354 research outputs found
Advancing AVID Tutoring: Blended Professional Learning for College Tutor/Mentors in AVID
No full textabstract: In an effort to better prepare K-12 students for college and career readiness, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) has created a college and career readiness system that is implemented in schools across the United States and in many international locations. Part of this system of schoolwide transformation, is the AVID Elective class, designed for students in the academic-middle. In the AVID Elective, students are supported in their efforts to attend four-year universities. A critical aspect of the AVID Elective class is the weekly implementation of AVID Tutorials, ideally led by trained college tutor/mentors.
The purpose of this action research study is to investigate support structures of AVID Tutors beyond the current tutor training system, in order to see how additional methods can contribute to continual improvement of the tutor training system. Findings from this study indicate that expanding current tutor-training practice to include a blended-learning, on-the-job model, might be beneficial for AVID Tutors and AVID Students.
Through a mixed methods action research study, both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were employed to help understand the effect of additional tutor training supports. Interviews, tutor assignments, observations of tutorials, and pre- and post-tests provide the bulk of the data studied. Further, this study could provide critical information for key AVID stakeholders who seek to offer training to tutors in AVID.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Educational Leadership and Policy Studies 201
Becoming a reader: Significant social influences on avid book readers
No full textUnderstanding how social influences can foster avid book reader identification is a key research goal that warrants further investigation beyond a limited early -years lens. The author’s 2015 International Study of Avid Book Readers (ISABR) explored, as one of its key research questions, the influence positive social agents can have on avid book readers, relying on the retrospective reflections of respondents from a range of countries and supporting quantitative data to explore this research focus. Early influences were examined, with data suggesting that maternal instruction is the most prevalent source of early reading teaching. Most respondents (64.3 percent) were the recipients of positive influence from a social agent. Indirect avid reader influence, author influence, fostering access, shared social habit, reading for approval, recommendations and supporting choice, and exposure to reading aloud were recurring mechanisms of influence. The multiple mechanisms of influence identified constitute opportunities for engagement and subsequent intervention by literacy advocates, including librarian
An analysis of the efficacy of the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) intervention program
No full textPROBLEM: This study investigated the effectiveness of the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) at Fairview High School. AVID’s mission is to close the achievement gap by preparing students for college readiness. The achievement gap is a phenomenon observed generally across American schools, and specifically at Fairview High School. The study answered the research question: What effect does participation in AVID at Fairview High School have on selected student performance indicators after at least one year of enrollment in the AVID elective class? METHOD: The study used a quasi-experimental design with a sample of 67 students who experienced AVID for at least one academic year and 69 students who did not. When comparing the two groups analyses controlled for student grade point averages prior to entry into the AVID program, prior standardized test performance, ethnicity, gender, and free or reduced lunch status. Regression analysis was used to estimate AVID’s impact on indicators of college readiness including the strength of student schedules, student grade point average (GPA), standardized test performance in Math and Language Arts, PSAT participation, PSAT scores, and attendance. FINDINGS: AVID’s estimated impact was statistically significant on 4 of 13 outcome measures. There was a statistically significant direct relationship between participation in AVID and the strength of a student’s schedule, student performance on the grade 11 Language Arts section of the HSPA, and participation in the PSAT. There was a statistically significant inverse relationship between participation in AVID and GPA. SIGNIFICANCE: The significance of the study is that it provides information to the Fairview High School site team on the extent to which the investment in the AVID program is producing its intended effects. The findings imply that certain aspects of AVID’s implementation are contributing to positive measured effects. However, the findings also demonstrate one negative effect and multiple outcomes without any measurable effect. The site team at Fairview High School will be able to use the results of this study to assess AVID’s impact as well as to determine areas of future study regarding AVID’s implementation and effects at Fairview High School.Ed. D.Includes bibliographical referencesby David A. Bleakle
A. Edward Newton, Author 2
