An Evaluation of the Illinois Recreational Access Program (IRAP)

Abstract

The intent of this study was to (a) evaluate both recreation and landowner participants in the Illinois Recreation Access Program (IRAP), and b) investigate the attitudes and needs of Illinois recreationists and landowners as a whole toward access and enrollment of private lands for recreation use in Illinois.

Full text

HumanDimensions
R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m
Illinois Natural History Survey
Prairie Research Institute
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
An Evaluation of the Illinois
Recreational Access Program
(IRAP)
Federal Aid Project
Number W-112-R-31
Job Number 102.1
Wildlife Restoration
Oct. 1, 2021-Sept. 30, 2022
Natalie Phelps Finnie,
Director, Illinois Department
of Natural Resources
Jennifer Wellman,
Federal Aid Coordinator
Mike Wefer,
Chief, Division of Wildlife
Resources
Craig A. Miller, Ph.D.
Program Leader and Principal Investigator
Human Dimensions Research Program
Illinois Natural History Survey
Prepared by
Brent D. Williams, Craig A. Miller,
Lauren J. Stephens, and Eric M. Walberg
INHS Technical Report 2023 (37)
September 6, 2022

Key words: IRAP, IRAP awareness, IRAP participation, IRAP behavior, IRAP landowners, IRAP participants,
Illinois recreationist
Suggested Citation:
Williams, B.D, C.A. Miller, L.J. Stephens, and E.M. Walberg. 2022. An Evaluation of the Illinois Recreational
Access Program. Job Completion Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R-31. Human
Dimensions Research Program Report SR-21-01/INHS Technical Report 2023 (37). Illinois Natural History
Survey, Champaign, IL. 177pp.

iii
AN EVALUATION OF THE ILLINOIS RECREATIONAL
ACCESS PROGRAM (IRAP)
JOB COMPLETION REPORT
WILDLIFE HARVEST AND
HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PROJECT NUMBER: W-112-R-31
STUDY 102
JOB NO. 102.1
Craig A. Miller, Ph.D.
Program Leader and Principal Investigator
Human Dimensions Research Program
Illinois Natural History Survey
Prairie Research Institute
University of Illinois
Prepared by
Brent D. Williams, Craig A. Miller,
Lauren J. Stephens, and Eric M. Walberg
Illinois Natural History Survey
Champaign, IL
September 6, 2022
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
W-112-R-31
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Natalie Phelps Finnie, Director Mike Wefer, Chief
Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources
Equal opportunity to participate in programs of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and those funded
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies is available to all individuals regardless of race, sex, national
origin, disability, age, religion or other non-merit factors. If you believe you have been discriminated against, contact
the funding source’s civil rights office and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, IDNR, One Natural
Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271; 217/785/0067; TTY 217/782/9175.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Illinois Recreational Access Program (IRAP) Page
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1
IRAP Participants...........................................................................................................1
IRAP Landowners ..........................................................................................................2
Illinois Recreationists.....................................................................................................2
Illinois Landowners .......................................................................................................3
Background ..........................................................................................................................4
Purpose ...........................................................................................................................4
Methods..........................................................................................................................5
1. IRAP Participant Survey
Results .......................................................................................................................................7
Participant Profile ................................................................................................................7
Figure 1. Gender distribution of respondents ................................................................7
Figure 2. Type of area respondents currently live in .....................................................8
Figure 3. Approximate total (gross) household income.................................................8
Figure 4. Type of area where respondent lives ..............................................................9
Figure 5. Person who completed questionnaire .............................................................9
Figure 6. Outdoor recreational activities in which participants are engaged ..............10
Table 1. Level of importance for recreational activities ...........................................10
Figure 7. The type of land used most often for hunting or recreation purposes ..........11
Table 2. IRAP participants’ level of agreement with statements regarding ..................
land access ...................................................................................................11
IRAP Participation .............................................................................................................12
Figure 8. How respondents learned about IRAP .........................................................12
Table 3. IRAP activity participation by year ..............................................................13
Table 4. Agreement with statements regarding applying to IRAP and land access ...14
Figure 9. Percentage of respondents who have applied to IRAP properties and ............
have not been selected ................................................................................15
Figure 10. Percentage of respondents who reapplied to access IRAP properties .............
after not being selected ................................................................................15
Figure 11. Average traveling distance to participate in IRAP activities........................15
Figure 12. IRAP activities participants knew about before receiving a ...........................
questionnaire ..............................................................................................16
Figure 13. The type of land used most often for hunting or recreation purposes .......16
Table 5. Agreement with statements regarding IRAP ............................................17
IRAP Experience and Satisfaction .....................................................................................18
Figure 14. Overall satisfaction with IRAP ...................................................................18
Table 6. Participant satisfaction with the application process ..................................19
Table 7. Satisfaction level for respondents’ experience with IRAP .........................20

