57 age=39

b)
DJ

34. In what type of an area do you currently reside? (Please check only ONE.)
_l4%_ RURAL - FARM
_l l%_ RURAL - NONFARM - AREA OF LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE
_37%_ SMALL TOWN - AREA OF 2,500 TO 50,000 PEOPLE
_39%_ URBANIZED AREA (CITY OR SUBURBAN AREA OF GREATER THAN
50,000 PEOPLE)

35. In what MICHIGAN county do you currently reside? 93% residents of M1__
35a. If you are not a resident of Michigan, ill what state do you currently reside?

36. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade level you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Levei
12345678 9101112 13141516 171819202122

Median education=14
37. In 1995, what was your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (before taxes) from

employment and all other sources?
_4%_ Less than $10,000 _17%_ $40,000 - $49,999 _4%_ $80,000 - $89,999
__7%_ $10,000 - $19,999 _20%_ $50,000 - $59,999 _2%_ $90,000 - $99,999
_10%_ $20,000 - $29,999 _12%_ $60,000 - $69,999 _4%_ $100,000 and above
__16%_ $30,000 - $39,999 _7%_ $70,000 - $79,999 (Note: 22% did not answer)

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be added to this
program:

 

 

 

 

 

We would appreciate any additional comments or suggestions about what should be deleted from
this program:

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. We appreciate your
willingness to provide this information. Results of this survey will be provided to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division to assist in improving this program.

APPENDIX E

1996 ADULT SURVEY OPEN ENDED TALLY

4a. Fishing organ'nations list:
BASS (2)

In Fisherman (1)

Tucson, Arizona Fly Fishing Club (1)

ll. Attending program with other:
Niece (3)

Nephew (3)

Friends and their family (1)

22. How did you first hear of FIP other:
Park Staﬂ‘ (6)

Newspaper (3)

Notices at campground (2)

Saw the program happening (2)

Child (1)

Homeschooling Conference (1)

Brighton Library (1)

Other campers (1)

Glen Laker (1)

Trout Unlimited (1)
American Fishing Assoc. (1)

Campground host (1)
Kalamazoo Rec. Dept. (1)
Pennsylvania Sportsman’s Club (1)

Saw program previous week (1)
Dewitt local paper (1)

Host (1)

Park omce (1)

Wife (1)

Recommendation of family member (1)
Announced by rangers (1)

DNR omce (1)

Kalamazoo Rec. Dept (1)

23. What additional ways did you hear of FIP:

Park staﬂ‘ (13)

Newspaper (5)

Friend (3)

Recommendation of a young person (2)
MI Natural Resources Magazine (2)
Flyers (2)

Someone at dock (2)

Muskegon Chronicle (1)

14th (1)

Michigan Living Magazine (1)
Battle Creek Shopper News (1)
Word of mouth (1)

From last year (1)

Telephone (1)

DNR office (1)

Junior ranger (1)

Adventure Ranger program (1)
Campground Hosts (1)

115
APPENDIX F

FISHING IN THE PARKS

1996 COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN
December 12, 1995

ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND

This communications campaign is being prepared for the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Division and Parks and Recreation Division’s “Fishing in the
Parks” outreach program. The major elements of the campaign will be approved by the
program’s steering committee and implemented by MDNR staﬁ' in January of 1996.

This outreach program is being funded by the Fisheries Division with in kind support being
granted by the additional program partners identiﬁed in the next section ofthis report The
Fisheries Division serves the citizens of Michigan on a Statewide basis and is funded by three
broad mechanisms: 1) Game and Fish Protection Fund, 2) Sport Fish Restoration Fund, and 3)
General Funds. In 1995, 91 percent of the $20,000,000 Fisheries Division budget was
generated by the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Sport Fish Restoration Fund Both of
these funds are derived from ﬁshing license sales and excise taxes on ﬁshing and boating
equipment (MDNR 1995). Over the past 20 years license sales have been declining in
proportion to the population growth in Michigan resulting in the loss of a considerable amount
of revenue for the Fisheries Division (Fisheries Division 1994). The “Fishing in the Parks”
programisaneﬂ'orttoreversethedechneinhcensesalesoverdlenexttenyearsbyproviding
an opportunity for nonanglers and novices to learn how to ﬁsh

The mission of the MDNR Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance the public trust in
populations and habitat of ﬁsheries and other forms of aquatic life, and promote optimum use
of these resources for the beneﬁt of the people of Michigan. (Fisheries Division 1994).

CAMPAIGN RATIONALE

During the summer of 1995, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Fisheries Division and Parks and Recreation Division, in conjunction with Michigan State
University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
sponsored over 100 ﬁshing education programs in the Michigan State Parks. The “Fishing in
the Parks” program was promoted by the partners using “traditional” media channels (i.e.
newspapers, ﬂyers, and radio). At the completion of each program, participants were asked to
complete a survey about the “Fishing in the Parks” program, and 83% of adults responded
One section of the questionnaire asked how the participants ﬁrst heard about the program.
Because 53% of the respondents ﬁrst heard of the program at the State Park, there exists a
great need to develop a communication campaign to attract new or non-traditional MDNR
program participants. In other words, an eﬁ‘ective campaign will allow the MDNR to reach

l 16
APPENDIX F

newandncn-traditionalusersinadditiontoStateParkcampers. Thiseﬂ'ortwillallowfor
greatercitizenamrenessoftheStateParlrsandthe“FishingintheParks”program.

OBJECTIVES

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

To increase awareness of the “Fishing in the Parks” program with the citizens of southern
lower Michigan through public service announcements using a variety of media at minimal
cost to the program

Strategy: The MDNR has several ﬁlll time employees that are responsible for interacting
withthemedia Theywillsendout theprovidedpressreleasestoall local andstatelevel
newspapers, TV, and radio stations. The media specialists will also be responsible for
following up with editors or other contacts and collecting clippings and other evidence of
the information being published or broadcasted Other MDNR employees that
commmlicatewiththemediaonaregularbasiswill beinforrnedoftheprogram andwillbe
asked to “plug” it when appropriate.

To communicate with the program’s target audiences (all with little or no ﬁshing
experience): 1) southern lower Michigan families with young children, 2) southern lower
Michigan single parent, female heads of households and 3) Detroit, Lansing, and Flint
urban youth (youth are being deﬁned as less than 16 years of age.)

Strategy: Flyers with information about the program will be distributed by direct mail or
hand delivered with presentations to schools within a 30 mile radius of the program
locations, regional Boy and Girl Scout Councils,.4oH county oﬁces, and urban churches.

To increase exposure in the family, lifestyles, and travel sections of newspapers (as
opposed to exclusive coverage in the outdoor section).

Strategy: MDNR media specialists will be making personal contacts with editors to
assurethatthepress releaseinformation is includedinsections otherthantheoutdoor
section.

To increase program media coverage to 20% of all ﬁshing programs having some form of
media coverage.

Strategy: Program instructors will be provided with local media contact names. Each
program instructor will be responsible for inviting the media to the ﬁshing programs and
attempting to have at least on story for TV and one for print media Steering committee
members will be responsible for inviting live radio coverage to weekend special events that
also have a ﬁshing program.

To have television media exposure at 10 diﬁ’erent programs.

Strategy: Program instructors will be responsible having one ﬁshing program covered by
TV. MDNR media specialists will provide support and assist the instructors in making the
necessary contacts.

117
APPENDIX F

6) Torecruitvolmteeranglasﬁomlocalmghnggroupsmassistdleﬁshingpmgmn
instructors in teaching participants basic ﬁshing skills.
Strategy: Potalﬁalvolunteerswiﬂbecontactedbydirectmaﬂandaskedtoretumapost
cardwidldrenecassaryrecmtactmfonnaﬁmmdwiﬂbeaddedmadatabasefordle
instructortouseasneeded Alimitednumberofpresentationswillbemadeatgroup
meetingstorecruitvolunteersandinfonnthemabouttheprograrrt MichiganUnited
ConservationClubs (MUCC)will providethenames and addresses for thedirectmailing.

