Regulatory Barriers to R3

What is it?

The regulatory barriers that influence hunting and shooting sports participation are multi-faceted. The regulation may be hard to understand due to complex language or lack of translations into other languages. It may be overly restrictive, communicated poorly, or inconsistent with other regulations in surrounding areas. In addition, there are myriad variations in license types and pricing, regulations that govern when you can hunt or target shoot, what permits are required, and what method of firearm you can use. All these are added layers of complexity that can be a barrier to recruitment and decrease retention. And the list goes on. Social issues such as disagreements among hunters and shooting sports participants on specific regulations, the expense tied to licenses that fund “special projects,” or the price variance between resident and non-resident licenses all add another layer of potential barriers for participants.

This chapter will distinguish between regulatory complexity and other regulatory issues that can create barriers for hunters and shooting sports participants. We will discuss R3 practitioners’ and stakeholders’ roles in incorporating R3 considerations when creating, revising, and potentially eliminating regulations that impact R3 efforts. Last, this chapter will provide suggestions on opportunities to use alternative tools such as communication strategies, training efforts, and online tools to help alleviate regulations’ negative impact on recruitment, retention, and reactivation of hunters and shooting sports participants.

Every state’s regulatory system is slightly different. They each have different definitions of rules, regulations, laws, and statutes, and different entities are responsible for creating them. Furthermore, the process necessary to develop, revise, and eliminate them also varies. For this chapter, “regulations” and “regulatory” are catch-all terms used to refer to rules, regulations, laws, statutes, and any other term that points to an enforceable guideline created by an organization, agency, or government.

Why is it important?

Regulation setting and the need for temperance in the number and types of rules necessary to protect wildlife, hunters, and the public was the subject of a special session of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in 2000. Griese et al. developed a framework for the criteria that need to be considered before adopting new regulations, underscoring the issue’s importance for natural resource agencies.

In recent years, interest has grown within the conservation community for overhauling hunting regulations within and among states and on federal lands where hunting is allowed. Numerous states have undergone formal processes to review and consolidate their hunting regulations. At the federal level, the USFWS undertook a process in 2019 to streamline rules for hunting in wildlife refuges. These changes resulted in more areas being opened to hunting. Industry partners like the Archery Trade Association have also been active proponents of the need to standardize and eliminate certain equipment restrictions across states. It is easy to see why many in the R3 community have concluded that complicated regulations are a barrier. Regulation pamphlets can be long. They include rules covering safety practices, administrative requirements, and harvest criteria with underlying biological and social objectives. Intuitively, it looks and feels complicated, even to veterans who have hunted their whole lives.

There are few, if any, downsides to decreasing the number and nature of regulations (assuming public safety and wildlife conservation objectives are met). Clear regulations, based on a sound rationale and supported by participants, can contribute to positive hunter satisfaction, which contributes to retention in the long run. Certainly, R3 practitioners should be engaged in reviews of regulation changes to consider potential impacts on R3 efforts. However, the effect of simplifying regulations on hunting and shooting sports participation is poorly understood. The bottom line on this topic is the R3 community needs more research on its impact on participation. It also needs research that extends beyond self-reported results from hunters to measure behavior.

How Can Your Organization Help its Practitioners?

• Invest in research and evaluation that documents the real influence of regulation complexity on hunting and shooting sports recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.
• Be sure to consider the complexity of regulations and opposition to regulations as separate problems.
• Compile evidence from states with simplified regulations to document the direct effects on R3.
• Incorporate R3 practitioners in the regulation creation, revision, and elimination process.
• Establish good relationships with those who create and manage regulations.

What Does the Evidence Show Us?

Regulatory Impacts on Hunting:

How negative regulations impact hunting participation appears to vary depending on whether a person is a new or experienced hunter. A recent report sponsored by CAHSS and the University of Montana (see link table) suggests that 30% of hunters report that regulations took away from their hunting experience. Older data collected nationwide by Responsive Management found that regulations accounted for lapse among 4% of hunters and ranked at the bottom of a list of 15 potential influences (see “Why Hunters Quit,” Backcountry Hunters and Anglers). Meanwhile, focus group data suggest new hunters find regulations daunting and are concerned about the possibility of unknowingly breaking hunting laws.