v
Hunting on IRAP Sites.......................................................................................................20
Figure 15. Percentage of respondents who considered themselves a hunter ...............21
Figure 16. Percentage of respondents who saw the species they were hunting ...........21
Figure 17. Satisfaction with the number of shooting opportunities while on .................
IRAP sites ..................................................................................................21
Figure 18. Percentage of respondents who harvested game while hunting IRAP ......21
Figure 19. Percentage of respondents who have ever participated in IRAP ...................
Youth turkey hunting .................................................................................22
Figure 20. Among IRAP youth turkey hunters, percentage who would still apply ........
for state-wide turkey hunting during seasons 3 and 4 if IRAP were ............
not available ..............................................................................................22
Figure 21. Interest in having IRAP youth turkey season occurring later to avoid ..............
bad weather and/or Easter weekend ............................................................22
Figure 22. Percentage of respondents who would still hunt in Illinois if IRAP .............
were not available ......................................................................................23
Figure 23. How often respondents would hunt if IRAP were not available ...............23
Figure 24. Type of land IRAP hunters would hunt if IRAP were not available .........23
Table 8. Likelihood to recommend or participate in IRAP ......................................24
Table 9. Reasons for not likely hunting IRAP in the future .....................................25
Table 10. Interest level in participating in IRAP programs ......................................26
Table 11. Importance and satisfaction with IRAP and hunting ................................27
Hunting in Illinois ..............................................................................................................28
Figure 25. People with whom respondents reported hunting ......................................28
Figure 26. Species hunters targeted in 2020-21 ..........................................................29
Figure 27. Percentage of respondents who applied for an IDNR hunting ......................
lottery permit ..............................................................................................30
Figure 28. IDNR lottery permits hunters applied for ..................................................30
Table 12. Primary reason for hunting in another state ...............................................30
Table 13. If only one day to hunt, species hunter would target .................................31
Table 14. Level of agreement with statements regarding hunters and hunting .........32
Discussion................................................................................................................................32
2. IRAP Landowner Survey
Results .....................................................................................................................................34
Landowner Profile .............................................................................................................34
Figure 29. Gender distribution of respondents ............................................................34
Figure 30. Percentage of respondents who live on the property enrolled in IRAP .....34
Figure 31. The primary decision maker on the private property owned .....................35
Figure 32. Landowners highest level of education......................................................35
Figure 33. Percentage of total net household income from IRAP properties..............35
Figure 34. Percent of respondents currently enrolled in IRAP ...................................36
Table 15. Reasons for choosing to enroll property(ies) in IRAP ..............................37

