American Society Symposium 67:31–40, 2008 © 2008 by the American Fisheries Society

Opportunities for Urban : Developing Urban Fishing Programs to Recruit and Retain Urban Anglers

Da n e M. Ba l s m a n † a n d Da n i e l E. Sh o u p Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management Oklahoma State University, 008c Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA

Abstract.—As the United States has become increasingly urbanized, partici- pation has declined. Urban fishing programs provide an opportunity to reverse this trend by effectively targeting new anglers while increasing fishing opportunities for current or recently lapsed urban anglers. There are three essential components in a successful urban fishing program: a resource with clean water and a quality close to current or potential anglers, facilities to accommodate anglers, and adver- tisement of the fishery to inform and recruit anglers. Early in the development of an urban fishing program, urban anglers’ interests should be assessed and the program should be developed to meet these interests. Next, access to a quality fishery must be developed—either by creating new bodies of water or enhancing existing ones. Depending upon the level of fishing pressure and the species of interest to anglers, supplemental stocking and intensive management may be needed to maintain the fishery. Amenities such as restrooms, picnic areas, docks, and waste receptacles may also be important. Different angling groups may desire different amenities, so pro- viding different sites to cater to these different groups is advisable. Once the facili- ties and amenities are in place, the resource must be marketed to targeted potential anglers. The marketing strategy should be tailored to each market segment being targeted. Lapsed anglers are the most easily recruited segment and should be a top priority for advertising. Minorities and children are also commonly targeted. As the U.S. population becomes more urbanized, urban fishing opportunities will continue to grow in importance. Without these opportunities, urbanites will likely be drawn toward the numerous other recreational activities that are conveniently available in urban centers, leading to further declines in angling involvement and concern for natural resource conservation and the environment.

Introduction Bureau 2000), as well as the majority of current anglers (72%; U.S. Department As the United States has become in- of the Interior 2002), live in metropolitan creasingly urbanized, angling partici- areas. Yet this population’s fishing par- pation and license sales have declined ticipation rate is much lower than the ru- (U.S. Census Bureau 2000; U.S. and ral population’s (U.S. Department of the Wildlife Service 2007). The majority of Interior 2002). Declining the U.S. population (79%; U.S. Census sales are in large part caused by anglers †Corresponding author: [email protected] who do not consistently buy licenses ev-

31 32 Balsman and Shoup ery year (lapsed anglers; ASA&AFWA elderly, the handicapped, and minori- 2007). With the availability of quality ties. While these demographic groups fishing opportunities and proper adver- are still being targeted, contemporary tising, these lapsed anglers can be effec- urban fishing programs also provide tively recruited back into active partici- fishing opportunities close to home for pation (Fedler 2007a; RBFF 2007). Key to established anglers who may be time this process, however, is providing qual- restricted (Schramm and Edwards 1994; ity angling opportunities that are close Hunt and Ditton 1996; Fedler 2000). to where people live, as busy urban resi- Contemporary programs increase rec- dents are often lured to other recreational reational fishing opportunities, develop activities that require smaller blocks of and increase environmental awareness time (Fedler 2000; ASA&AFWA 2007). and conservation ethics in anglers and Declines in fishing participation pose nonanglers, and increase angling partic- many threats to natural resources and ipation (Schramm and Edwards 1994). their conservation. Many states depend They also build and strengthen ties on license sales, and related federal ex- among community residents by bring- cise taxes on to fund con- ing people together, including those servation programs (Noble and Jones who are otherwise divided by race or 1999; ASA&AFWA 2007). Decreased class (Walker 2004). citizen participation in outdoor activi- Therefore, urban fishing programs ties also disconnects people from nature may be an effective tool to reverse the (ASA&AFWA 2007). Urban fishing pro- current trends of decreasing license grams can increase clientele knowledge sales. By targeting urban areas, urban and concern for the environment (Kellert fishing programs reach the largest- un and Westervelt 1983; Siemer and Knuth tapped group of potential angler recruits 2001) and support for statewide fisheries (Hunt and Ditton 1997; Fedler 2000). programs (Dunlap and Heffernan 1973; They also make fishing more conve- Botts 1984; Schramm and Dennis 1993). nient for current anglers and minimize Therefore, to ensure continued support the likelihood that these anglers will for conservation, an increased public in- become inactive due to time constraints volvement in, and awareness of, outdoor (Fedler 2000; ASA&AFWA 2007). For an activities is needed. urban fishing program to be successful, Urban fishing programs provide the a fishing resource must be identified or opportunity to recruit and retain anglers developed that is easily accessed, facili- in growing urban centers by providing ties need to be provided to make the site quality fisheries that are close to people, accommodating, and the resource must allowing convenient recreational oppor- be advertised to recruit new and lapsed tunities that do not require long time anglers. Planning and developing an ur- expenditures. The earliest urban fish- ban program using this three-step pro- ing programs typically targeted under- cess increases the likelihood of recruit- represented anglers. At the 1983 Urban ing and retaining anglers in growing Fisheries Symposium, Botts (1984) de- urban centers. Ultimately, a successful fined urban fishing programs as a pro- urban fishing program can help coun- gram for residents of urban areas who ter the decline in angling participation do not otherwise have access to fishing that has occurred in recent years (Fedler opportunities, especially the poor, the 2000; ASA&AFWA 2007).