On the other hand, there are numerous studies where hunters expressed support or even championed more complicated or stricter regulations. In Wisconsin, upland bird hunters strongly supported regulations that reduced the season length and bag limits for ruffed grouse during an outbreak of avian flu. Elsewhere, researchers have found support for rules that make it harder to harvest game (e.g., antler point restrictions). Avid hunters and anglers often push for these kinds of regulations within their communities. One could argue that the impacts of such regulation changes might be very different on new hunters than on veteran hunters, but to date, the differences and scale of the impacts are largely unknown.

This topic needs more attention from a research and evaluation standpoint. It also needs clarity to better define how and when regulations diminish hunter satisfaction and at what threshold complex regulations result in dropout or reduced interest. CAHSS summed up the challenge on its website:

“Despite self-reports from hunters that regulation complexity is an issue, and consistent recommendations to states to simplify regulations, we still do not know much about complexity, its impacts on hunter participation or how best to address regulation complexity.”

Regulatory Impacts on Target Shooting:

As with hunters, shooting sports participants have similar regulatory barriers to participation if faced with confusing, highly restrictive, or poorly communicated regulations. Permit requirements and expenses, range rules and limitations, firearm and ammunition restrictions, and limited reciprocity of safety certifications may impact participation. For specific information about various national regulatory discussions, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has a comprehensive list of “Fact Sheets and Backgrounders” to provide context (see link table).

Examples of Regulatory Barriers

1. A case study from Montana involving non-resident college students shows how cost increases can substantially reduce participation.
2. The negative impact that hunter disagreements over regulations can have on participation can be seen in debates surrounding harvest-based regulations (e.g., zones or quotas) or regulations based on subjective interpretations of fair chase (e.g., use of remote trail cameras or baiting). For example, research on deer hunters in Wisconsin found that hunter dislike of and opposition to Earn-A-Buck rules did have some influence (along with other factors) on hunters who lapsed. In this case, it was not that hunters did not understand the rule; they simply did not like or agree with its underlying management objective—reducing deer density through antlerless harvest. Regulations that lack widespread support and undercut hunter satisfaction to the point of dropping out can be a problem, but in such a case, the solution is not simplification; it is revision or elimination.
3. Under existing law, states have the authority to issue permits to qualified firearm owners, allowing them to carry their legal firearms concealed. Each state and certain local governments set different rules regarding whether a concealed carry permit/license is required with corresponding qualifications, terms, and conditions. Unlike driver’s licenses, the permit of one state is not necessarily valid in another.
4. Shooting sports participation is influenced by the governance of firearm type, scope, allowable ammunition, age and background check requirements for purchase and ownership, and many other nuanced decisions made at the federal, state, and municipal level.
5. Thirteen states still have prohibitions against hunting on Sunday. There is nothing complicated about that, but they eliminate opportunity. They also exacerbate people’s time constraints, often cited as the leading reason for not hunting. A 2023 National R3 Symposium presentation describes efforts to eliminate the Sunday prohibitions. See the table of resources below.
6. The Archery Trade Association (ATA) conducted a survey in 2017 that reviewed over 60 metrics relating to bowhunting equipment regulations in all 50 states. The results indicated incredible variability in regulations and a considerable lack of clarity in regulation language. Many “outlier” regulations were also found where only one or two states enforced an unusual requirement around bowhunting equipment. As a result of the clear communication of key findings from the survey, over 250 changes to clean up bowhunting equipment regulations were documented between 2017 and 2023. The presentation summary shared at the 2023 National R3 Symposium can be found in the table of resources.
7. In the 2023 Analysis of Hunting Regulation Complexity, the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports partnered with the University of Montana to catalog hunting regulations in all 50 states, examining 61 general licensing categories, 113 firearms deer regulation categories, 22 upland bird categories, and 29 waterfowl categories (non-federal). You will find the full report in the table of resources below, however, the following is a selection of regulations for firearms deer, upland bird, and waterfowl hunting that might contribute to regulatory complexity and pose barriers to R3 efforts on a broad scale:

Firearms Deer and General Licensing 

1. Thirteen states do not offer apprentice hunting licenses.
2. Twenty states require hunter education with an in-person component.
3. Twenty states have antler point restrictions.
4. Thirty-one states have antler length restrictions.
5. Forty states require hunters to report their deer harvest.
6. Eleven states require some form of in-person harvest reporting.
7. Nineteen states require hunters to report their harvest within 24 hours of the kill.
8. Thirty-one states have firearm deer hunting season dates that depend on the hunting zone/district.
9. Ten states have different season lengths for private and public land.
10. Eleven states regulate how a harvested deer is transported and handled before reporting.
11. Thirty-five states do not have a phone app or e-tag system.
12. Thirty-five states do not define the parts of a deer that hunters must keep.
13. Ten states require separate tags for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in some or all areas of the state.
14. Eighteen states have different bag limits based on hunting zone or district.
15. Six states prohibit hunters from using centerfire rifles.
16. Nine states require hunters to pay a fee to hunt on some or all state lands.
17. Twenty-three states have split deer hunting season dates.
18. Seven states do not have a youth deer season.
19. Two states restrict when and where hunters can use ATVs during the big game season.
20. Twenty states restrict the movement of cervid carcasses within the state.
21. Nine states have cervid disposal restrictions.
22. Thirteen states require CWD testing in some or all areas.
23. Fifteen states require hunters to carry proof of hunter safety certification.
24. Eight states require hunters to carry a photo ID while hunting.

Upland Bird

1. Twenty-four states require hunters to keep parts of some or all harvested upland birds as proof of sex and/or species.
2. Thirty states have sex-specific harvest restrictions for ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus cholchicas) in some or all regions of the state.
3. Eight states have shooting times that only apply to specific upland bird species.
4. Sixteen states have season dates based on region.
5. Six states have shooting times that vary by region or land ownership.
6. Ten states have bag limits that differ by region.
7. Thirteen states have bag limits based on land ownership (private vs. public land).
8. Twenty states have shot size restrictions.

Waterfowl

1. Nineteen states have different zones for duck and geese hunting.
2. Eighteen states have zone-specific bag limits for duck or geese hunting.
3. Thirteen states prohibit the harvest of one or more waterfowl species.
4. Fourteen states require a lottery or a permit for hunters to use blinds on public lands in some or all of the state.

Learn From Others Who Have Simplified Hunting Rules or License Types

State hunting regulations have multiple factors to consider: wildlife management, stakeholder management, and participant management, to name a few. The complexity of factors included in wildlife management alone may necessitate complex regulations. So, when considering regulatory simplification, keep the primary objective of the regulation in mind when examining whether it negatively impacts the recruitment or retention of a participant. With that being said, many states find that the regulations they have regarding the number and variety of license types available may be overly cumbersome, difficult to understand, and limiting for first-time license purchasers. To address these potential issues, numerous states have recently begun or completed reviews of their hunting regulations. Often, these efforts are driven by an implicit notion that hunters want simplified offerings and will respond favorably.

The resource table below highlights a few examples from popular press or social media sources. Some states undertake complete license and permit type overhauls. For example, Michigan, Missouri, Arizona, and Minnesota have recently reviewed the number of license types available and simplified, consolidated, or changed their licensing structures as a result. Nebraska and South Dakota are pilot testing a more focused effort called the two-tier waterfowl bag limit. This approach gives hunters the option to reduce complexity in return for a reduced bag limit. The community needs more innovative approaches, and more importantly, evaluations of effectiveness in achieving R3 objectives.

Simplifying Shooting Sports Regulations

As it stands to reason that complicated regulations reduce the likelihood of anyone adopting an activity, more straightforward gun ownership and target shooting regulations should increase adoption of the activity. Firearm and ammunition regulation is a politically complex topic, and this chapter will not address the matter directly. Some organizations deal with that issue every day of the year. So, if it is an issue you or your organization wish to pursue, the following resource table offers some potential sources of information and assistance.

Best Practices for Communicating Regulations

R3 practitioners can play a pivotal role in clearly communicating and explaining regulations to prospective and current hunting and shooting sports participants.

Unclear regulations are often mentioned as a barrier for new hunters and target shooters, and changing regulations can be confusing for existing participants. Poor communication can impact the efficacy and outcomes of R3 efforts regardless of subject. Therefore, ensuring you communicate your state regulations in terms that are clear and as simple as possible helps ensure your audience understands what is within and outside the law. A few important communication concepts follow.