7) To implement the campaign to attract at least 2,100 participants to the 1996 “Fishing in the
Parks” program (double the 1995 participation rate).
Strategy: At the conclusion of the summer participation registration forms will be totaled
to determine if this goal was reached

8) To decrease the number of participants who ﬁrst hear of the program at the State Park
to less than 25%. This decrease will indicate the campaign’s success and increased
exposure for the program and the State Parks.
Strategy: This objective will be assessed at the conclusion of the summer by calculating
the responses to the question, “How did you ﬁrst hear ofthis program?” on the program
evaluation questionnaire. The survey will be distributed to each participant at the
conclusion of the ﬁshing program.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

“Fishing in the Parks” is a new program developed speciﬁcally for Michigan ﬁom existing
ﬁshing instruction materials. The program is intended to attract a target market/audience of
non-angling families with young children, non-traditional anglers, and novice anglers. The
speciﬁc goal of this program is to enhance participants’ ﬁshing skills in the hope that they will
become well-informed and committed customers of the MDNR Fisheries Division. The
programwillfeaturedayﬁshingprogramsoﬂ’eredeachweekat 12 StateParks andnatural
resource weekends oﬁ’ered once per summer at 3 State Parks thus, providing 15 different
locations for participation throughout southem Michigan (These numbers do not include urban
parks because the details are still being arranged). The goal of the programs is to provide basic
ﬁshing skills and the opportunity for repeat attendance to master ﬁshing skills; while the
weekends will allow for more intensive instruction on ﬁshing and other natural resource
information. The program will utilize the efforts of local volunteers to assist in organizing and
instructing Fishing in the Parks. These volunteers will be recmited through the program
partners of MDNR Fisheries Division, MDNR State Parks Division, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs (MUCC), and Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife and Extension.

1 18
APPENDIX 1"

TARGET AUDIENCE ANALYSIS

Survey results ﬁom the 1995 “Fishing in the Parks” program indicated: 78 percent of adults
attended with their own child/children, 74% of the participants described their household as
two adults with child/children, and 8% described their household as one adult with
child/children. We are reaching the families with “young children” target market However,
other demographic information collected indicates that most participants ﬁt the “typical” State
Park user description. For example, 94% of 1995 adult participants were white, an average of
40 years old, and had completed an average of 15 years of education. Additionally, 90% of
1995 participants had visited State Parks in the pm with an average of 20 years of visiting.
These results are consistent with the 1986 Michigan State Parks Study. This information has
causedtheprogram’s steeringcommitteetoquestion ifwearereachingnewclienteleforthe
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

The target markets for the 1996 “Fishing in the Parks” program are (all with little or no ﬁshing
experience): 1) southern lower Michigan families with young children, 2) southern lower
Michigan single parent, female heads of households and 3) Detroit, Lansing, and Flint urban
youth (youth are being deﬁned as less than 16 years of age). Very little demographic and
psychographic information exists in terms of each group’s ﬁshing involvement. In fact, the
absenceofthis infomlationjustiﬁestargetingthesegroupsfordlisouueachprogram

Families with young children living in southern lower Michigan:

0 Certainlythisprogramshouldbemarketedasaﬁm, familyactivity.

- Families with children are very diverse and consist of people ﬁom all socio-economic,
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.

o Potentially, the campaign may need to target families from different socio-economic,
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds using separate messages or techniques.

Southern lower Michigan single parent, female heads of households:
0 Women made up 45.6% of the 1993 civilian labor force.

0 In 1993, 27.9 million households were headed by women.

0 Women inﬂuence 73 - 85% of all consumer product purchases.

Urban youth living in Detroit, Lansing, and Flint Michigan:

0 The “Fishing in the Parks” program will be expanded in 1996 to include selected urban
parks and ﬁshing areas.

- Sixty-four percent of Americans live ill urban/metro areas consisting of 1.7% of US. land
area.

0 Fishing instruction can be easily implemented into existing urban parks and recreation
programs.

1 19
APPENDIX F

POSITION

Clearly, the program partners of MDNR Fisheries Division, MDNR State Parks Division,
Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC), and Michigan State University’s Department
ofFisheries and Wildlife and Extension are in a unique position to oﬁ‘er this introductory
ﬁshing Prosnm

CAMPAIGN MESSAGE

Thecampaign’smessageplatforrn is—“leamingtoﬁshisqualityfamilytimethatlastsa
lifetime!” This message can be manipulated to suit the selected target audiences. For example
families with young children may receive the message in this format—YOU + YOUR
CHILDREN + STATE PARKS + DNR FISHING INSTRUCTOR = A LIFETIME OF
FAMILY FUN; or QUALITY FAMILY FUN = YOU + YOUR CHILDREN + STATE
PARKS + DNR FISHING INSTRUCTOR.

Thereisno“special oﬁ'ef’otherthanfamilieswillhavetheopportunitytospend qualitytime
together and learn to ﬁsh for the cost of admission into the state park ($4.00/day). There are
many beneﬁts for participants: very low cost family ﬁln, learn a new skill, equipment provided
for participants to try ﬁshing, expert instructors available to help, ﬁ'ee worms, can attend as
many times as they like, and open to all who choose to participate! Special event packaging
will occur during the natural resource weekend programs. During these weekends the ﬁshing
prograrnswillbeonlyoneofthemanyactivitiesoﬁ‘eredattheselectedstateparla

MEDIA SELECTION

Because this campaign is being developed for a WNR outreach program, there is very little
money being allocated for the purchase of advertising time or space. Unfortunately, public
sector agencies believe they should not spend “tax payer” money on advertising since they have
been heavily criticized for advertising programs in the past. Therefore, the program will rely
heavily on public service announcements and news coverage for news paper, radio and TV.
Directmailwillbeusedtodistributeﬂyerstolocal schools withina30 mileradiusofthe
program locations, regional Boy and Girl Scout Councils, 4-H county oﬁces, and urban
churches. Direct mail will also be utilized to develop a volunteer database.

BUDGET
Communication campaign In-kind support MSU Graduate Assistant
Press releases and PSA’s In-kind support MDNR Media Specialists

School ﬂyer($0.03/ﬂyerx 5,000) $150.00

120
APPENDIX F

Distribution ofﬂyer (100 locations @ $4.00) $200.00

Volunteer direct mail (1,000 x $0.75) $750.00

Presentations In-kind support MDNR and MSU
Evaluation of campaign Included in MSU research grant
Campaign Total: $1,100.00

NOTE: This budget does NOT reﬂect the true cost of this campaign due to the in-kind support
of the MDNR and MSU. Additionally, if this campaign were to purchase advertising time and
space the budget would likely approach $100,000.

TIMELINE

December 1995 Finalize communication campaign and park selection

January 1996 Finalize PSA’s and program ﬂyer

February 1996 Distribute ﬂyers to selected park managers and staff, Direct mail to
potential volunteers

March 1996 Volunteer instructor training at MSU

April 1996 Follow-up with volunteers

May 1996 Distribute ﬂyers to schools, youth organizations, and churches
Issue press releases and prepare news stories.

June 10, 1996 Follow-up with media contacts about press release and program’s
ﬁrstdayfor useas anews item.
Follow-up with volunteers (MDNR instructors to call directly)

July - August Continue to issue press releases, invite media to Fishing in the

Parks, and write news stories about the program.
Continue to follow—up with media contacts.

August 18, 1996 Conclude program with thank you letters to all volunteers and
media contacts.

121
APPENDIX F

EVALUATION

Campaign objectiveswillbecomparedtotheresultsofthe 1995 and 1996 participant surveys.
Againin l996,attendeeswiﬂbeaskedhowtheyﬁrstheardabouttheprogramasweuasany
additionalwaystheyheard Programinstructorswillalsoregisterallattendeesateachclinicto
monitor participation and build a clientele database. The database will be used to evaluate the
“FishingintheParks”programbycomparingtheregisﬁantstothelicensedatabaseduringﬂre
nexttenyears.

REFERENCES

Connolly, M 1994. Cadillac’s targets: women and blacks. Automotive News. Feb. 28, 1994.
Pg. 8.

Fisheries Division, Michigan Dept of Natural Resources. 1994. Fisheries Division strategic
plan. MDNR, Lansing, MI.

Fridgen, J.D., E. Mahoney, C.M Nelson, and D. Holecek 1986. Michigan State Park study:
campers and day users. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Michigan Fishing Guide. MDNR,
Lansing, MI. 40 pp.