vi
Conservation Practices Prior to IRAP Enrollment.............................................................38
Figure 35. Percentage of respondents who had any habit improvements ......................
on their property prior to enrollment in IRAP ...........................................38
Figure 36. Percentage among whose who had habitat improvements whose
improvements were due to enrollment in a conservation program ............38
Table 16. Percent of landowners who had participated in various USDA ....................
and Illinois state conservation programs .....................................................39
Table 17. Importance of habitat conservation to IRAP landowners ..........................39
Concerns Before IRAP Enrollment ...................................................................................40
Figure 37. Percentage of respondents who had concerns about enrolling in IRAP ....40
Figure 38. Percent of respondents who felt their concerns were adequately
addressed ....................................................................................................40
Figure 39. Respondents concerns about enrolling in IRAP ........................................41
Figure 40. Respondents concerns that were not addressed after IRAP enrollment ....41
Hunting Prior to and After IRAP Enrollment ....................................................................42
Figure 41. Types of people allowed to hunt on property before after IRAP ...................
enrollment ..................................................................................................42
Figure 42. Percent of respondents who have ever denied access to hunters
asking for permission to hunt their property ..............................................43
Figure 43. Percentage of respondents who allowed hunters to access their
property before enrolling in IRAP .............................................................43
Figure 44. Reasons hunters were denied permission to hunt ......................................43
Table 18. Number and types of people allowed to hunt property prior to ....................
IRAP enrollment ........................................................................................44
Figure 45. Types of people who hunted on priority after IRAP enrollment ...............45
Figure 46. Amount of time hunting own property compared to years before ................
enrollment in IRAP ....................................................................................45
Figure 47. The type of game hunted on properties before IRAP enrollment ..............45
Figure 48. The type of game hunted on property after IRAP enrollment ..................46
Figure 49. The type of game hunted on property after IRAP enrollment by ................
non-IRAP hunters .....................................................................................47
Figure 50. The number of Non-IRAP hunters who hunted landowners property
after IRAP enrollment ................................................................................47
Figure 51. How often respondents needed to contact an Illinois DNR ..........................
Conservation Officer with problems on their property involving ................
hunters before and after IRAP enrollment. before enrollment in IRAP ....48
Figure 52. How often respondents needed to contact an Illinois DNR ..........................
Conservation Officer with problems on their property involving ................
nonhunting recreationists before and after IRAP enrollment ....................49
Figure 53. Satisfaction rating of respondents with the hunters who hunted their ...............
property before and after IRAP enrollment. .................................................50

vii
IRAP Experience ...............................................................................................................50
Table 19. Satisfaction level for respondents experience with IRAP..........................51
Figure 54. Overall experience with IRAP....................................................................51
Figure 55. Value of habitat improvement made on property enrolled in IRAP ..........51
Table 20. Sources used for information about habitat improvement ............................
and land management practices. ................................................................52
Table 21. Sources used for information about habitat improvement ............................
and land management practices. ................................................................53
Figure 56. Percentage of respondents who were contacted this year by an IDNR ...........
Representative to check in on how things were going ...............................54
Figure 57. Importance of a regular check in by an IDNR representative ...................54
Table 22. Sources used for information about habitat improvement and ......................
land management practices. .......................................................................55
Table 23. Likelihood of performing the following actions involving IRAP .............56
Figure 58. Groups which landowners have recommended try IRAP ..........................57
Table 24. Level of agreement or disagreement with statements about IRAP. ...........58
Discussion................................................................................................................................59
3. Illinois Statewide Recreationist Survey
Results .....................................................................................................................................61
Recreationist Profile...........................................................................................................61
Figure 59. Gender distribution of respondents ............................................................61
Figure 60. Type of area respondents currently live in .................................................62
Figure 61. Approximate total (gross) household income ............................................62
Figure 62. Highest level of education completed ........................................................62
Outdoor Recreation in Illinois ...........................................................................................63
Figure 63. Outdoor recreational activities participated in ...........................................63
Table 25. Importance rankings for recreational activities..........................................64
Figure 64. Type of land used most often for hunting or outdoor recreation ...............64
Table 26. Recreationists’ agreement with statements about land access ...................65
IRAP Participation .............................................................................................................66
Figure 65. Percentage of respondents who were aware of IRAP before this ..................
survey .........................................................................................................66
Figure 66. How respondents became aware of IRAP .................................................66
Figure 67. Percentage of respondents who have applied to access IRAP .......................
properties....................................................................................................67
Figure 68. Respondents who reapplied to access IRAP properties after not ................
being selected .............................................................................................67
Table 27. Likelihood of performing the following actions involving IRAP .............68
Table 28. IRAP activity likely hunters are interested in trying .................................68
Table 29. Reasons that influenced hunters that are unlikely to try IRAP ..................69
Table 30. Level of agreement with statements about hunting .......................................70