Opportunities for Developing Urban Fishing 33 Resource Development more fish species that anglers desire. Es- sentially, there are two options for add- Early in the development of an urban ing fishable waters to an urban fishing fishing program it is necessary to assess program: using an existing body of wa- the needs of the anglers. These needs will ter or creating a new one. In many cities often extend outside of the realm of tra- there are existing bodies of water that ditional and may can be renovated and restored for an ur- require a multidisciplinary approach in- ban fishing resource. If the existing fish corporating biology, sociology, econom- populations are undesirable or under- ics, and political science to be success- managed, a management plan will need ful (Radonski 1984; Fedler and Howard to be implemented to remove undesir- 1991). Each urban environment likely able species and enhance populations has a unique set of issues and solutions, of desirable species (Wydoski and Wiley and anglers may have different needs 1999). Providing access to large rivers or and desires. Gaining this information streams may be sufficient in some situa- may be difficult depending on the clien- tions. It other cases, providing a pier for tele being sought. Interviewing existing a saltwater fishery or a larger lake may anglers will not reveal what potential an- provide access to quality fishing. Water glers, who have never fished (or at least supply lakes should not be overlooked never utilized an urban fishery), desire in as they are an excellent opportunity for a program. It may be better to use a data an urban fishery (Radonski 1984). Small- analysis resource such as Community er city lakes and ponds should also be Tapestry (ESRI, Redlands, California), considered. In many instances, habitat which is a market segmentation tool with improvement will be needed (Radonski information from the U.S. Census Bureau 1984). Often these existing bodies of wa- that provides detailed demographic and ter can continue to serve multiple uses lifestyle information for all neighbor- to the public while providing additional hoods in the United States (Fedler 2000; fishing opportunities. However, in other ASA&AFWA 2007). We also suggest it cases, bodies of water may not exist and would be helpful to contact urban fisher- construction of new waters is required. ies managers in cities with similar demo- The design and placement of these fish- graphics to learn about their shortcom- eries is crucial to providing opportuni- ings and successes. Properly identifying ties to all demographics. City parks or angler desires up-front will save count- state lands located in close proximity to less dollars and headaches after an urban housing developments or other densely program has been implemented. Based populated areas are prime examples of on angler interests, specific goals should where ponds (ranging in size from a few be set for the program so its ultimate suc- acres to 100 acres) with a put-and-take cess can be clearly evaluated (Siemer and fishery could be placed to provide count- Knuth 2001; Fedler 2004; Fedler 2007a). less hours of fishing for thousands of res- Key to developing an urban fishing idents, especially if located near public program is providing a body of water transportation routes (Radonski 1984). suitable for supporting fish that is close Anglers that use urban fisheries typi- to the anglers’ (or potential anglers’) cally choose these settings because of residences. This habitat must then be their convenient location and facilities stocked with, or managed for, one or (Manfredo et al. 1984). Most urban an- 34 Balsman and Shoup glers travel very short distances to fish ongoing process to keep up with angler at a community lake (Hunt and Ditton pressure and harvest (Heidinger 1999). 1996) and consider the closeness to home Periodic sampling to determine standing or work one of the most important at- stocks as well as creel surveys to deter- tributes of a fishing site (Hunt and Dit- mine harvest are needed to verify that ton 1997; Fedler 2007b). Therefore, it is appropriate numbers of fish are being better to have many fishing opportuni- stocked and funds are being spent as effi- ties spread out over a metropolitan area ciently as possible (Boxrucker 1986; Wiley than to have one large body of water be- et al. 1993; Cowx 1994). Intensive stock- cause this will provide opportunities that ing can place a strain on state or federal are close to as many different people as fish . Therefore, some states are possible. This may need to be balanced turning to private to help al- against the cost inefficiencies of building leviate the added stress on state-owned or renovating numerous smaller waters. hatcheries (Brader 2008, this volume). When financial constraints do not allow Intensive management and stocking for this approach, careful consideration are not always required to provide a suc- should still be given to the placement of cessful urban fishery. In some instances, the