Rickard, L. 1995. Subaru, GMC top push to win over women. Automotive Marketing April
3, 1995. Pg S-14.

Unknown. 1993. Density is destiny. American Demographics. Feb. 1993.

Unknown. 1995. What do women want: Research ﬁrm tracts trends. Boston Globe. Jan. 18,
1995. Pg 42.

122
APPENDIX C

Introduction to Fishing

Rebeca Williams
1604 M-72 SE

Kalkaska, Ml 49646
Forestry Undergraduate, MSU and 4-H Volunteer

Best Time: Any time before teaching the Goin' Fishing Lesson.
Best Location: A quiet atmosphere outdoors or indoors with plalty of room to cast.
Time Required: 30 to 45 min.

Objectives:

Participating young people and adults will:

1. Learn the ﬁlndamentals ofsafe ﬁshing

2. Learntwoskillsneededforﬁshing: knottyingandcasting.
3. Have fun while learning

Roles for Teen and Junior Leaders:
1. Help instructor demonstrate knot tying and casting.
2. Assist participants with knot lying and with casting.

Potential Parental Involvement:
Help their own or other children with activities.

Equipment and materials“
Casting:
Irodandclosedfacespinningreelperpair”
1 casting plug per person. Store bought or a rubber eraser. Tie the line through a hole
made through the eraser.

Knot Tying:

Cotton rcpe, 1/2' inch in diameter and 30 inches long. One piece per two people.

1 washer or key ring per person

‘Thissessionwillgomoresmoothlyif: allrodsandreelsaresimilarandifrodsandreelsarein
good working order priortothislesson. Ifyouarenot able to providerodsandparticipants bring
theirown,youmightconsidergoingoversomebasicmaintenanceinfonnationasapartofthis
lesson.

“Instructions are only included for the closed face reels. This type of reel is easier for beginners
to use and recommended for this lesson.

123
APPENDIX G

Exhibit or Sharing Suggestions
Project for the fair
I. Group Dernonstrstion - describe the diﬁ‘erent types ofﬁshing and the diﬂ'erent equipment
usedwitheachtype. eg: ﬂyﬁshhlgiceﬁsllingetc.
2. Exhibits-Researchdiﬁ‘erenttypesoflmotsandshowpicturesofhowto tiethern. Have
actual tied knots at the eldubit.
3. Research the diﬂ‘erent equipment needed for the various types of ﬁshing. Photograph or
draw pictures ofeach type ofequiprnent.
For example:
A. Flyﬁshing:ﬁyrod,waders,creel,net,hat
B. Ice Fishing: rods, tip up, lures bait, bucket, hand-warmer.
C. Shore ﬁshing: rod/reel, bobbers, stringer, bucket, lures/worms/minnows.
E. mustratedtalks-Showﬁshingrodsmddiﬁ‘eremwaysthatthereelswodc

Community service
See the Goin’ ﬁshing lesson.

APPENDIX G

Presentation

Introduction:

The program basics:
1. knot tying
2. casting

1.1(nottying-palomar knot
1.1(notstrengthexperiment

2. The importance of a strong knot

3. Demonstrate the knot using the

rope and large washers, bolts or
key rings. Then let the youth try
it.

111. Basic parts ofa rod

1. Handle

Application

Tellthern: 'Thisisaverybasicprogram
aboutﬁshing Wearegoingtoteachyouall
thatyou needtoknowtostartﬁshingand
then get you ﬁshing as soon as possible.
Firstwewillstartwithlalottyingand
casting. Thenwewill move intotheGoin'
ﬁshing program and ﬁsh!“

Askoneoftheparticipantstotiealmotwith
ﬁsllinglineontoakeyringforyolaitisa
good idea to pick someonewhohasnot
ﬁshed before. Tie a palomar knot on the
otherside, spitonigandthenhaveatugof
war.

Discuss why one knot broke and why a
strong knot on ﬁshing line is important.
Mention that ifthe knots are not tied

properlytheymaylooseﬁsh, aswellas,
tackle

Use ﬁve steps:"

1. Thread line through hole.

2. Loop the thread through in same
direction, so it is doubled.

3. Tie a Simple overhand knot. (Like the
ﬁrst knot to tie shoes.)

4. Take loop end, put it over the end cf
hook

5. Tellthemthatiftheyareworkingwith
ﬁshing line they would spit on it which
helps to tighten the knot.

Pointouteachpartoftherodandreelasitis
mentioned and explain how each is used.

‘See lesson pictures provided in the end of
this lesson nan'ative.

1. Handle - a place to hold on.
Remember that you want to hold the rod
with the reel facing up, to the sky.

2. Closed face reel

3. Eyes or guides

4. Tip

III. Casting Demonstration
1. Look behind you

2. Baseball analogy or clock
analogy

125
APPENDIX G

2. Closedfacereel-Thumb
buttoerhichreleasestheﬁshingline
soitcancast. Cover-coverstheinside
ofthereel,containsallthemechanisms
whichallowittocast.

3. Eyes-guided'leﬁsllinglinetothetip.
Why are these important? (because
withoutthemthelinewould notcast
properly.)

4.Tip-thethinend,ualallyﬂertibletoplay
tlleﬁsltandsoyoucsnfeeltheﬁsh
better.

Ask: 'Howcsnyoubesafewhencssting‘r'
Ifnooneguessestheanswer,takearodand
turn around in a circle dangling the casting
plug above their heads. Besides not wanting
tohitpeopleitisnotﬁrntohookalarge
treeorbushthatisbehindyou.

Baseball:

Think ofhow to throw overhand: move your

arm back, aim, throw forward, and follow

through.

1. Pointyourfeetatthetargetandbring
the rod back over the shoulder, far
enoughsotherodisnotvertical.

2. Pushinthelinebuttonandhold it
down.

3. Bring the rod forward release the button
before the rod is pointing at the target

4. Follow through.

Clock:

Thinkofthehandsofaclockandhowthey

move.

1. Start by moving the rod back to 2:00,
behind the shoulder.

2. Push the button down and hold it down.

3. Move the rod quickly up to 10:00 and
release the button, allowing the rod to
keep moving even aﬁer you have let go.

126

APPENDIX G

3. Accuracy and aiming

4. Reeling ill, the positioning ofthe
rod tip.

5. Tie on the casting plugs with a
palomar knot. Remember to spit
on the knot.

IV. Casting practice:
1. Cast at large targets: hoola
hoops, or circles of string 1 yd.
in diameter
2. Close casting

3. Casting under objects

V1. Closure
1. Review
A. Knots
B. Parts of rod
C. LOOK BEHIND YOU!
D. Basics of casting

Aimandaccuracy improve with time. Ifthe
linecastsintothegroundthebuttonisbeing
released too late. Ifline ﬂies out without
controlthebuttonwasreleasedtooearly.

Trytorernernbertopointthetipoftherod
atthegroundasitisbeingreeledin. This
helps tosetthehook (whichisexplaind
later.) Ifthelinedoes not reelinwell, try
pinchingthelinewithyourﬁngersasyou
reel. Thisgivesthelinetensionasitenters
thereel.

NOTE: Before casting, make sure all
participants have “LOOK BEHIND YOU"
imprinted in their heads.

When the group ﬁrst starts have the target
20 to 30 yards away.
Asthegroupadvancesinskill movethe
target forward, 10 - 15 yards away and make
diamder smaller. For most youth, the closer
targetforcestherntobemoreaccurateand
to aim more careﬁllly.

Ifthe group would like some challenge set
upacastingcourse. Letthemtrycasting
under an object (a'tree or a 2 by 4, ﬁve feet
oﬁ’thegroundorcastingbetweentwoclose
objects. Use your imagination and have ﬁrn.

A closure may be used or the next lesson,
Goin’ Fishing, may be taught. Just review
whathashappenedinthelesson. Encourage
the participants to remember most of it.
A. Knots-“Who remembersthenameof
this knot?" Was it Pinto?

B. Rod-'Whatisthenameofthispsrt?"
C. “What is the most important part of
casting?“

(LOOK BEHIND YOU!)

D. “How do we cast?”

(Like a clock or throwing baseball...)