viii
Hunting in Illinois ..............................................................................................................70
Figure 69. Percentage of respondents who consider themselves a hunter ...................70
Table 31. Level of agreement with statements regarding participation .......................
in IRAP .....................................................................................................71
Figure 70. People who respondents reported hunting with .........................................72
Figure 71. Types of game hunted ................................................................................72
Figure 72. Average traveling distance to hunt in Illinois ............................................73
Figure 73. Types of game hunted less now than five years ago ..................................73
Figure 74. Reasons for decreased hunting effort .........................................................74
Figure 75. Types of game hunted more now than five years ago ...............................75
Figure 76. Reasons for increased hunting effort .........................................................75
Figure 77. What respondents feel is the single greatest problem that contributes .........
to the decline in hunting ............................................................................76
Figure 78. Percentage of respondents who have ever paid a property owner to ............
hunt private land in Illinois ......................................................................77
Figure 79. Percentage of respondents who have ever been denied access for .................
hunting private land in Illinois ...................................................................77
Figure 80. Why recreationists believe they were denied permission to hunt ..................
private land.................................................................................................78
Figure 81. Percentage of respondents who have ever taken a youth turkey ...................
hunting during an Illinois Youth Turkey Hunt ..........................................79
Figure 82 Support of allowing youth turkey hunters to hunt during all 5 regular ........
spring turkey seasons until the youth hunter is able to harvest a ..................
turkey with their youth turkey permit ........................................................79
Table 32. Interest level in the following actions regarding a mentor program .............
for IRAP .....................................................................................................80
Discussion...............................................................................................................................81
4. Illinois Statewide Landowner Survey
Results .....................................................................................................................................83
Landowner Profile .............................................................................................................83
Figure 83. Gender distribution of respondents ............................................................83
Figure 84. The primary decision maker on the private property owned ......................84
Figure 85. Approximate percentage of total net household income that comes ..............
from owned private property ......................................................................85
Table 33. Distribution of Illinois counties in which participants currently .....................
own land .......................................................................................................85
Figure 86. Types of land-cover that best describes private property ...........................86
Figure 87. Percentage of respondents who reported that farming is their primary .........
source of income .........................................................................................86
Figure 88. Percentage of respondents who have livestock on their property ..............86
Figure 89. Percentage of respondents who perform any conservation ............................
management practices on their property .....................................................87

ix
Figure 90. Conservation practices performed by respondents .....................................88
Table 34. Respondent participation in various USDA and Illinois state .......................
conservation programs, in order of participation .......................................89
Figure 91 .Percentage of respondents who would continue to engage in ........................
conservation practices if they did not receive payment .............................90
Table 35. Conservation programs participation and total acres currently enrolled ...91
Table 36. Importance of habitat conservation to landowners .......................................92
Table 37. Landowners level of interest in aspects of conservation program ................
enrollment ..................................................................................................93
Private Land Hunting in Illinois ........................................................................................94
Table 38. Landowners’ level of agreement with statements regarding land
access ........................................................................................................94
Figure 92. Percentage of respondents who are aware that landowners who ...............
provide hunters free access to their property have their liability .................
reduced under Illinois law ........................................................................95
Figure 93. Landowners who currently carry an umbrella liability insurance ............
coverage on their property ........................................................................95
Figure 94. Percentage of respondents who have ever denied access to hunters .........
asking for permission to hunt their property ............................................96
Figure 95. Why landowners denied hunters permission to hunt on their land ..........96
Figure 96. Frequency with which landowners denied hunters access to ......................
their property ............................................................................................97
Figure 97. Percentage of landowners who have ever allowed hunting on their ...........
property ....................................................................................................97
Figure 98. Types of people allowed to hunt on property ...........................................98
Figure 99. What respondents consider to be the benefits of having hunters on ............
their property ............................................................................................98
Figure 100. The number of people allowed to hunt on the respondents’ property ......
each year ...................................................................................................99
Figure 101. The type of game hunted on respondents’ properties .............................100
Figure 102. Frequency with which respondents needed to contact a .................................
Conservation Officer with problems on their property involving hunters ..100
Figure 103. Satisfaction rating of respondents with the hunters who hunted ..................
their property ..........................................................................................101
IRAP Participation ...........................................................................................................101
Figure 104. Percentage of respondents who were aware of IRAP before this ...............
survey .....................................................................................................101
Figure 105. How respondents became aware of IRAP ..............................................102
Table 39. Respondent interest in recreation activities on their property ...............103
Table 40. Level of agreement with statements regarding IRAP ............................104
Table 41. Likelihood to perform the following actions regarding IRAP ................
enrollment ..............................................................................................105
Figure 106. IRAP activities respondents are interested in .........................................106
Figure 107. Reasons why participation in IRAP is unlikely ......................................106
Figure 108. Respondents’ concerns about enrolling in IRAP....................................107