few larger facilities that will be con- an existing fishery on a large body of wa- structed in order to maximize the num- ter will have desirable species and natu- ber of people that can conveniently use ral reproduction that is adequate to meet them. anglers’ needs (Radonski 1984). Streams Intensive stocking is often required or rivers located in or near cities can pro- in small urban fisheries as fishing - pres vide ample fishing opportunities, but sure exceeds that of most rural fisheries restricted harvest may be needed (Car- (Heidinger 1999). In many urban ponds, line et al. 1991). Every coastal and Great channel catfishIctalurus punctatus, hybrid Lakes state can enhance river fish migra- sunfishLepomis spp., and largemouth tions by removing migration barriers or Micropterus salmoides are stocked dur- providing passage facilities to enhance ing the spring and summer and rainbow anadromous fish stocks (Radonski 1984), Oncorhynchus mykiss are stocked although this may be a challenging po- in the winter months to provide a year- litical process. Many large bodies of wa- round fishery (Fedler and Howard 1991). ter near cities only require piers or access Hybrid Morone saxatilis x M. points to make the resource useful to ur- chrysops have also been used with success ban anglers (Radonski 1984; Fedler and in some programs (Hutt et al. 2008, this Howard 1991). The fishery may already volume). Providing different seasonal be sufficient to support anglers, but ac- opportunities to anglers through stock- cess may be the primary limitation. ing promotes higher angler use (Miko et al. 1995) and provides desired species for Facilities and Amenities a wider range of anglers (Alcorn 1981). Many states such as Arizona, Arkansas, An urban fishery will only be - suc and Illinois stock catchable-size fish on a cessful if nearby residents are aware of biweekly or monthly schedule to main- the resource and find it desirable and ac- tain the fishery. This is where managing cessible (Fedler and Howard 1991; Sch- urban fisheries becomes intensive. Stock- ramm and Dennis 1993; Fedler 2000). ing can be expensive, and it must be an Anglers that use urban fisheries choose Opportunities for Developing Urban Fishing 35 those settings because of their proxim- and restrooms (Toth and Brown 1997). ity and facilities (Manfredo et al. 1984). These amenities may also make a first- There are also a significant number of time angling experience more enjoyable lapsed anglers that indicated they do not and facilitate recruitment. Existing parks fish because they do not have a location often already have these types of ameni- to do so where the amenities and access ties and are sites where fishing lakes can provide the level of comfort they desire be established and the costs of amenity (Fedler 2000; Fedler and Ditton 2000). implementation and upkeep shared with Therefore, it is important to provide the city municipalities. needed amenities in order to recruit and Anglers utilizing smaller ponds and retain anglers. It may be important to lakes need easy access points where they provide a different set of amenities at dif- can fish from the bank. If the goal of the ferent locations to accommodate the dis- fishery is to provide access to underprivi- parate desires of different urban angling leged anglers, then the fishery needs to be groups (Hunt and Ditton 1997; Toth and within walking distance for them or pub- Brown 1997). As previously mentioned, lic transportation needs to be considered it is important to assess and understand (Radonski 1984). Handicapped access the anglers’ needs and interests. Without should also be considered in the early collecting and acting upon that informa- stages of planning (Fedler and Howard tion, the urban program will not be as 1991). On larger lakes and rivers in the successful as it could be (Manfredo et al. urban setting, boat ramps may be desired 1984; Schramm and Dennis 1993; Fedler by some anglers (Hunt and Ditton 1997). 2000). While attracting new anglers is often one Anglers who fish alone tend to place of the objectives for an urban fishing pro- the highest importance on their abil- gram, existing anglers or lapsed anglers ity to catch fish and having the resource in cities often own boats (Hunt and Dit- located close to home or work (Hunt ton 1996). Therefore, providing access for and Ditton 1997). Therefore, they may boats close to where these anglers live not require much in the way of ameni- can help encourage these anglers to re- ties. In fact, they prefer to fish in loca- main active or resume fishing. tions where people are not involved in Providing an environment where the other recreational activities. However, public feels safe and secure must also be anglers who fish with others, especially a priority. Many would-be anglers list other family members, place importance safety as a factor limiting their involve- on amenities such as picnic tables, rest- ment in angling and outdoor activities rooms and camping facilities (Hunt and (Hunt and