No full textA. Edward Newton was an American author, publisher, and avid book collector. He was born in 1864 and passed away in 1940. (circa 1920s)https://digitalcommons.jsu.edu/lib-ac-histimg/1802/thumbnail.jp
A. Edward Newton, Author 1
No full textA. Edward Newton was an American author, publisher, and avid book collector. He was born in 1864 and passed away in 1940. (circa 1920s)https://digitalcommons.jsu.edu/lib-ac-histimg/1801/thumbnail.jp
A teacher's guide in using avid strategies in the sixth grade language arts classroom
No full textStatement of ProblemAchievement Via Individual Determination's (AVID) mission is to ensure all students, especially those in the middle, succeed. Those in the middle are typically the least served by our schools. They do not have Individualized Education Plans (IEP), 504 plans, Student Success Team (SST) plans, modified grades, or Gifted And Talented Education (GATE) plans. AVID's mission is that these students will succeed in rigorous curriculum, complete the college preparatory path, participate in extracurricular activities, enroll in a four-year college, and finally become educated and responsible participants of a democratic society. The problem is that AVID is its own curriculum as an elective class. Teachers are trained how to use its strategies in their own curricular area, but not how to apply it specifically to each grade level or curricular unit of study. If the program as a whole is so clearly effective then why limit the AVID strategies to just the elective classroom? Why not implement the strategies into other curriculums as well?Sources of DataThe research information contained in this project was obtained from methodology textbooks and a thorough search of the professional journals. The author first researched the AVID program and learned that effective teaching strategies will help close the Achievement Gap. That led to further research on research-based, effective teaching strategies and the Achievement Gap. Some ideas were obtained from other educators, professionals in education, and from the author's experience.Conclusions ReachedThe research indicates that the Achievement Gap is growing. Educators must do something about it or else we will fail our students. Research-based effective teaching strategies along with the AVID curriculum will help in closing the gap. These strategies will empower students to become active participants in their own learning process. The ideas in this handbook will give teacher s the strategies to engage all students in addition to well-prepared lessons and activities
Explaining the Pragnanz of the Application of the Principles of Visual Perception of the Gestalt Theory in the Re-Reading Historical Houses of Yazd in the Qajar Period
No full textGestalt theory is one of the most influential theories in art and architecture, which focuses the process of visual perception on a unified view and integrity of the art work. Due to the alignment of the goal of visual communication and lasting effectiveness on the mind, the application of these principles is essential in architectural design. On the other hand, the traditional houses of Yazd during the Qajar period are considered to be among the most lasting architectural works of Iran, which apparently have no purpose other than lasting effectiveness in mind. In this regard, with the aim of studying the characteristics and visual perception, how to apply the laws of Gestalt visual perception in the historical houses of Yazd, to discover the quality of the impact of the laws of Gestalt visual perception on the houses and their capabilities in creating useful communication, as well as to investigate the significance of each principle of Gestalt. In order to analyze case samples, the descriptive-analytical method of Gestalt laws was used. The research method is a theory test based on 10 examples of traditional houses in Yazd during the Qajar period, which are among the most important houses, including the Golshan house, the Lari houses (Gholamohsin), the Lari houses (Ahmed), Mortaz, Rasoulian, Heiran, Farhangi and Mozafari, Ulumi houses, and Sigari Akhavan. Based on the prevalence of Gestalt principles, this research examines the role of visual perception features in the historical houses of Yazd with principles of similarity, proximity, symmetry, form and context, continuity, dependence, surface, overlapping, restoration, closure and experience, as re-reading the historical houses architecture of Yazd in the Qajar period according to the Gestalt theory of visual perception
Reconstructing Faulkner: Project Digitizes Author\u27s Personal Library
No full textThe Department of Archives and Special Collections in the University of Mississippi Libraries is partnering with Rowan Oak to re-create Faulkner\u27s extensive collection of books, encyclopedias and novels on a digital platform. The effort will make the noted author\u27s inspiration available to researchers and avid readers alike
Jeff Rasley; Trekker, Author