Communicate through multiple channels, and leverage partner communication pathways to reach as many audiences as possible.

By law, it is the user’s responsibility to know the rules and regulations that pertain to their activity. Because of that, agencies sometimes don’t give much attention to communicating effectively about new or changed regulations, assuming that implementing regulations by updating a regulations book or website will be enough. However, the legal jargon or activity-specific language is often confusing and frustrating for hunters and shooting sports participants. This may be especially true for people new to those activities.

To communicate regulations effectively, the regulatory agency and its partners should seek opportunities to connect with their audiences and establish communication plans that help strategically share the information. Communication plans should also include any federal regulation changes that will impact participants at the local level.

A few opportunities for communicating state regulations may include:

• Signs at parking lots or main buildings
• Regulations books
• Part of training programs
• Outreach events
• Posters, handouts, or advertisements
• Emails
• Social Media posts and answering questions through messaging platforms
• Radio spots
• Influencer or other media partnerships
• State-owned websites
• Equip conservation officers and program instructors with speaking points about specific regulations.

Using multiple channels to share existing or updated regulations ensures that regardless of the medium hunters or shooting sports participants use, they will be exposed to the message in various areas and multiple times. Repeat exposure to these messages makes it more likely that participants will remember the regulation even if they don’t have quick access to a specific resource like a guidebook or website.

Translating the Message

Sometimes, regulations can be complex because of how they are written (technical, legal, or biological jargon, for example). The complexity is often needed to make the regulation very specific and precise, which is usually good. However, practitioners can use much more common language to “interpret” the regulation to people who don’t have a technical background. Ensuring your messaging is simple is an effective way of ensuring people understand what is being asked of them. One way to ensure your message is clear is to include the regulation’s who, what, where, when, and why and place them in simple terms.

Further consideration for English as a Second Language (ESL) and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations:

• Working closely with a translator to create infographics and one-pager summaries of regulations can be very helpful in making regulations more linguistically accessible.
• Host regulations as text typed into your website instead of PDFs shared online or images of your regulation handbooks. This makes translating into other languages using web browser plugins significantly easier.
• Consider what public outreach opportunities exist to help clarify regulations face-to-face, with an accompanying translator.
• Any signage posted in public hunting locations or shooting ranges can include a QR code for multi-lingual translations of regulations.

Communication is a two-way street

Explaining the reason for a regulation can help hunters and shooting sports participants understand that the regulation is in their best interest. Help your audience understand why the regulations exist. If you can connect the regulation to your audience, it will make your communications more effective. Tell them why it benefits them in the long run.

For example, you could say, “State blaze orange requirements exist to ensure that hunters stay safe, are easily identifiable, and are visible at a distance during the regular firearms season. Firearms can reach great distances, and the misidentification of a game animal is one cause of firearms-related accidents. Blaze orange reduces the likelihood of a hunter being mistaken for game.”

Rule changes are another area where this is applicable. Existing hunters and shooting sports participants may assume they know the regulation. They may not pay close attention when that regulation changes. Communicating the regulation change through multiple channels and explaining why it changed can help new and existing hunters stay abreast of changes and accept them as important to the overall longevity, safety, or enjoyment of these activities.

Communicating what a regulation is and why it is important to participants are key responsibilities of fish and wildlife agencies. But it is just as important to understand the challenges and needs of the public the agencies serve. Listen to constituents to understand where their frequent questions, pinch points, confusion, and difficulties lie. Strive to meet their needs by making meaningful changes to communication platforms, regulatory processes, or education efforts to improve the customer experience.

Answer Questions

Regardless of how well you lay out your message, there will likely be people with specific questions or scenarios that they want to clear up. Consider offering more guidance through FAQ pages on a website. Include an email or phone number where your audience can get more information.

Answering questions and connecting with users proves that your organization is there to assist and work with its constituents. Be sure to offer pipelines where people can go for help. Communication is about sharing information. To communicate regulations effectively, practitioners must be clear, simple, and concise with their messages, place them in multiple mediums, and make the regulations relevant to users.