x
Discussion..............................................................................................................................108
Overall Conclusions
Comparisons .........................................................................................................................110
Demographics across all questionnaires ..........................................................................110
Figure 109. Response rate comparison ......................................................................111
Figure 110. Gender comparison .................................................................................111
Figure 111. Average age comparison .......................................................................112
Comparisons of recreationists across studies ...................................................................112
Land access ......................................................................................................................112
Table 42. Comparison of land access preferences ...................................................113
IRAP Visibility and Benefits ..........................................................................................113
Figure 112. IRAP Awareness Comparison ..............................................................114
Table 43. Comparison of IRAP benefit beliefs ........................................................114
IRAP Participation ..........................................................................................................114
Table 44. Comparison of future IRAP participation (recreationists) .......................115
Comparisons of landowners across studies......................................................................115
Figure 112. IRAP awareness comparison ..................................................................116
IRAP Participant Comparisons and Satisfaction ............................................................116
Statewide landowners comparisons ................................................................................117
Discussion..............................................................................................................................118
Literature Cited .....................................................................................................................120
Appendices
A.1: IRAP Participant Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................121
A.2: IRAP Participant Cover Letter #1 ..................................................................................132
A.3: IRAP Participant Cover Letter #2 ..................................................................................135
A.4: IRAP Participant Parental Notice ..................................................................................137
A.5: IRAP Participant Postcard .............................................................................................138
B.1: IRAP Landowner Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................139
B.2: IRAP Landowner Cover Letter #1 .................................................................................147
B.3: IRAP Landowner Cover Letter #2 .................................................................................149
B.4: IRAP Landowner Postcard .............................................................................................151
C.1: Illinois Statewide Recreationist Survey Questionnaire ..................................................152
C.2: Illinois Statewide Recreationist Cover Letter #1 ...........................................................160
C.3: Illinois Statewide Recreationist Cover Letter #2 ...........................................................162
C.4: Illinois Statewide Recreationist Postcard .......................................................................164
D.1: Illinois Statewide Landowner Survey Questionnaire ....................................................165
D.2: Illinois Statewide Landowner Cover Letter #1 ..............................................................173
D.3: Illinois Statewide Landowner Cover Letter #2 ..............................................................175
D.4: Illinois Statewide Landowner Postcard .........................................................................177

1
An Evaluation of the Illinois Recreational Access Program (IRAP)
Executive Summary
IRAP Participants
The results of IRAP participant survey suggest it is difficult to gain access to private property for
hunting in Illinois and most respondents were unsuccessful in previous attempts to do so. Public land
was used most often by respondents, even though private land was preferred, and in the absence of
access to IRAP properties, hunters would rely mostly on public lands. Almost all, 95%, would hunt were
it not for IRAP, though they feel IRAP is beneficial to Illinois and to them personally. They aspects with
the greatest disparity in importance and satisfaction were the availability of IRAP properties close to
home and seeing game species on the IRAP properties they had visited. Almost 90% would attempt to
participate in IRAP again; among those would not, proximity of IRAP properties was the primary reason
for not participating. Mean hunting experience in Illinois was 26 years, 89% purchase a hunting license
annually, and 92% had hunted in the previous year. This indicates the usefulness of the program as a
recruitment tool is likely limited to youth hunting activities as very few new hunters were identified. The
IRAP program seems to spread the number of hunters across the landscape more than recruit new ones.
Two-thirds were satisfied with the program overall and 12% were not satisfied.
IRAP Landowners
Approximately 95% of the landowners surveyed reported they were currently enrolled in IRAP.
The most frequent reasons for enrollment in the program were to improve habitat for wildlife, recruit
youth & new hunters by providing a place for them to hunt, and to receive financial cost-share assistance
for habitat projects, (77%, 75%, and 70%, respectively). Ninety percent respondents were satisfied with