127
APPENDIX G

LessonNarrative

Knottying

Thereuespeddﬁshennalhlouwludlhdddlehookdmostasstronglyastheﬂne. Theseknots
areimportanttolmowbecausetheyhelppreventthelossofline,hooks,bobbers,andﬁle Basic
lolotstrengthcanbeshownwithasimpleexperiment. Tie,withﬁshingline,anoverhandlolot
andapalomarknot. Nexttrytugofwarandseewhichlmotwins.

Thepalomarknotcanbetaughtinﬁve simple steps. See the included diagram.

1. Threadthelinethroughtheholeonce.

2. Loopthethread throughintlresarnedirectiodsothelineisdoubledoverthroughthe
hole.(Thishasthesameeﬁ‘ectasfoldingthelineinhalfandstickingitthoughthehole.)

3. Treasimpleoverhandlmotjustliketheﬁrstknotyouusewhenyoutieyourshoes.

4. Takedlelooperldputitovertheendofthehook.

S. Spitontheknotandtightenit.Thesalivaallowstheﬁshinglinetoslidesmoothlyand
tighten ﬁrmly without weakening the line.

Getting to know the rod and reel
Thepartsofthcrodandreelareimportanttoknowinordertobetterunderstandthecast. The
tip of the rod is long and ﬂexible. This ﬂexibility help with casting and "playing' the ﬁsh. Guides
oreyesguidetheﬁshinglinealongtherod.

Casting Demonstration

Castingisanactivitywhereinjurymightoccurl Whencasting, thereisarazorsharphook
dangling at the end ofa line. To avoid setting a hook in a person always follow the golden
casting rule: LOOK BEHIND YOU.

Castingcanbetaught inﬁvodiﬁ‘erentways: thebaseball and the clock method. Whenabaseball
is thrown, the thrower needs to wind-up, toss, aim, and follow-though. When casting a spin
casting rod and reel: ‘

I. Wind-up by looking over your shoulder and then moving the rod back.

2. Push the button in, holding it tight. Toss with an easy movement of the elbow and forearm.

3. Aim by releasing the buttonjust beforeyou are pointing at the target and follow through by
keeping your rod moving after you have released the button.

For the clock method of casting, only two markers are needed: 10:00 and 2:00 o’clock.
1. Move your rod back-to 2:00.
2. Push the button down and hold it tight.
3. Move your rod forward up to 10:00 and release the button.
While reeling in the rod, the tip should be pointed down to make setting the hook easier.

Aim and accuracy come with practice. Alter the basic techniques are learned, the rest comes with
time, and practice makes perfect.

128
APPENDIX G

CastingPractice

Tobegin, itiseasiesttocastatlargetargetsﬁomadistance.StartwithtargetsapproximatelyS
metersﬁomthecastingline Asparticipantsimproveallowthemtomoveclosertothetargetsso
theycanimprovetheiraimandaccuracy.

AtthispointthelessoncanbesmoothlytiedinwiththeGoin'Fishinglessonoryoucanwrapup
theprogramandtalkaboutwhenyouwillbeﬁshingnext.

TroubleShooting

Spincastingreelstendtohaveseveralbasicproblems:

1. Occasiomﬂydwﬁslungﬁnedoesnothaveunughtalsionwhalitisbeingrededm This
problernissolvedbylightlypinching betweenthethumbandindexﬁngerinﬁontofthe
reel,whiletakingupexcessline. Thisactionusuallyprovidestensionwhichhelpsprevent
kinksinthelineandbirdsnests.(Abirdsnestcanbedeﬁnedasahugeknotoflineonyour
reel.)

2. Theﬁslungﬁnetendstobecomecauglnupunderthemedlanismsofthered. Simply
rernovethescrew-oncoverandtlletopboltanduntangletheline. Replaceeverything,
andthereelshouldcast.

3. Sandcansometimesgetintothereel. Takeapartthereel,asmentiorledaboveandrinse
wtdnmechuusms.1hatgreasetheinsideswdlwithredgreaseandreassanble.

129

APPENDIX 'G
Goin' Fishing
Rebecca Williams
1604 M-72 S.E.
Kalkaska, MI 49646
Undergraduate, Forestry, MSU
Objectives:

Participating young people and adults will:

1. Leamhowtorigtheirownrodandreel.

2. Bait their own book.

3. Know how to: set the hook, remove it ﬁom the ﬁshes’ mouth, properiy release the ﬁsh
and/or keep the ﬁsh and clean it.

4. Have ﬁln while learning.

Roles for Teen and Junior Leaders:
1. Assist with rigging the rod.

2 Help put bait on books.
3. Help locate a ﬁshing spot.
4 Untangle lines, ﬁx reels, and ﬁsh.

Potential Parental Involvement:
1. Assist youth

2. Assist leaders

3. Conduct ﬁsh fry

Best time: Fishing is ﬁrn any time, but cover the [Medan to Fishing lesson ﬁrst.
Seasonaﬂylatespringorearlysummer,whenpanﬁsharespawningisbest. Theyoﬁ‘erthenew
angler many opportunities to catch something, ice ﬁshing can also provide these same successes.

BestLocation: Aspotwithnumeroussmallﬁshthatbitereadilyisbetterthananareawithonly

few a, large, predator ﬁsh. Ponds, lake edges with plentiﬁll panﬁsh (bluegillS. sunﬁsh, perch);
rivers with good access sites (docks etc.).

Time required: As much as is needed to relax and enjoy the moment plan on spending at least
one and a half hours. Don’t force youth to ﬁsh ifthey lose interest - take a break and come back
to it.

Equipment and Material: Fishing rods, hooks, sinkers, bobbers, live and artiﬁcial bait.

130
APPENDIX G

Safety Considerations:

1. Sunglassesorsafetyglassesto protecttheeyeswhilecasting. Ahatwithﬁontbill(baseball
cap) and suntan lotion are also recommended.

2. Usecarewhenbaitingthehook. Youthsunderage7or8will needsupervisionaround
hooks. Itisanestcellentidestocrimpthehookbarbﬁatto makehookremoval ﬁomﬁsh
(and people) easier.

Extensions or ways of learning more

0 ﬁnd someone willing to be a mentor for young anglers.

- Take family and ﬁiends ﬁshing

0 Gotoabaitshopandlearnabmrtthediﬁ‘erenttypesoftackle,rodsandbait.

Community service
Go to a public park where people ﬁsh and spend time cleaning up the area.

Exhibits
Collect diﬁ’erent types of rigging and lures and make an exhibit explaining each type,‘how they are
used and their ﬁlnction.

Links to other programs

Peoplernustlearnhowto ﬁshbeforetheycsnﬁsh Onceyouleam toﬁshitissornethingwhich
can be used for the rest of your life. Fishing is a quiet time: to learn patience, enjoy the outdoors
and learn more about yourself.

Conduct the “Take Your Limit of Litter” Lesson
Conduct “The Fish Prints” Lesson

Presentation:

Introduction:

The program basics:
1. Catching the ﬁsh
2. Caring for the ﬁsh
3. Rigging
4. Baiting

ACatchingtheﬁsh
l.SelectingtlIesite
2.Holdingtherod
3. Settingthehook

C. Unhooking the ﬁsh
2. Handling
a. wetting your hands
3. Keeping
a lines
b. buckets

C. Fish Maintenance
1. Keeping the ﬁsh
a. lines
b. buckets

2. Taking the hook out

Application
Tell them: ”This program will teach you
how to catch ﬁsh, handle the ﬁsh, “rig“

131

APPENDIX G

(prepare) your ﬁshing line, and how to bait
your own hook.“

Eachparticipantwillwanttoselectaplace
toﬁshonthewater. Theywillwanttopay
attention to what their surroundings are, e.g.
treesbehindtherrtbushesattheirsides. The
placethattheyselectmayaﬁ‘ectthewaythey
cast - either sideways or over the shoulder
casting

Therodneedstobeangledslightlytoward
thewater. Thisallowsthehooktobeset,
andpreventsexcessslackintheline. Setthe
hookAﬁerthebobberbobsupanddown,
withaquickswiﬁjerkofthewrist. Thissets
thehookinsidetheﬁshesmoutluotheﬁshis
less likely to be lost.