Ditton 1996; Fedler 2000). Pro- Ditton 1997). Connection between family viding a sense of security for anglers will and friends is one of the primary market- also foster a sense of community when ing messages that is effective across all people come to share a common inter- ethnic groups (Fedler 2000; Responsive est (Walker 2004). Providing educational Management 2001; Fedler 2007b). But classes can help anglers feel more com- marketing to families will require that fortable in outdoor settings by providing some urban sites include family-oriented the skills needed to succeed in fishing amenities such as playground equip- (Fedler 2000). We also suggest having a ment, trash receptacles, picnic areas, bar- police patrol or game warden presence to beque pits, fishing docks, ample parking, provide a sense of security, especially if 36 Balsman and Shoup the urban fishing resource is located in a promoting. But today, with increased ur- less safe part of town. banization, many people have become It is important to minimize the cost disconnected from the outdoor experi- of going fishing in the urban program in ence and the outdoors needs to be adver- order to attract anglers who might oth- tised to attract urbanites. Additionally, erwise not try fishing because of the ini- many urbanites have other recreational tial costs. Many states have fishing tackle options vying for their time (Fedler 2000; loaner programs that allow someone to ASA&AFWA 2007). Realizing this, many try fishing without having to purchase states have applied a marketing model equipment. Some states, such as Ari- to the outdoor experience, much like zona, provide the option to purchase an what would be used to sell a commercial urban-only fishing license for those who product, to try to increase participation fish exclusively in urban waters. The li- (ASA&AFWA 2007). One of the most use- cense costs less than the regular annual ful marketing approaches for promoting state license (which is not required if an urban fishing program is a two-step the angler only urban waters), so process of segmenting then targeting it saves these anglers money, but it has (Rupert and Dann 1998). Segmenting is still proven economically feasible. Inten- separating the stakeholders into mean- sive fish stocking and implementation/ ingful groups that can be marketed to maintenance of amenities can be expen- differently depending on the needs of the sive. Some urban programs have used group. Targeting is identifying a specific permits that must be purchased in addi- segment on which the advertising will tion to a state license to generate revenue focus and developing a marketing strat- to help cover these costs. When possible, egy that will appeal to this segment’s in- other sources of funding should be con- terests. The process of identifying market sidered so as not to discourage anglers segments will be driven by the goals and from using the program (Gilliland 2008, objectives of the program (Fedler 2007a). this volume). One of the most effective Computerized fishing license databases options may be partnering with parks are an excellent tool to identify the seg- and recreation departments, or area busi- ment of the population that is fishing or nesses that have a vested interest (such has fished in the past (Rupert and Dann as bait and tackle shops, outfitters, etc.) 1998; Fedler 2007a). Community Tapes- to share initial or maintenance costs as- try can be used to identify potential tar- sociated with an urban fishing program get groups (Fedler 2007a; RBFF 2007). (Radonski 1984; Schramm and Edwards It is important to make the segment- 1994; Sweatman et al. 2008, this volume). ing as specific as possible when market- If an additional urban permit cannot be ing budgets are limited. For example, avoided, it should be as inexpensive as Minnesota found that if they had tar- possible. geted the top tier lifestyle segments for fishing participation (those with above Advertisement and Recruitment average income, as defined by Com- munity Tapestry) their response rate Marketing an urban fishing resource to marketing would have been signifi- is vitally important to its success. In the cantly greater (RBFF 2007). In another past, the outdoor experience has been example, the Ohio Department of Natu- thought of as an easy sell that did not need ral Resources (ODNR) was interested in Opportunities for Developing Urban Fishing 37 targeting African-Americans to increase ticipation rates than Caucasians (Fedler fishing license sales. In order to be more 2000; U.S. Department of the Interior specific, the ODNR combined Census 2002; ASA&AFWA 2007), and this tends data with their fishing license database to result from a lack of opportunity to ac- to identify lapsed anglers living in areas quire fishing knowledge and skill (Fedler with 80% African-American residents. 