2
the service provided by IDNR staff. Sixty-two percent evaluated to habitat improvements to their land as
high or very high. The majority allowed hunters on their property prior to IRAP, and denied hunters
asking for permission. They had done so because the property had been hunted by friends and family.
About half had initial concerns about enrolling in IRAP, including the behavior of recreationists on their
property, and personal liability, and 90% had their concerns met. Landowners seemed to be very
satisfied with IRAP. Participants are satisfied with the program, want regular check-ins, and would
prefer to know the names and times of those hunting their property.
Illinois Recreationists
A minority of participants (26%) were aware of IRAP prior to receiving the questionnaire and
only 7% had ever applied to hunt an IRAP property. Respondents preferred to access private land and
hunted most often on private lands owned by another or themselves, but 80% felt it was difficult to gain
access to private land. Most felt that landowners were becoming increasingly restrictive of access to
their land. Eighty-eight percent were moderately or extremely supportive of the program. About a third
wanted to participate in the program and were most interested in archery deer hunting and sport fishing.
Two-thirds had been denied access to hunting private land previously, and 80% had paid to hunt private
property. The most common reasons why respondents were unlikely to participate in IRAP were
currently having access to private land, that they lacked free time, or they lacked interest. Even though
hunters were not eager to participate in IRAP themselves, they were supportive of expanding
opportunities offered by IRAP especially through youth and mentor programs. These activities could be
used as a recruitment tool, but for respondents IRAP would be a means to increase hunter participation
as IRAP would increase their participation. Though in its absence they would still hunt.

3
Illinois Landowners
About 50% of landowners throughout Illinois felt that it is difficult to find places to hunt or
recreate in Illinois, and 76% percent agreed that landowners have become less willing to grant
permission to access their land, but only 25% agreed that some type of program is needed to improve
access to private land. Just 26% of landowners were aware of IRAP before receiving our survey, and
two-thirds were unaware that landowners who provide free access to their property have their liability
reduce under Illinois. A majority of landowners (72%) currently allowed hunting on their property, 78%
were satisfied with the behavior of the hunters. Only 4% of respondents indicated that they were likely
to enroll in IRAP in the future; most had concerns about enrolling in IRAP, generally about the behavior
of hunters on their property, personal liability, potential damage, and overall safety. Many landowners
indicated they were unlikely to participate because they did not want strangers hunting on their property
and that their land was for them and their families to use, and it was currently leased.

4
Background
With 3.74% of the total acreage of the state in public ownership, Illinois ranks 47th in the
proportion of public lands among states of the U.S. (U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Project,
2022). A significant amount of this public land (451 mi2) lies in the Shawnee National Forest in southern
Illinois (U.S.D.A Forest Service). This ratio of public to private land necessitates that recreation occurs
primarily on private land. To address the growing need for land for recreation and the importance
private land plays outdoor recreation, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) created the
Illinois Recreational Access Program (IRAP).
The primary goal of this program is to increase public access to private lands and provide more
outdoor recreation opportunities, as well as provide recruitment, retention, and reengagement in outdoor
recreation. The program was initiated in 2011 under a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
connect interested recreationists with opportunities provided by landowners willing to open their land to
specified recreation activities. In turn, landowners receive assistance with non-native species removal,
prescribed burning, prairie plantings and timber stand improvement. Further, landowners received a
stipend for participation; the amount is based on the number of acres enrolled. To date, the program has
grown to include close to 27,000 acres of private land in 52 counties. Current program activities include
hunting (youth turkey, spring turkey segments 3 & 4) upland, small game, waterfowl, youth shotgun
deer, archery deer), fishing and boating, bird watching, wildlife photography and viewing.