Before handling a ﬁsh, wet hands. Explain:
Fish slime (the mucus on the outside of the
ﬁsh) is like the mucus in our nose. Mucus
protects us by catching germs and trapping
dust we breathe in through our nose and
mouth. In the same way, mucus protects the
ﬁsh and allows the ﬁsh to move more easily
through the water. Ifyour hands are wet
before handling the ﬁsh, less of the mucus
layer will be removed while the ﬁsh is
handled.

Aﬁertheﬁshiscaughtwhatwillbedone
with it? Will it be kept or released? Ifyou
arereleasingtheﬁshmakesurethatthc
participants understand the importance of
proper releasing.

The book unlally comes out with a little
coaxing and wiggling. Ifthe hook has been
swallowed the best option is to cut the line.

3. Bent vs. Barbed

D. Rigging

132
APPENDIX G

Teachriggingﬁomtheendofthelineback

toward the rod. Asyou explain rigging let

the participants guess what will go on the

ﬁshinglinenext. Explaineachpartasitis
1. Line putontheline.

FishinglineshouldbesmoothAnynicksor
tangles can cause line breakage and should
be removed. Visually inspect the lower 12
inches of line and run your ﬁngers along it.
iftherearekinksornicks, srnooththemout

2. Swivel (optional) or cut that portion of the line oﬂ‘.
Swivel- keeps turning so the line isn't
3. Hook tangled.
Hook-holdsthewonnson,bringstheﬁsh
4. Weight in.
S. Bobber Weight - helps the bait sink to the bottom.

Bobber - Keeps the bait from dragging on
thebottomandbobsupanddownifaﬁshis

on the line.
6. Participants rig
Each participant should have the necessary
7. Holding the rod tackle(listed above) to rig up a ﬁshing rod.
Wrap the ﬁshing line round the rod and
attachthehookonthemetalpartofthe
guide. If it is placed on the ceramic portion
ofthe guide it may chip the inside ofthe
guide. This can cause line to get caught in
the chips, weakening the line. '
E. Bait
Hooks can have the barbs bent back on 1. Live bait
them. Thebarbsthatareﬂattened makeit a leafworms
easier to get the ﬁsh off the hook. b. crawlers

This provides the best opportunity for the
ﬁsh to survive.

133

APPENDIX G

2. Artiﬁcial

& jigs
b. worms

F. Fishing

1. Remember to look
behind ﬁrst!

2. Take pictures

G.Theﬁshﬁ'y

1. Biology lesson in ﬁlleting

2. Eating and talking

H. Conclusion

Live bait can be bought or found almost
anywhere. Depending on the season leaf
worms and night crawlers are the best to
buy. Show them how to put the worm on
the hook.

Some children are squeamish about live bait.
Tellthernthatiftheypickupthewormyou
willputitorL Bytheendofthetimethey
should have forgotten their fear and started
to bait the hook.

Another trick is to let them practice with
gununy worms, they don't wiggle as much

Artiﬁcial lures can be helpful if the child will
not touch the live bait, but only use them ifa
youth will not participate otherwise.
Artiﬁcial bait is generally not as successful
for novice anglers.

Jigs are played across the bottom of the lake,
or plastic worms can be used instead oflive
worms.

Before sending participants of to ﬁsh remind
them to LOOK BEHIND BEFORE
CASTING!

Take pictures if you are not keeping the ﬁsh
they can be kept forever.

Ifthereareenoughﬁshcaughgtryaﬁshﬁy.

Ifthe participants are interested show them
how to ﬁllet a ﬁsh and point out the
different parts of the ﬁsh.

Gather the group together and have them
talkabouttheday—thehighpointsandthe
fun time ﬁshing, things that they learned,
things that they enjoyed. lfnot many ﬁsh
were caught discuss other elements of the
outing that were fun.

134
APPENDIX C '

Lesson Narrative

Now that the Introduction to Fishing Lesson has been taught the children are ready for the last
few preparations before ﬁshing.

Inorderto catchaﬁshasite mustbeselected. Shore ﬁshingisagood ﬁrsttimeertperiencefor
ﬁshingand therearetwotypes: shoreandpier. Bass, northernpike, sunﬁsh,andstreamtrout
are ﬁsh which live and hunt in cover, so they can be caught in weedy, loggy areas. Carp, catﬁsh,
suckers, perch, and walleye are bottom feeders. They can be caught near the shore where the
appropriate food source is found. Sometimes piers are available to ﬁsh from. These structures
are built of wood or stone and allow anglers to cast into deeper water then would be possible
from shore.

Fish Maintenance

Manyanglerspracticecatchandrelease. 'l'hisgivesthemachancetohavefunﬁshingwithout
impacting the ﬁsh population. Ifa ﬁsh is not released properly there the chances for the ﬁsh to
survive will be greatly decreased. -

Proper release of a ﬁsh can be simple ifthe hook is unbarbed and has not been swallowed. [fit is
possibletakethehookoutwhiletheﬁshisunderwater. Iftheﬁshmustberemoved ﬁ'omthe.
water, wet your hand before picking up the ﬁslt The ﬁshes slime is an important part of their
immune system. In humans, mucus prevents harmﬁrl germs ﬁ'om entering our noses and lungs.
Fishmucuskeepsharmﬁrlgermsfromattacldngtheﬁshesbody. Awethandcankeepthemucus
layerﬁ’ombeingwiped oﬂ‘and dried out.

Ifaﬁshswallowsahookanditcannotberemoved ﬁ'omtheﬁsh, cutthelineattadredtothe
hook and place the ﬁsh back into the water. These actions will give the ﬁsh the best opportunity
for survival.

To keep ﬁsh alive until you are readyito clean and cook them, place them in a bucket full ofwater
or keep them on a stringer through their mouth and/or gills.

Rigging

Aneasywaytorigistostartattheendoftherodandworkuptothetip. Theﬁrstpiecetogoon
theﬁshinglineistheswivel, ifitisavailable. ‘I‘hesnapswivelissimilartoatumingsafetypin.
Tie it on with a palomar knot. Next is the hook, usually a snelled hook,(one with a line attached
to it.) Open the snap swivel and put the hook on it. Place the split shot or weight above the
swivel. Ifyou are ﬁshing for small ﬁsh, like bluegills only one weight is needed to help the hook
sink to the bottom. Finally tlw bobber. There are several different ways to attach a bobber, but
usually wrapping it around both ends works well. When walking with the rod be eareﬁrl not to
hook anyone. Attach the hook to the metal part of one of the guides. This is because placing it
on the ceramic part may chip the inside which makes casting more difficult. Hold the rod
vertically when walking so no one will get poked with the tip.

135
APPENDIX G

Hooks can have the barbs easily bent back with a pair of pliers. This allows for easier hook
removal ﬁom the ﬁshes mouth and ﬁ'om clothes.

Bait
Tlmeuemanydiﬁ‘emutypesofﬁvebaitmdseveralmethodsofanadunent Twogoodtypes
forbeginnersareleafwonnsandnightcrawlers. Twoeasywaystohookthem:

l. Splittheworminhalvesorquartersandhookitnearbothendsleavingaﬂoop.”

2. Threadthewonnupthehooksothatitcoversthehookaikeputtingonasock).

ArﬁﬁddwonmworkdedthoughwmdinntheﬁshwontlﬁtthanOﬁamgiswhentheﬁsh
grabsthebait). Jigsareusedwithoutbobbersandare“bounced” alongthebottom. ‘I‘hehitsare
feltratherthenseen.

Fish ﬁlleting provides an excellent opportunity for identifying the different internal parts of the
ﬁsh, sent and external anatomy.

Fishing

Remindtheanglerstoalwayslookbehindthembeforecastingastheystarttoﬁsh. Iftheﬁshare
notbeingkepttoeat,bringacameraandtakepicturesoftheﬁshandtheyouth Bringﬁsh
identiﬁcationbooksandtrytodistinguishthediﬁ‘erentﬁshspeciescaughtbuttrytorenrrntheﬁsh
tothewaterassoonaspossible.

Fish Fry

Ifthechildrenareinterested allowthemto watchand help with ﬁsh ﬁlleting. Theycanseethe
diﬁ‘erent parts of the ﬁsh and their functions. While the children eat discuss the highlights of the
day.