2000). This lack of knowledge can cre- The lapsed anglers were sent informa- ate discomfort during outdoor activities tion specifically designed for an African- such as fishing and deter minorities from American audience with a direct mailing participating (Fedler 2000). Outreach campaign. This illustrates that while no programs targeting minority groups are one database may have all the specificity needed to help educate these groups and that is desired, additional specificity can increase participation rates. An especial- be achieved by combining multiple data- ly important target group is Hispanics, bases (Fedler 2007a). which is one of the fastest growing seg- One segment that should be tar- ments in the U.S. population. This seg- geted when marketing an urban fishing ment should be considered for targeting program is the lapsed angler. There is a in states with increasing Hispanic pop- large proportion of the fishing popula- ulations (Fedler 2000). Minority focus tion that does not buy a license every groups have indicated that messages de- year (ASA&AFWA 2007). These lapsed picting or directed at their race or ethnic anglers can be more effectively recruited group are needed to reach these target by marketing than most other segments, groups (Fedler 2000). Word of mouth is if they are targeted shortly after they also a primary source of information that first become inactive (Fedler 2000). This minorities rely on for fishing information group is larger than most minority popu- (Burger et al. 1999). lations and also has a large proportion Children are also an important tar- of women (Fedler 2000). Computerized get group that should be considered fishing license databases can be used to when promoting an urban fishing pro- track license buying histories and iden- gram. Introducing children to fishing at tify these lapsed anglers (Rupert and a young age increases the chances that Dann 1998; Fedler 2007a). This database they will fish later in life (Responsive can also be used to track the success of Management 2003). Many state agen- outreach education classes and the suc- cies use outreach and aquatic education cesses or failures of different marketing programs targeted towards children to techniques with respect to reaching these promote fisheries resources and recruit lapsed anglers (Rupert and Dann 1998; new anglers (Zint and Dann 1995). These Fedler 2007a; RBFF 2007). programs increase interest and skills in Another segment that is commonly fishing (Rupert and Dann 1998; Fedler targeted when promoting an urban fish- 2004); however, these classes should not ing program is minorities (Botts 1984). stop at recruitment. There should be re- Each ethnic group should be viewed as peated contacts through workshops and a separate segment to be targeted, as informal venues (Rupert and Dann 1998; each will be best reached with different Siemer and Knuth 2001) to increase the media (Burger et al. 1999) and marketing likelihood that participants will become strategies (Fedler 2000). Minorities have lifelong anglers. Aquatic education pro- historically had much lower fishing par- grams that involve fishing trips are more 38 Balsman and Shoup effective than programs that only talk to further declines in angling involve- about fishing (Siemer and Knuth 2001). ment and concern for conservation and Regardless of the target audience, a the natural world. key to effective marketing is making mul- tiple contacts with the potential angler References (Fedler 2006; Fedler 2007c; RBFF 2007). In Iowa’s evaluation of their marketing Alcorn, S. R. 1981. Fishing quality in two urban fish- efforts, they found would-be anglers told ing lakes, St. Louis, Missouri. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1(1):80–84. researchers they needed two primary ASA&AFWA (American Sportfishing Association things: more reminders and encourage- and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen- ment to go fishing, and more informa- cies). 2007. Lifestyles and license buying habits tion about where they could fish locally of America’s anglers: a five-year examination (Fedler 2007c). For example, direct mail of U.S. license buyers. Southwick Associates, in combination with other marketing ac- Inc. Available: http://www.rbff.org/uploads/Re- search_section/Related_Research/ASA-FWA_ tivities such as radio ads and literature License_Analysis_Summary_Report_2006.pdf. placed at tackle shops and city parks can (August 2007). be more effective than a single marketing Botts, L. 1984. Symposium summary. Pages 284– activity alone (Fedler 2007a; RBFF 2007). 288 in L. A. Allen, editor. Urban fishing sympo- sium proceedings. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Conclusions Boxrucker, J. 1986. Evaluation of supplemental stocking of as a management Urban fishing programs provide a tool in small impoundments. North American strategic opportunity to counter the na- Journal of Fisheries Management 6(3):391– tionwide decline in fishing participation 396. and license sales. Urban centers have a Brader, J. D. 2008. Aquaculture’s role in providing fish for urban fisheries programs. Pages 13–19 high concentration of nonanglers and in R. T. Eades, J. W. Neal, T. J. Lang, K. M. lapsed anglers that can be effectively re- Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. Urban and commu- cruited and retained through properly nity fisheries programs: development, manage- designed and marketed urban fishing ment, and evaluation. American Fisheries Soci- programs. For an urban program to be ef- ety, Symposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland. Burger, J., K. K. Pflugh, L. Lurig, L. A. Von Hagen, fective, it must provide a quality fishing and S. Van Hagen. 