No full textJeff, the author of Bringing Progress To Paradise, is a graduate of the University of Chicago 1975, A.B. magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, All-Academic All-State Football Team and letter winner in swimming and football; Indiana University School of Law 1979, J.D. cum laude, Moot Court and Indiana Law Review; Christian Theological Seminary 1988, M.Div. magna cum laude, co-valedictorian and Faculty Award Scholar. Rasley was admitted to the Indiana and U.S. District Court Bars in 1979 and later to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. He practiced law in Indianapolis for thirty years. Rasley is currently partner in Knowledge Capture Publishing and editing, president of the Basa Village Foundation USA Inc. and U.S. liaison for the Nepal-based Himalayan expedition company, Adventure GeoTreks, Ltd. He teaches classes for IUPUI Continuing Ed. Program and Indiana Writers Center. He is an avid outdoorsman and recreational athlete. He leads trekking-mountaineering expeditions in Nepal and has solo-kayaked around several Pacific island groups. Rasley also loves to read and considers completing Marcel Proust’s 3600 page Remembrance of Things Past as one of his most enjoyable accomplishments. Rasley is married to Alicia, who is a multi-published author, RITA Award winner, and University professor
Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-5
No full textnat_survey2001_trends.pdfFishing and Hunting
1991-2001: Avid, Casual,
and Intermediate
Participation Trends
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fishing and Hunting
1991-2001: Avid, Casual,
and Intermediate
Participation Trends
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-5
July 2004
Richard Aiken
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Arlington VA
This report complements the National and State reports from the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions
are the author’s and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The author wishes to thank Sylvia Cabrera and Genevieve Pullis La Rouche for their
valuable input into the analysis.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part One – National Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Trends in Avid Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Avid Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Avid Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Trends in Intermediate Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intermediate Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intermediate Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trends in Casual Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Casual Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Casual Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Comparison of Avids, Intermediates, and Casual Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Part Two – State Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Number of In-State Anglers and Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Number of Fishing and Hunting Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Trends in State Fishing and Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fishing Trip-Related and Total Expenditures by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Hunting Trip-Related and Total Expenditures by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix I – FHWAR Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix II – Sources of Comparable 1955-2001 Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Contents
Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends 3
Long-term trends of fishing and hunting
in the United States interest different
people for different reasons. State fish
and game agencies want to know the
number and demographics of their
constituents, with an eye toward knowing
what to expect in the future from
them. Also, managers of fish and game
populations want to know not only how
many people are participating but also
how often, since a drop-off (or increase)
in the numbers of participants may not
mean a decrease (or increase) of the
pressure on the resource if the hunters
and anglers that remain increase (or
decrease) their days afield. Marketers
want to know the state of the industry
and where to put their efforts. Academics
want to better understand the culture of
hunting and angling. The ordinary hunter
and angler wants to know how the culture
that gives him or her so much enjoyment
is evolving.
Americans’ participation in angling
and hunting in 1991, 1996, and
2001 is the focus of this analysis. In
addition to changes in the number
of participants and their days afield,
avid, intermediate, and casual hunters
and anglers are defined and analyzed.
Trends in overall fishing and hunting
can be better understood by examining
important subgroups. Trends in days of
participation and expenditures at the
state level are presented also. The source
of the information is the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s 1991, 1996, and 2001
National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(FHWAR).1 See Appendix I for details of
the FHWAR Survey methodology.
Long Term Context of Trends
Figure 1 shows the trends in the number
of all Americans, anglers, and hunters
since 1955, the year of the first FHWAR
survey. Indices of change are used, in
which the 1955 estimates are set to 100
and the succeeding years’ estimates are
presented as the percent change. This
makes it easier to compare the changes of
the three groups.
Participation in fishing grew from 1955
to 1990, both in absolute numbers and
relative to the underlying trend of the
U.S. population. Since 1990 there has been
a downturn in the number of anglers.
Participation in hunting grew until
1975 at a rate slightly greater than U.S.
population growth. Since 1975 hunting
has undergone a gradual decline.