5-8

15-20

1

136
APPENDIX G

Basic Tackle Box Supplies

Casting Plugs ( Just in case you want to practice casting)

Small to medium bobbers. Bobber: come in a variety of sizes and
shapes. Choose a few different ones to see what you like best.

Fishing Hooks(ﬁshing hooks come in a variety of sizes) Remember, the
smaller the hook the smaller the ﬁsh you will probably be ﬁshing for.
Size 6 is usually a good one for pan ﬁsh.

Package of snap swivels. Swivels come in handy for putting on lures. It
makes it much easier to switch your lures around.

Pair of needle nose pliers or hemostats. These tools come in real handy
your ﬁsh is not willing to give up the hook.

Pair of toe nail clippers, which are great for cutting line and saves on
dental work.

Stringer (if you plan on keeping your catch)

First aid kit. Always a good idea to have bandages, sunscreen, aspirin,
etc.... in case ofemergency.

Current Fishing Guide with the regulations for the year

You may add artiﬁcial bait and lures to your box as you go. Just be careﬁrl I have seen
men who can not stop buying lures once they start. They claim it is addicting.

Feel ﬂee to customize your tackle box everyone will want to add or delete certain items.
This list is just to give you an idea of what you will need.

Good Luck and Happy Fishingllll

137
APPENDIX B

PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR AND ADVENTURE RANGER FEEDBACK

1995 Fishing Instructor Feedback

Instructor feedback/program evaluation was conducted at an end-of-season meeting with
some of the steering committee members. The ﬁve Fishing in the Parks program
instructors were asked the questions listed below in bold, and then given several minutes
for each question to prepare a hand written response (this technique is known as “free
writing”). Finally, each question was discussed by those in attendance. The following is a
compilation of all written responses from the ﬁve staﬂ‘ members. The numbers in the
parentheses represent the number of times that particular response was given (e.g., a three
would indicate that three of the ﬁve staﬂ‘ members gave the same or a very similar
response to that particular question).

Which parks were the best and worst?
Best: Pontiac Lake; Maybury, Fort Custer, Tawas State Park (2) weekend.

Worst: Proud Lake ( 2); Muskegon; Yankee Springs; Lake Goebic (2) weekend.

What would you comment on regarding the Adventure Rangers?

Adventure Rangers should be trained to instruct the program (3).

Keep the training program at Kettenun Center with the Adventure Rangers.

Wished Adventure Rangers would have felt like this was part of their program week.
Adventure Rangers should have an active role in promoting the program.

They should be really good with children.

Some Adventure Rangers scheduled other programs that conﬂicted with the ﬁshing

programs (2).

Describe the “ideal park” for this type of program?
Helpful park staﬂ‘ that assist at the programs (5).

Good Fishing (5).

Near the campground (5).

Picnic tables and pavilion close by (3).

Park staﬂ‘ advertise the program (3).

Has an Adventure Ranger (3).

Near urban areas (3).

Bathroom facilities close by (2).

Good ﬁshing pier (2).

Family oriented (2).

Plenty of parking.

Volunteers who enjoy sharing ﬁshing knowledge with others.
Park staff informed about the program and why it is being done.

138
APPENDIX B

Good location to ﬁnd from the road.
Open area for practice casting.
No weeds.

Su'estions for getting volunteers involved.

Recnrit ﬁom sportsman clubs, Friends of the Park, and Park Staﬂ‘ (2).

Advertise for volunteers (2).

Start ﬁnding them early.

Visit clubs personally.

Schedule volunteers in advance.

Had a diﬁcult time recruiting volunteers and never knew if they would show up.
Oﬁ‘er incentives (ﬁ'ee State Parks passes, ﬁee ﬁshing licenses, ﬁshing lures. . .).
Recruit repeat participants as volunteers.

Find enough volunteers so they do not have to come every week, unless they want to.

What equipment did you use?

Fishing rods, tackle b0); ﬁsh identiﬁcation chart, clippers/hemostats, casting plugs,
training materials, rigging tackle (split shot, barbless hooks, bobbers), knot tying ropes and
eye bolts, and worm coolers.

What equipment did you need?
Smaller hooks, towel, hand outs for knots and ﬁsh habitat, ﬁrn casting targets, tiny rods
for smaller kids, pails, and an assortment of artiﬁcial lures to show and demonstrate use.

What training did you use?

Knot tying(4).

Fishing/casting (3).

Fish identiﬁcation (3)

Instructor Manual (2).

Taking ﬁsh oﬂ‘ the hook.

Hooked On Fishing Not On Drugs (HOFNOD) materials.
Lesson plans.

What training did you need?

More information (facts) about ﬁsh (2).

More about speciﬁc types of ﬁshing (bass, walleye, bullhead) (2).
More about lures (2).

Where to ﬁsh.

How to handle different types of ﬁsh.

More on aquatic ecology.

Projects Wet and Wild instead of HOFNOD.

139
APPENDIX B

1996 Adventure Ranger Feedback

Adventure Ranger feedback/program evaluation was conducted by sending each Ranger
and open-ended survey that asked the questions listed below in bold. The following is a
compilation of all written responses ﬁ'om all ten Adventure Rangers that taught the
program in 1996. The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of times that
particular response was given (e.g., a three would indicate that three of the ten Adventure
Rangers gave the same or a very similar response to that particular question).

How did you advertise this program?

Posters/ﬁyers in the park(9).

Weekly schedule of events(5).

Press releases/tip sheets (5).

Posters/ﬂyers m local bait shop, nature centers, conununity center, and library (3).
Personal campsite visits.

Brochure of park events.

Sandwich-boards at the gates.

Did you make any media contacts?

TV 13 in Grand Rapids morning news (Muskegon).

Monroe Evening News (Sterling).

Radio—WKZO, WKFR, and WBCK (Ft. Custer).

Kalamazoo Gazette and Battle Creek Enquirer (Ft. Custer).

Flint Journal, County Press, Good News Newsletter (Metamora).
Radio~WMPC, WKYO, WWGZ, and WMIC (Metamora).

Ionia Sentinel (Ionia).

Radio— WION (Ionia).

Brooklyn Newspaper, Clinton Newspaper, The Herald, The Exponent (Hayes).
Radio—WIKN (Hayes).

Ann Arbor News, Oakland Press, Brighton Argus, Livingston County Press (Island Lake).
Radio-93. 5 (Island Lake).

Local newspapers (2).
Live TV news cast.

What additional equipment would you request?
More poles (3).

More large hooks to teach knot tying (2).

More tackle provided (2).

More hooks (2).

Smaller hooks.

Stick bobbers.

140
APPENDIX B

Extra hemostats/clippers.
Pliers.

Towel.

Net.

Account at local bait shop.
Some advanced rods and reels.

What additional training would you like to have?

Fish ID and biology (parts) (3).

Fishing regulations (3).

How to keep the rods from tangling together (2).

How to repair equipment (2).

More about lures and other popular ways to ﬁsh.

Advanced ﬁshing skills to help repeats “grow-up with ﬁshing.”
General ﬁshing knowledge.

Other comments and suggestions.

Always have MSU assistants help out with the program (3).
Recruit more volunteers (3).

Evaluations/surveys too long (2).

Invite local groups to programs (seniors, scouts).

Have an additional instructor for busy parks like Yankee Springs.
Separate budget for worms, tackle, etc., it gets costly.

Had more fun than I thought.

Learned a lot about ﬁshing.

I enjoyed [teaching] the program much to my surprise.

Would like to have Tuesday nights free.

Adventure Rangers are not the people ideal as the main teacher—most of us know little
about ﬁshing.

The program was a real HIT!

I had a great time with this program.

This program was always well received.

Send park managers more information about the program.

Have the advanced lessons for repeat participants to the program.

APPENDIX I

Supplemental Data Analysis

141

oeundﬁaﬁumdozu—oaoS.