1999. Fishing in urban New resource that is accessible and close to the Jersey: ethnicity affects information sources, target anglers. Appropriate amenities are perception, and compliance. Risk Analysis necessary to make anglers feel comfort- 19(2):217–229. able and safe. The resource must then be Carline, R. F., T. Beard, Jr., B. A. Hollender. 1991. marketed to targeted potential anglers. Response of wild brown trout to elimination of stocking and to no-harvest regulations. North As the United States becomes increas- American Journal of Fisheries Management ingly urbanized, urban fishing programs 11(3):253–266. will continue to become more important Cowx, I. G. 1994. Stocking strategies. Fisheries as a means of providing fishing oppor- Management and Ecology 1(1):15–30. tunities in these environments. Without Dunlap, R. E., and R. B. Heffernan. 1973. Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: an em- these opportunities, busy urbanites will pirical examination. Rural Sociology 40(1):18– likely be drawn toward the numerous 30. other recreational activities that are con- Fedler, A. J., and L. E. Howard. 1991. The status of veniently available in urban centers and urban fishing programs nationwide. Sport Fish require smaller amounts of time, leading Institute, Washington, D.C. Opportunities for Developing Urban Fishing 39 Fedler, A. J. 2000. Participation in boating and fish- spective on community fishing in Texas. Texas ing: a literature review. Recreational Boating A&M University Human Dimensions of Fisher- and Fishing Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia. ies Research Laboratory, Report HD-606, Texas Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 2000. Developing a na- A&M University, College Station, Texas. tional outreach strategy for recreational boating Hunt, K. A., and R. B. Ditton. 1997. The social con- and fishing. Fisheries 25(1):22–28. text of site selection for freshwater fishing. North Fedler, A. J. 2004. National fishing and boating educa- American Journal of Fisheries Management tion grant initiative: 2003–2004 evaluation survey 17(2):331–338. results. Recreational Boating and Fishing Foun- Hutt, C. P., J. W. Neal, and T. J. Lang. 2008. Stock- dation, Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http:// ing harvestable hybrid striped bass in an urban www.rbff.org/uploads/Research_section/2003– fishing program: angling success, angler satis- 04_Evaluation_Survey_Report-_Final.pdf. faction, and influence on size structure. (March 2008). Pages 403–411 in R. T. Eades, J. W. Neal, T. J. Fedler, A. J. 2006. Take me fishing in Iowa: an evalu- Lang, K. M. Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. Urban ation of the 2005 Iowa DNR marketing program. and community fisheries programs: development, Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, management, and evaluation. American Fisheries Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http://www.rbff. Society, Symposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland. org/uploads/Research_section/IDNR-RBFF_Fi- Kellert, S. R., and M. O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s nal_Report_March_2006.pdf. (March 2008). attitudes, knowledge and behaviors towards ani- Fedler, A. J. 2007a. Take me fishing: a summary of mals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S Gov- key learnings from state marketing programs. ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Manfredo, M. J., C. C. Harris, and P. J. Brown. 1984. Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http://www.rbff. The social values of an urban org/uploads/Research_section/Program_ Evalu- experience. Pages 156–164 in L. A. Allen, editor. ation _Files/Key_Learnings_Report_-_FINAL. Urban fishing symposium proceedings. American pdf. (March 2008). Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Fedler, A. J. 2007b. Take me fishing in Idaho: an eval- Miko, D. A., H. L. Schramm, Jr., S. D. Arey, J. A. uation of the Idaho department of fish and game’s Dennis, N. E. Mathews. 1995. Determination of 2006 angler recruitment and retention program. stocking densities for satisfactory put-and-take Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, fisheries. North American Journal Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http://www. of Fisheries Management 15(4):823–829. rbff.org/uploads/Research_section/Iowa/2006_ Noble, R. L., and T. W. Jones. 