Introduction
Figure 1. 1955-2001 Trend
Note: Due to methodological changes over the 46 years of this survey, assumptions and approximations
were made to make the results comparable. See Appendix II for the assumptions.
�� ��
1 These Surveys covered activity by
Americans 16 years old and older
participating in the U.S. It is important to
note that the FHWAR Surveys measure
the activity of every fifth year only. The
intervening years’ activity is not included.
Those hunters and anglers who participated
in the intervening years but not the surveyed
years are not part of this analysis.
4 Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends
Highlights
From 1991 to 2001 the number of
Americans who hunted and/or fished in
the U.S. decreased 5 percent, with the
number of anglers decreasing 4 percent
and the number of hunters decreasing 7
percent. The drops for both fishing and
hunting occurred primarily during the
second half of the 1990’s.
Fishing
The number of anglers was stable
from 1991 to 1996 (the 1% drop is not
statistically significant at the 90% level2),
then fell 3 percent from 1996 to 2001.
Freshwater fishing fell 8% from 1991
to 2001, while saltwater fishing held
roughly constant (the 2% increase is
not statistically significant). Breaking
the freshwater trend number into its
coldwater and warmwater components,
coldwater fishing participation fell 12%,
led by the 15% drop in trout fishing.
Similarly, warmwater fishing dropped
13%, largely due to the 17% decline in
black bass fishing.
While there was a decline in the number
of anglers, their days on the water
increased. The average days of fishing
increased from 14 days in 1991 to 16
days in 2001, and fishing days for both
freshwater and saltwater increased
significantly. This raises the question of
how the increase in days is distributed.
Did all anglers increase their angling
days, or did an avid core of anglers
increase their high level of participation?
We will return to this subject later in
this report.
Part One – National Trends
Table 1. Sportsperson Participation 1991-2001
(Numbers in thousands)
1991
Number
1996
Number
1991-1996
Percent
Change
2001
Number
1996-2001
Percent
Change
1991-2001
Percent
Change
Sportspersons 39,979 39,694 -1 37,805 -5 -5
Anglers 35,578 35,246 -1 34,070 -3 -4
Hunters 14,063 13,975 -1 13,034 -7 -7
Table 2. National Fishing Participation Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
1991
Number
1996
Number
1991-1996
Percent
Change
2001
Number
1996-2001
Percent
Change
1991-2001
Percent
Change
Fishing, total 35,578 35,246 -1 34,070 -3 -4
Freshwater 31,041 29,734 -4 28,439 -4 -8
Coldwater 10,158 9,994 -2 8,989 -10 -12
Trout 9,497 9,290 -2 8,118 -13 -15
Warmwater 23,971 22,030 -8 20,882 -5 -13
Black Bass 13,139 12,972 -1 10,956 -16 -17
Saltwater 8,885 9,438 6 9,051 -4 2
Table 3. National Fishing Days Participation Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
1991
Number
1996
Number
1991-1996
Percent
Change
2001
Number
1996-2001
Percent
Change
1991-2001
Percent
Change
Fishing Days, total 511,329 625,893 22 557,394 -11 9
Freshwater 439,536 515,115 17 466,984 -9 6
Trout 86,626 97,978 13 89,285 -9 3
Black Bass 162,595 196,385 21 166,202 -15 2
2 All statistical significance tests will be at Saltwater 74,696 103,034 38 90,838 -12 22
the 90% level. Statistical significance at the
90% level means that for 90% of all possible
samples, the estimate for one survey year
cannot be shown to be different from the
estimate for the other survey year.
Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends 5
Hunting
The number of Americans who hunted
was roughly level from 1991 to 1996
(the 1 percent drop is not statistically
significant) and fell 7 percent from
1996 to 2001. From 1991 to 2001 small
game and other animal (fox, raccoon,
groundhog, and other nongame) hunting
participation dropped by over a quarter
(29% for small game, 26% for other
animals), while big game and migratory
bird hunting participation has not
dropped significantly (the +/-2% changes
are not statistically significant).