 

 

 

«8. m2 2 .N and as. God 2;. __e 2.. ages 389

m8. 5 no." 55 as ﬁne 3o as.» s om<
one. «2. :3 ans 5: see 2: ..eoeesoo mace Eco as c con :2
E». E o3 A38 3" 5.8 end _mﬁcm 52: Ba €835
3.. ace and 5.8 “3 A38 2." _mﬁou 52c cocoa as a? as :35
5. n2. 2 .o awe 3.~ awe 8a _3% .828 3 maﬁa :23 £35
«8. m: on c .3 2a 65 86. were a... cocoa 25
ea. c: 3.." Gd 8.: Ga was his so. Baa $5
«8. 8e 2 .n :5 Se 33 can .3 so. cocoa can
an. 8c 35 as a Rs 9.3 an.» sees as cocoa ....sc
«8. 5. 2a 3.: m3 3.: new as» m as s 88 as: s was... 8cm 2,2. score Eacz

asses assoc 22E

3a :85 :3 sue
a a... case. 82 32 8.3.: easesoa 3%an

 

 

.32 cc. 3.: s 3cm 2.. 5 Sign a sachet... ﬁasco 8&3 .2 as...

 

142

 

 

 

 

S m Enema»: Sumac: a 82

«we. _ hmd cm 3 «833.. naming:
Gauchos

_v _v $01.50 350

_v _v Hog—=2

_ o 5%.: gum—25‘

_ _ =32

N N 25%?—

n a coca

one. e we: 3 ca 82>)
3.2

m n 8 25¢

vac. _ new we hm vacuum
xom

: S 882— voﬁm no: 96:

35. ~ 8.... 3 co 2&3 v2.3 26:

on an 38>... mum—am 5:8 ..o 83.3 mg .8338 8: 95:

so. _ so on 2 secs meson see c 83...... mice cusses 25:
cases .038 3.2m

Lug—59.8 msvccqmua
o a... "a s .\.

32 32 838:3 Eggnog 0.»qu

 

cos c5 32 s 3.5 c5 ___ maﬁa s 3.23.... 58» ac comatose. 38 anz .2 oz:

 

143

.c: u m ”80.88 h a do.» u _ 82:5 n
45:35 u n .mcom u n coon u _ 0.655 _

 

 

 

2:. so a: 5.8 as $8 as 3823 25 Beam
«8. as. 2 .n 6.28 as an. 8 a: was... a coach: use cecoom
88v 3;. 8% so. 8 n3 5. 8 3." oaooc so: so:
”8. 8m 5: :98 e2 5.8 as access mine s: 3 use cocoa so?
:5. c3. 8a 328 as $8 .2 has 9.28 a? 8:330
«8. N3 8." §.8 a: 5.8 a: a... 53. 38.3
:2. we. a: 3.8 ”2 A88 n: 5.6 as: cc so 2 2.7.
c2. So as 5.8 «2 $8 a: has 9.2% 32. 8.53

a ”3 :85 8032. 8.938.. 05 809.85

83 as So 398 t .o A88 «3. was. cacao;

_8.v «3 84. A88 one A38 Se _mssc 86.53

3.8 So... 38:88
c a... 8:5. can 32 successes 8.33, assessed

 

 

.82 o5 as 5 9.5. us 5 gm 5 acacia 58» ..o act. Sconces .3 oz:

 

144

 

 

 

 

a a %seoeoooﬁoe 2c

8;. _ 86 o e £85 a... 2.. .98
a 2 3:28 so: an

«8. _ 2 .n on 5 .88 .330
a a .3 :38 3 scan. .8 an

at. _ a: R we 5... =28 2 Beaum—
mqﬁeoqmoa geek—won £88 85. 83380?

a u... “a a. 88 .x. 38 same 58» 3.. 8.35, uaacoecooo

 

.32 c5 32 a as.— os a was". s so niece noises siege sconce aeucsocxm .1 oz:

 

145

 

 

 

 

w 2 Erma.— .8505 338 no: 53

mm mm Samoa 8505 2.88 Emu:

89v N :3 an 8 Samoa 5598 333 a;

2 2 0208 .5 we a >3 8: 53

an 3. 0208 .5 we a >3 :38

m8. N v.: an 3 0303 .5 we a >3 EB

_ _v 53a mam—am cm 8: =5

2 3 5% 3.3 on :38

«E. N San an 3 Emma 9.2% cm ___3
”53.» mo 83:35 532988

$52.83. guano.—
.\. x.

a .2. ha 82 82 28535 55238.8 Ea? £3385

 

.82 as. 32 a scam 2: 5 55¢ a aﬁqswaa 58» «a 288.5 53238 .2 23.

 

146

 

 

ova. Sm .. .. .8... on... .8. s cm... .22.... o. 08.. 2. o. 3.58.... Eugen 3.2.8.8. _. 8:30
E. «a a... a... .V .3 am. .. «on 88%.. :88... 308...... ...... 05...... ..o 28:52....
8o. 8. .....N .53 ...... .8. c a... 8.3.5»... 3...». 9.2... _. ... .2835»... a 353%:
9.... MS 8.. .8. .v z ... .8... 8... ..2... .6... 22.3 308...... ...... 22...... 5:32....
3.... NR 8.. 6...... R... .3. c 8... 9...... .58... 3%.»... 83 o... .05.... .o. .. ...... 2.8...
5.. 3. N2 .8... 8+ 2. . c 3.. 9.2... ..o 38...... ...... .3... a .88
N8. 8. .... .8. c a... .8... on. 2...... .8... 38.... 5.3 3...... 8.5
...... 8m 8.. 6.... ...... E... 8... .5. . 2.3 so... .2 .. ...... 3......
.8. E n... G... 2.. an. s 9... 05...... .8... .32 3882...
2... .... .....N a. . .v 2.. 5. .v 3... .8832... was... 32. 32> o. 8.2. ......> 2.832..
«8. E a... c n. c a... a... c ... .m .32.. .838 .o 9...... 3.2.3 38:8...

«6050202.. maﬁa... .«o 00.309
.8. o... R. 21:2... .3... 3m .8...>.§. 3.38.8. .....o 2 33.58 was... ... 8.5.8....
on». E. «N... ...... a." G... S.“ 0...... ...... 8...... 9.5
3n. 3.. ...... 8.... ...... ...... 9... 3...? ...... 3...... 9.5
an. E. ... .o .3. S.” .. .... n3 .... ...... .2... ......
3m. 8. 8... .. .... n2 .2... S... has... .8. 3...... 9.5
...... a: 8... .85 03 .85 .3 28.. ... .8. ... 8.5 ..8. ... m5...... Sow ...... e830 .352
...... 8m 8... .8... ...... .35 8.. as. m .2... 2.. 055.. 9.8.... a 8.32.... ...... as»... 3.52

328...... 33.... 9.2....

2.... =8... .....aqs...
.. ...... 3.3... 8.... a... 83...... 2.8.8.8.... 2.0.5.8

 

 

.8... ...... .8. ... 9...... 2.. ... 3...»... ... 35......2 ......w .o 8.2.580 0.. 2......

 

147

.8386 bmcobmu m 8&6" v 1.33:" m oouwau N 8.3a %_waohml I _ 325» a
.888qu «can c 98 45:09:. 35%| I n €3.38. “23688 n v 45:88." n €8.59... ouoEI N €8.88. “meal I _ 20:3.

 

88 85A I: «a an
3 I2 53.3» 8 "a 68.3» 8 an £353 3 as 53.3.» 3 no

 

 

 

53.3» 8 um .2853 8 Iv 53.3» 3 In $3.2» 9 IN 53.3 8 u:
Sn. “3 who and 9% 3a.: ad was 282. 2:85 2288.. Boa
8o. 8m 28 $5 3.: 8.9 S .2 88388 8:833 .6 .26. 22E:
5. E :3 Ea q; 8.3 6:. 03
258303 cage—on
as. on 25 8e 82 3.3 $2 an: nstaqéaﬁusﬁa ”Em 23m 53203“ Bataa—
ec. can “on 2.3 2: A2: 5.: =3> .3. 33.. 33m 3232 8%: $30 8.232
:n. 5 z: 6.3 2: 9.3 ..8 3.3. 33m 56203 8%.: 283.. .3532
uman: Utah 085 53222
33V :88 32¢ :88
a ..3 3:5 82 Re 8%? 0288.... gig

 

$.55 3 23‘

 

148

 

 