1999. Managing fish- Idaho_RR_Program_Final_ Report.pdf. (March eries with regulations. Pages 455–480 in C. C. 2008). Kohler, and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisher- Fedler, A. J. 2007c. Take me fishing in Iowa: an evalu- ies management, 2nd edition. American Fisheries ation of the 2006 Iowa DNR marketing program. Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Radonski, G. C. 1984. Opportunities for urban fishing. Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http://www. Pages 1–8 in L. A. Allen, editor. Urban fishing rbff.org/uploads/Research_section/Iowa/2006 symposium proceedings. American Fisheries So- _Iowa_Marketing_Program_Final_Report.pdf. ciety, Bethesda, Maryland. (March 2008). RBFF (Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation). Gilliland, G. 2008. Paying the bills: funding urban 2007. MN marketing program: executive summa- and community fishing. Pages 3–11 in R. T. ry. Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Eades, J. W. Neal, T. J. Lang, K. M. Hunt, and Alexandria, Virginia. Available: http://www.rbff. P. Pajak, editors. Urban and community fisheries org/uploads/Research_section/ Program_Evalua- programs: development, management, and evalu- tion_Files/MN_Marketing_Program_Executive_ ation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium Summary_-_FINAL.pdf. (March 2008). 67, Bethesda, Maryland. Responsive Management. 2001. Angler’s and boaters’ Heidinger, R. C. 1999. Stocking for sport fisheries en- attitudes towards various messages that commu- hancement. Pages 375–401 in C. C. Kohler, and nicate the benefits of fishing and boating: results W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries manage- of a series of nationwide focus groups. Respon- ment, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, sive Management. Available: http://www.rbff. Bethesda, Maryland. org/uploads/Research_ section/RBFFfocusgrou- Hunt, K. A., and R. B. Ditton. 1996. A statewide per- prpt.pdf. (March 2008). 40 Balsman and Shoup Responsive Management. 2003. Factors related to U.S. Census Bureau. Available: http://fact- hunting and fishing participation among the finder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&- nation’s youth: a review of the literature. Re- geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_ sponsive Management. Available: http://www. SF1_U&-_lang=en&-mt_name=DEC_2000_ responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/ SF1_U_P002&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt. YouthFactorsPhaseI.pdf. (March 2008). (August 2007). Rupert, J. D., and S. L. Dann. 1998. Fishing in the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wild- parks: a research-based outreach program. Fish- life Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, eries 23(6):19–27. U.S. Census Bureau). 2002. 2001 national survey Schramm, H. L., Jr., and G. B. Edwards. 1994. The of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated rec- perspectives on urban fisheries management: re- reation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- sults of a workshop. Fisheries 19(10):9–15. ington, D.C. Schramm, H. L., Jr., and J. A. Dennis. 1993. Char- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 2006 national acteristics and perceptions of users and nonusers survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associ- of an urban fishery program in Lubbock, Texas. ated recreation national overview. U.S. Govern- North American Journal of Fisheries Manage- ment Printing Office, Washington D.C. ment 13:210–216. Walker, C. 2004. The public value of urban parks. The Siemer, W. F., and B. A. Knuth. 2001. Effects of fish- Urban Institute. Available: http://www.project- ing education programs on antecedents of re- evergreen.com/pdf/311011_urban_parks-2.pdf. sponsible environmental behavior. The Journal (March 2008). of Environmental Education 32(4):23–29. Wiley, R. W., R. A. Whaley, J. B. Satake, and M. Sweatman, J., M. De Jesus, and P. Thomas. 2008. The Fowden. 1993. Assessment of stocking importance of partnerships in Florida’s urban fish- trout: a Wyoming perspective. North American eries. Pages 21–29 in R. T. Eades, J. W. Neal, T. Journal of Fisheries Management 13(1):160–170. J. Lang, K. M. Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. Urban Wydoski, R. S., and R. W. Wiley. 1999 Management and community fisheries programs: development, of undesirable species. Pages 403–430 in C. C. management, and evaluation. American Fisheries Kohler, and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisher- Society, Symposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland. ies management, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Toth, J. F., Jr., and R. B. Brown. 1997. Racial and gen- Society, Bethesda, Maryland. der meanings of why people participate in recre- Zint, M., and S. Dann. 1995. Educating youth about ational fishing. Leisure Sciences 19:129–146. fish, fishing, and fisheries management issues. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American factfinder. Fisheries 20(2):28–30.