As for the hunting of individual species,
deer hunting was the single most
popular hunting activity. It held steady
at 10.3 million hunters in both 1991
and 2001. From 1991 to 2001 turkey
hunters increased 46% and duck hunters
increased 37%. Elk hunters increased
33%. Goose hunters increased 13% over
the same time period. Species hunting
that declined from 1991 to 2001 include
dove hunting which decreased by 22%,
pheasant hunting by 25%, squirrel
hunting by 41%, and rabbit hunting
by 47%.
The disparity in participation trends
between big game and migratory bird
hunters and small game and other animal
hunters is also seen in days afield. Big
game and migratory bird hunting days
increased significantly from 1991 to 2001
(19% for big game, 32% for migratory
birds). Small game hunting days
decreased 22%. Overall, the increasing
days hunting group (big game, migratory
bird) compensated for the decreasing
days group (small game, other animals) in
the total hunting days trend (the 3% drop
is not statistically significant). Hunters as
a whole hunted more days per capita over
time. In 1991 the average hunter went
out 17 days and in 2001 it was 18 days.
The same question arises as for fishing.
Did all hunters increase their hunting
days, or did a particular subgroup
increase their participation? We will
return to this subject later in this report.
Trends in Avid Fishing and Hunting
There are several ways of defining
avidity, e.g., days afield, dollars spent,
variety of animals sought, years spent
hunting and fishing. Each has its pros and
cons. After examining each, days afield
was chosen. People can spend money
on equipment without participating in
hunting or fishing, a person can be an
avid deer hunter and not hunt any other
game, a young person can be avid without
a long history of hunting or fishing
behind him/her. But participating in an
Table 4. National Hunting Participation Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
1991
Number
1996
Number
1991-1996
Percent
Change
2001
Number
1996-2001
Percent
Change
1991-2001
Percent
Change
Hunting, total 14,063 13,975 -1 13,034 -7 -7
Big Game 10,745 11,288 5 10,911 -3 2
Deer 10,277 10,722 4 10,272 -4 (Z)
Elk 682 959 41 910 -5 33
Turkey 1,720 2,189 27 2,504 14 46
Small Game 7,642 6,945 -9 5,434 -22 -29
Rabbit 3,980 3,146 -21 2,099 -33 -47
Squirrel 3,569 3,207 -10 2,119 -34 -41
Pheasant 2,285 2,261 -1 1,723 -24 -25
Migratory Bird 3,009 3,073 2 2,956 -4 -2
Duck 1,164 1,596 37 1,589 (Z) 37
Geese 882 915 4 1,000 9 13
Dove 1,851 1,581 -15 1,450 -8 -22
Other Animals 1,411 1,521 8 1047 -31 -26
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
Table 5. National Hunting Days Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
1991
Number
1996
Number
1991-1996
Percent
Change
2001
Number
1996-2001
Percent
Change
1991-2001
Percent
Change
Hunting Days, total 235,806 256,676 9 228,368 -11 -3
Big Game 128,411 153,784 20 153,191 (Z) 19
Deer 112,853 131,345 16 133,457 2 18
Elk 5,048 7,174 42 6,402 -11 27
Turkey 13,483 18,532 37 23,165 25 72
Small Game 77,132 75,117 -3 60142 -20 -22
Rabbit 35,624 28,873 -19 22,768 -21 -36
Squirrel 29,602 25,401 -14 22,333 -12 -25
Pheasant 16,136 17,336 7 12,769 -26 -21
Migratory Bird 22,235 26,501 19 29310 11 32
Duck 8,800 13,800 57 18,290 33 108
Geese 6,584 8,451 28 10,508 24 60
Dove 9,480 8,141 -14 9,041 11 -5
Other Animals 19,340 24,522 27 19207 -22 -1
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
6 Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends
activity many times in a year requires
commitment, which is a criterion of
avidity.
See Figure 2 for a bar chart of the
distribution of hunting days in 2001.
