by Erin C. Healy - Thursday, May 15, 2025
Above: This whitetail was photographed at the Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge in Middletown, R.I. (Bill Thompson/USFWS photo)
SINCE 1995, researcher Mark Damian Duda and his team at survey research firm Responsive Management have gauged Americans’ approval level of hunting and the shooting sports. They conduct research for federal and state wildlife agencies, conservation and environmental non-government organizations, outdoor equipment manufacturers and universities. Most recently, they were brought on to survey Rhode Islanders on their acceptance of legal, regulated hunting and recreational shooting.
Perhaps not surprisingly, three-quarters of Ocean State residents approve of hunting and shooting, both in general and within the borders of their state. Nationally, that societal level of approval for hunting has remained fairly consistent for 30 years. Approval by the general public is essential for the survival of hunting and shooting. Without it, neither can thrive in the present or continue to be passed down to future generations. Understanding the breakdown of the research provides wildlife agency managers with the insights necessary to develop messaging, especially in relation to hunter recruitment, retention and reactivation (R3) efforts.
Responsive Management found in 1995 that 73% of Americans strongly or moderately approved of hunting, even if they’d never hunted themselves. Since then, periodic surveys to remeasure public sentiment of hunting, including for the NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum, have resulted in ranges from 73 to 80%, depending on the location. Rhode Islanders’ acceptance of hunting in 2025 is right at that base level of 73%. Let’s stop to celebrate that nearly three-quarters of Ocean Staters, the vast majority of whom never hunted or shot a firearm, embrace freedom enough to give the nod to hunting—that is, legal and regulated hunting—even if they don’t participate themselves.
Responsive Management conducted the survey by both landline and cell phone in January and February, Mondays through Fridays from noon to 9 p.m. EST. They used a five-callback system to include people not easily reached by phone. They followed up four times at different times and days to set appointments and to try to include those who initially refused to participate. Converting refusals is one aspect of Responsive Management’s excellence, because surveying reluctant participants produces a more accurate final product. In fact, the report cited a 95% confidence level with a sampling error that was at most 3.45 percentage points. This means that if the survey were conducted 100 times, 95 of the resultant surveys would fall within that 3.45% error margin. The sample size was 805 individuals within a population of 879,286 adult Rhode Islanders.
Some of the key findings from the study repeat a similar pattern. Males and residents of smaller cities and towns are most likely to approve of legal, regulated hunting in general and in Rhode Island in particular, whereas females and people living in urban areas are most likely to disapprove. Interestingly, age-wise, it’s not the 55-plus folks with the most acceptive attitude toward hunting, but those between ages 35 and 54.
Of the groups who strongly or moderately approve of legal, regulated hunting in general, here’s how the numbers broke down: Anyone who has hunted before, 100%; shot before, 93%; or fished before, 90%. Residents of the top three rural counties in the state range from 81 to 86% in their approval of hunting. Eighty-one percent of males approve, 78% of 35- to 54-year-olds, along with 78 and 77% of those who live in a small city/town or in a rural area, respectively. If respondents were white or Caucasian, they were 75% likely to approve of hunting, and if they held an associate’s degree, trade certification or lower level of completed education, they were 76% likely to give hunting a thumbs up. The overall percentage of Rhode Islanders who strongly or moderately approve of hunting averaged 73%, which is the lower end of the national range. Similar numbers applied to the question of whether they approved of hunting within Rhode Island.
The percentages of Rhode Island residents less likely to approve of hunting dips to 61%, but that’s still a majority. You can find the full report, entitled “Rhode Island Residents’ Attitudes Toward Hunting and Recreational Shooting,” on the state’s Department of Environmental Management website. (Click on Natural Resources Bureau, then Fish & Wildlife and then Conservation & Research.) The survey results certainly indicate where R3 efforts could realize the most substantial gains.
Those who have never hunted fall just below the national average in their level of approval for hunting at 72%. Black or African Americans in Rhode Island revealed a 71% level of approval for hunting, compared to 75% for Whites or Caucasians. That’s not an insurmountable gap, and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service is setting the example by addressing the reasons cited as impediments to African Americans embracing hunting more fully. Federal efforts are underway to expose urban dwellers and African Americans to the hunting culture, land to hunt on, mentorship and education about both wildlife and habitat.
People who have never fished or gone shooting or who live in a suburban area all fall at 70% in their level of approval for hunting, which is still within the margin of error of the national average. As indicated, 68% of those 55-plus approve of hunting (compared with a full 10 percentage points more for those ages 35 to 54). Those living in Providence County, one of the most densely populated regions of the state, also come in at 68%. Rhode Islanders holding a bachelor’s degree or higher are 67% likely to give hunting the nod. The level of approval for hunting drops to 65% for females, 62% for Hispanic or Latino residents and 61% for large city or urban dwellers.
Even though these numbers reflect an openness within these demographics for hunting, there is room for improvement. Introduction is the first step, and organizations like Shoot Like a Girl (SLG) make an impact in empowering women to “participate in shooting sports with confidence.” The organization’s Q1 report for 2025 shows a 30% increase year over year in guest participation with a hefty 51% of those people walking away with an improved attitude toward shooting and hunting. You’ll often find them as SLGInc2 on social media and in attendance at SLG events in a trailer set up to teach both women and men over age 18—white, black and Hispanic—from the city and the country how to shoot firearms and bows and get involved in hunting.
Interestingly, although one hunter may hunt for food, he or she still is accepting of the hunter who hunts in pursuit of a challenge or a so-called trophy. That sentiment does not extrapolate to the general public. Rhode Islanders are most likely to approve of hunting that is for food purposes or to manage the population of a specific species. And again, it bears repeating that the survey emphasized that the hunting referred to is only that allowed by law and controlled by regulation.
Ocean Staters are least likely to approve of hunting if it’s done for a trophy, the challenge or for sport. This presents another opportunity for hunters to explain that while they may not be able to use the meat of their game animal, they donate it to food banks here at home or to local villages when hunting in, say, Africa. The successful-hunt photo with a whitetail or turkey represents a mastery of skills, an investment of time and a follow-through in the field that is invisible to the non-hunter. As Rhode Island wildlife officials begin to extol the benefits of hunting, the public, hopefully, will recognize what it takes to become a hunter and the value hunting brings to our environment and our national heritage.
Lastly, only 16% of Rhode Islanders know about the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act for its congressional sponsors. An additional 9% think they may have heard of such programs but aren’t sure. Another 10% did know that federal taxes are distributed to state fish and wildlife agencies to fund their work. Hunters and hunting publications have long educated the hunting community about these hunter-funded revenue streams to manage wildlife and conserve habitat, but non-hunters don’t know, don’t care or dismiss such contributions, especially as hunting numbers decline.
If someone mentions to you how difficult it is to find a mentor when one has an interest in hunting, let’s take it upon ourselves to get involved. Even if we can’t personally help, we can line the person up with a class, organization or mentor who can dedicate some time to the aspiring hunter. While some new hunters may try hunting and decide not to pursue it, they’ll never know if they can’t at least try it.
Rhode Island wildlife officials can bank on a population base that is supportive of hunting. The study provides further guidance in how to tailor messaging to reach minorities, women and those far removed from the woods and fields of Little Rhody. Responsive Management continues to not only gauge public opinion of hunting but, through its reporting, highlight segments of society where our message is not resonating. Since the Industrial Revolution, each generation contains an element that seeks to return to the land, a place where faith, family and heritage predominate. Whether they chose to live it, that’s a lifestyle that minorities, women and urbanites can be persuaded to respect.