 

o N 00.6.20 ....3 3.060 0.0E .0 m
. .v 00.6.20 00 3.060 0.0E .0 m
6.. 3. 006.20? 0.66.. N
o 2 006.20 0.. 3.060 N
o. .. 8.020.530...
2... m 2:. 6 v 00.6.20 00 .660
002000.000 6.020000...
no 3 0.0.02 60...... 60.. 023 0000E8 5.3 .0030... 0... 60600..<
m3. . 8.0 mm mm 0.0.02 602... .050 023 000080.. 5.3 0.030... 0... 606082..
..m am 00000.... 3022.2 0320.2 .0003 0 02... .00 65
N. ... . 00.0 9. N0 9.000... 00.2.... 5020.2 .803 a 60:
n. 2 80.02 60202 .00 602
.N2. . ..N... 3 B 0.0002 602.2 60...
no 60 00063236 3020.. >00 0. 300.02 .00 65
«an. . No.0 N 6 00602538 3020.. 0 0. 6030065
.0 .0 ......0 00...... 8.... 00...... 22. .2. 38.6 3.8....
.8. . 0. .0 .. .... ......0 05...... 8.... 00.0.... 22. 3.5.5 3.80...
an 00 0.00.6 3020... .050 ..0 002.06 «0220 3020... 60600.... .00 602
:0. . 0. ... .. o. 38>» 0.0.... .2... ... 8.2.0.. .30.... 05...... 3.83.
gauge... 23...... 0.2....
05288. 9.288.
.. ...... .... .x 08. x no... .8369 805068.... 0.6.6080

 

.08. ...... a... ... 0...... o... ... 00...... ... 3500...... 2...... .o 8.058.. ...... 3.82 .... 0......

 

149

 

 

0. A 00 .050 ...... 0.0.0 .000...V s. 0820.00 .00 0.0
000. . 00.0 00 00 .052. U...... 0.0.0 .352 00 080.20..
... 0. .0...0 ...... 20.0 0.00. 00.0.0.0.. .2. 0.0
000. . 00.0 00 00 0.0.2. ...... 0.0.0 0.000 0 00.20.00
0. o. 02.0.. 0.05 0320.3. .0...0 60...... .00 30..
0.0. . 00.. ..0 00 0...... 0.0.0 0.00.0... .0...0 00....> 0>0...
0. 00 U...... 20.0 50.50,. 00... 0. ...... E0 .2. a...
00... . 00.0 00 .0 ...0. 0.0.0 50.00.... 00... 0. ......> .0...
no cm 0.030... 02. 608.0 0. ...—000.0000 2.0.. 0.8m 02. ..0... .00 6.9
000. . .....0 00 .... 0.0.00... 0.... 600.... 0. 2.80.00... ...0. 0.0.0 0.... 62.03
300.. ...00. 0.5m 0320.2
.mN. . 0.... v 0 .0...0
000. . 00.0 0 0. ..0... .2005
000. . 00.0 . .v 0.0.0.. 00080.
0N0. . 3.0 w. a. 6.20 .0...0
Sm. . 3.0 0 0 6.206003
2.... . .....o 00 an 6.20 030
000. . 3.0 00 00 302..
00... . 00.0 0 0 2.0.0
0...: 5.00.0 2.. 0000......
00.00008. $008.
0 ...... L... ...000. .\. 000. 9.0.0.; 2.0800300 20.00080

 

 

......08. 0-. 0......

 

150

 

 

 

c o .650

_v _v 33:52

a o 5:5 50.55.

o _v .32

N _ 2535

N m x85

«3. m 2.: a a 323
82

m o 3303;59erer

3 3 3:32

am. _ «S a a 295
was” 3.58 .850

3 R 2.2

m8. _ 5. an 9 view
5m

on on $35 9.5.. “Em 03m :55 miss .8 2»?

_8.v _ 83 S 3 as 2.: maﬁa is 33 £5 5 wages an?
@253 as; is 23m 3205

96:38.. [us—Eon»?—

q .2. “a .x. 82 .x. 32 8.2.2, 815383 gang

 

APESV E as:

 

151

 

2.330.. clawing 82

 

 

 

h o

o _ w. 2 3% ma 3 2823.. 53232

a 3 68.8 5583» 8.3 Sega mo 3383 .3595

a a 382. 25.8 9 83V :39 =25

: S 382. 8352.3»: 58-32

«8. m “2. E : $.38
”E 033. $55 88 .«o 09¢.

Nam—Eon»?— ”5:38..

a «6 “N .x. 03— .\. 33 .83.“? gauge 033589

 

$.83 E 0.3.

 

152

8338 88> u m ...... 6338 u v .353: u n 60.838va u N €09.83... b2, u _ 825» a
.anooxoumvcu .voombguvﬁoomu ncauu...ooqu _ 9.2.3.

 

 

 

3... ...m S... 6...... 8.... a... on... 88.8.. 2.... 88......
«a... 8.. «a... .3... a... an. .8 on... 8.5.... ... 8.88.... 0...... 288..
m3. ..8. on... 8.... .3. 3. .8 8... 0.8.... 3.... 8...
...... .... R... as... S... .8... 8... 88.... ....a .83
an... a: a... .. .... S... cm... 3... .....8. ....a .8...
an. ...m 8... an... 9.... .38 an... .888... ma...... 8.. ... ...... 88.. .83
S... ..m 8... an... ...”... .8... 8.... 2...... 8...... 88.. ...m
E. 8... on... an: «a... an... ... .v ...... 3...... .858.
3... 8n an... an. .8 a... .2. .8 8... .5... ...... 8 ...... ... ......
«a. can 3... .3. .8 8.... an. .8 N3 ...... 8...... 3.... 8.8..

.88... 88888
...... 5 8a .88 ...... 5.8 a... 582.. n...... 8.8... .89...
3... an a..." 5.8 an... E8 on... 88:85.... £5...
8... a: 2.. .28 S... 5.8 3.... 8°83... .... £2...
.8. .3. m: .38 S... .88 S... 888...... 2...... 8......8
an... ”a 8.. 3.8 .. ... 5.8 3... .888... 0...... 8....
«8. 8m 3.. .....8 .N... .38 8.». 88... 89...... 2...... 088......
a... ... m .2 .38 8.. .88 .....n .188... 582...»... ... 8....38 a .88.... .88....

..3580? .539... 05 Mo was;

3.3 :8... 3.3 :8...
.. ...... 8.9.... 8... 8... 888...... 8.. 8.8.8.. 0.58.8.5

 

 

.8... ...... m8. ... 3...... 2.. ... 82...... ... 388...... 8.... ... 82.. 888...; .... 2......

 

153

 

 

 

 

8 8 .88.. ...... o... ..8. 8.. ...n.

8... . ... ... v v .88.. .... 0.. ......
on an ...... ......8 .8 ...a

...... . ... ... ... 8 .... .880
3. we __3 :88 3 .898 .2. 2D

2... . 8... N. N. .... .....8 ... 8.89...
Jaw—2.0%.... mﬁvcoamo. ......3

.. .... La .\. 8... .\. a... ...... 888...... 8...... .38.... 8.8.8.. 0.8.8.5

 

.8... ...... a... ... n...... .... ... 8...... .. ...... 8.8.8 3:88.... 3888...... ...... ... 888...... ..-. ......

 

154

 

 

 

m c 32002...

n. 2 .530... .052... 2.3.0 o. .2. 2.0....

..n Nm 80.50.... .052... 2.0.... ...EE

oN N .530... .052... 2.0.... >330... o. 2.0....

«v... .. ...... 2 ...N 53.... 85...... ..8... ... ..8....

N N 32002...

c. ... 2.05%.? was»... 08:03.. .9. 2.0.5

N a. 2.08%.? main... 08:03.. .52.

wN cm .5823? mama... 320...... >339... o. 2.0....

a... v 3N .m ..m .8880? was... 822.... 2.850.. a. 2.0....

N N 802002...

e m =2? 9.2.... on .9. 2.0....

a. ... .8... 8...... on 2......

NN a. 5%.. wﬁﬁu cm 333...... o. 2.0....

nu... V vs. an G 509. aging on b02582. 0. 2.0....
.322. ..o 82.5.... 8032...»...—

uﬁvcoqmo. ﬁcﬁcaao.
..\.. ..\..

.. ...... ... .8. .8. 888.... 882.....88. 3.88.. 2.28.85

 

 

.8... ...... a... ... 3...... 0.. ... 8...... ... 3888...... ...... .... 88.5.... 5.8.8.8.. ....-. ......