736,000 people hunted one day, increasing
to 936,000 people hunting two days.
It drops off then, with the number of
people hunting at each increment of
days decreasing rapidly (with spikes at
the numbers of days that respondents
typically round to, such as 10, 20, and 25)
to about 100 days, more than which only
153,000 people hunted.
Figure 3 is a bar chart of how many days
were contributed by hunters in 2001,
in order of how many days each person
hunted. This is an important perspective
because if the determination of the most
influential hunting group is those who
hunted the most days, that information
cannot be obtained from Figure 2, in
which the hunters who hunted 2 days is
the single biggest group. But as can be
seen in Figure 3, they contributed a very
low number of total days, while hunters
who hunted 30 days in 2001 had by far the
most days afield. Here is a more detailed
example: 878,000 Americans hunted 10
days (see Figure 2), so they accounted
for 8,780,000 hunting days (see Figure
3). The 736,000 people who hunted one
day accounted for only 736,000 days,
compared to the 33,000 people (4% of the
people who hunted one day) who hunted
100 days accounting for 3.3 million
hunting days (nearly five times the total
days of people who hunted one day). The
sum of days increases from 736,000 days
by one-day hunters to 11.8 million days
by people who hunted 30 days. The sum
of days trend then falls steadily to the
6,000 hunters who hunted 150 days (who
alone account for 873,000 days!), after
which the line bumps along the x-axis.
Examination of Figures 2 and 3
demonstrates that the top 10% of hunters
in 2001, who hunted 41 days or more,
can be considered avid,3 and the number
of hunters who hunt one or two days,
13% of total hunters, can be considered
casual. Examination of the data from the
1991 and 1996 Surveys finds the same
percentage of hunters can be defined to
be avid, 10%, and 11% in 1996 and 16%
in 1991 of hunters qualify as casual, i.e.,
hunt one or two days. The top 10% of
Figure 2. 2001 Hunting Days: The Number of Hunters, by Number of Days Spent Hunting
(Number of People in thousands)
anglers can be defined to be avid as well,
while anglers who fish only one day (11%
of total anglers in 2001, 11% in 1996,
and 14% in 1991) qualify as casual. The
criteria for avid and casual participants
used for all three surveys: avids are the
top 10% of total participants based on
their days afield, casual angling is made
up of anglers who fished one day in the
year, and casual hunting consists of
hunters who hunted one or two days in
the year. Everyone between these two
extremes is considered intermediate.
Based on their total days participating in
2001, the top 10% of anglers and hunters
accounted for 45% of all fishing and
hunting days. The avid angler fished an
average of 73 days per year, compared to
the average angler’s 16 days. Similarly,
the average avid hunter in 2001 hunted
70 days and the average hunter 18 days.
Tables 3 and 4 present the trend in avid
fishing and hunting over the past three
surveys.
Looking at the avid trends, the number
of avid anglers was 3.7 million in 1991,
3.4 million in 1996, and 3.5 million in 2001,
compared to all anglers (35.6 million, 35.2
million, and 34.1 million, respectively).
The number of avid hunters was
relatively steady, with 1.4 million in
1991 and 1996 and 1.3 million in 2001,
compared to all hunters (14.1 million, 14.0
million, and 13.0 million, respectively).
Figure 3. 2001 Hunting Days: The Contribution to Total Days by Casual,
Intermediate, and Avid Hunters
(Sum of Days in thousands)
3 Robert Southwick came to the same
conclusion for the designation of avidity in his
study Today’s Angler, A Statistical Profile of
America’s Angler, Southwick, Inc., 2003.
��� ��
��
���
������
����
����
Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends 7
Table 6. Avid Fishing Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
Fishing, total
Total
Participants
Avid
Participants
Percent of
Participants Total Days Avid Days
Percent
of Days
Avid
Mean Days
2001 34,070 3,542 10 557,394 259,388 47 73
1996 35,246 3,362 10 625,893 286,388 46 85
1991 35,578 3,706 10 511,329 250,988 49 68
Non-Great Lakes Freshwater
2001 27,913 3,206 11 443,247 208,547 47 66
1996 28,921 3,060 11 485,474 223,090 46 73
1991 30,186 3,443 11 430,922 212,828 49 62
Great Lakes
2001 1,847 343 19 23,138 12,634 55 37
1996 2,039 299 15 20,095 9,247 46 32
1991 2,552 456 18 25,335 12,759 50 28
Saltwater
2001 9,051 1,036 11 90,838 39,038 43 38
1996 9,438 1,012 11 103,034 43,067 42 43
1991 8,885 1,088 12 74,696 33,255 45 31
Note: Avids determined by total days, not type of fishing days (e.g., Great Lakes days).
Table 7. Avid Hunting Trends
(Numbers in thousands)
Hunting
Total
Participants
Avid
Participants
Percent of
Participants Total Days Avid Days
Percent
of Days
Avid
Mean Days
2001 13,034 1,298 10 228,368 91,032 40 70
1996 13,975 1,384 10 256,676 99,190 39 72
1991 14,063 1,412 10 235,806 98,096 42 69
Big Game
2001 10,911 1,225 11 153,191 56,613 37 46
1996 11,288 1,284 11 153,784 53,731 35 42
1991 10,745 1,317 12 128,411 45,339 35 34
Small Game
2001 5,434 871 16 60,142 26,332 44 30
1996 6,945 1,094 16 75,117 28,413 38 26
1991 7,642 1,228 16 77,132 34,099 44 28
Migratory Birds
2001 2,956 447 15 29,310 11,399 39 25
1996 3,073 521 17 26,501 8,585 32 18
1991 3,009 603 20 22,235 8,894 40 15
Other Animals
2001 1,047 356 34 19,207 13,666 71 39
1996 1,521 465 31 24,522 15,945 65 38
1991 1,411 532 38 19,340 13,280 69 25
Note: Avids determined by total days, not type of hunting days (e.g., Small Game days).
8 Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends
Avid Anglers
In 2001 avid anglers made up 11% of both
non-Great Lakes freshwater anglers
and saltwater anglers. This means that
avid anglers as a group do not specialize
in freshwater or saltwater angling, but
distribute themselves equally between
the two activities. This pattern held for
1991 and 1996. This finding is borne out
in the days data as well. In 2001 47% of
all fishing days were provided by avid
anglers. 47% of all freshwater days and
43% of all saltwater days were provided
by avid anglers. The observation that
avids as a group do not specialize in
freshwater or saltwater can be made for
1991 and 1996 as well.
Avid anglers are an important subgroup
of anglers as a whole, both economically
and in terms of effort. Studying their
sociodemographics gives us insight into
who they are.
A majority, 56%, of avid anglers
resided in urban areas in 2001. This is
not surprising, since a majority of all
anglers, 61%, resided in urban areas.
The tendency of avid anglers to not be
as urban-based as anglers as a whole has
held steady over the past three surveys.
In 2001 67% of avid anglers lived in
Metropolitan Statistical Areas4 (MSA)
of 50,000 or more residents, compared to
72% of all anglers. Viewed another way,
9% of urban anglers (8% in 1996) and 12%
of rural anglers were avid. Rural anglers
are more likely to be avid than urban
anglers.
In 2001 the age group that had the
most avid anglers was 35-44 year olds.
This was also true for all anglers. After
combining 16-17 and 18-24 year olds
into one age group for the purpose of
comparison the age group that had the
fewest avids was 65 years old and older,
as was the case with all anglers.
As with anglers as a whole, avid anglers
have become an older age group.
Comparing 2001 and 1991 data, 16-34
year olds made up more of the avid
angler population in 1991 than in 2001
(45% compared to 32%). Conversely, 45
year old and older anglers were 47% of
all avid anglers in 2001, 43% in 1996, and
34% in 1991.
Angling is a recreational commodity,
and economic theory suggests that as
- …