5
Purpose
The intent of this study was to (a) evaluate both recreation and landowner participants in the
Illinois Recreation Access Program (IRAP), and b) investigate the attitudes and needs of Illinois
recreationists and landowners as a whole toward access and enrollment of private lands for recreation
use in Illinois.
Methods
This study involved mail surveys of both recreationist and landowner participants in IRAP as
well as statewide recreationists and landowners not necessarily involved in the program. Contact
information for IRAP participants were provided by the IRAP program, Dynata provided names and
addresses for statewide landowners, and contact information for hunters was provided by IDNR. Each
of the four mail surveys were conducted using the same methods.
The IRAP Recreationist/Hunter sample consisted of 1,846 people who were enrolled in IRAP.
The IRAP Landowner sample included 187 people who had land enrolled in IRAP. Both IRAP sample
groups had the same mailing timeline. Subjects were first mailed the questionnaire (Appendices A.1 &
B.1) and cover letter (Appendices A.2 & B.2) on January 28, 2022. The first thank you/reminder
postcard mailing to non-respondents was sent on February 22, 2022 (Appendices A.5 & B.4). A second
copy of the questionnaire and cover letter were mailed March 08, 2022 (Appendices A.3 & B.3). Non-
respondents received a second reminder postcard March 31, 2022. Contact information for the IRAP
recreationist/hunter sample did not include date of birth or ages. An explanatory note for parents with

6
instructions on how to complete the survey (Appendix A.4) was included with all IRAP
Recreationist/Hunter questionnaire mailings.
The statewide recreationist sample consisted of 3,000 hunting license buyers randomly selected
from the 2019 license database of IDNR. The Statewide Landowner sample (N = 2,494) was randomly
selected from a list of private landowners in select counties (Appendix E) whose property contained 30
acres or more of timbered land. The initial mailed questionnaires (Appendices C.1 & D.1), cover letters
(Appendices C.2 & C.3), and stamped return envelopes (hereafter referred to as “survey packet”) were
mailed January 28, 2022, followed by a Thank you/Reminder postcard February 22, 2022 (Appendices
C.4 & D.4). A second mailing of the survey packet (Appendices C.3 & D.3) was sent March 08, 2022
followed by a second Thank you/Reminder postcard March 31, 2022.
Survey instruments were developed by Human Dimensions Research Program researchers in
cooperation with and approval of IRAP program staff.

7
1. IRAP Participant Survey
Results
Of the initial 1,846 IRAP participants sampled and 131 were removed as undeliverable, resulting
in a usable sample of 1,697 individuals. We received 599 completed questionnaires for a response rate
of 35%.
Participant Profile
Respondents were mostly male (93.8%) (Figure 1), had lived in Illinois a mean 38.3 years and
were a mean 45.5 years old. Over 97% of respondents reported that they had internet access. Most
respondents reported living in rural areas (26%) followed by small towns (22.4%) (Figure 2). About
57% of people had a total gross household income of $90,000 or more, whereas more than forty percent
(29.9%) had a household income of less than $75,000 (Figure 3). This is higher than the state average in
part because there is a disproportionate number of rural and small town IRAP participants whose
incomes greater than $90,000. Almost 50% of people had a bachelor’s or master’s degree and 29% had a
high school education or G.E.D. (Figure 4).
Figure 1. Gender distribution of respondents (n = 599).
93.8%
6.2%
Male Female

8
Figure 2. Type of area in which respondents lived (n = 599).
Figure 3. Approximate total (gross) household income (n = 551).
26.0%
22.4%
22.7%
11.9%
14.2%
2.8%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Rural
Small town
Small city (5,000-49,999)
Suburb of medium/large city
Medium city (50,000-500,000)
Large city (over 500,000)
1.6%
1.3%
4.4%
9.8%
12.9%
12.7%
57.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
less than $15,000
$15,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $44,999
$45,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $89,999
$90,000 plus

9
Figure 4. Type of area in which respondents lived (n = 599).
The majority (85.8%) of participants completed the questionnaire as an IRAP adult participant, and the
other 14.2% responded as a youth IRAP participant (Figure 5). The most popular outdoor recreational
activities among respondents were hunting (97.7%) and fishing (77.1%), followed by camping (52.1%),
boating (50.9%) hiking (48.1%), and birding (10.2%) (Figure 6). Hunting was rated as the most
important activity; 97.4% of respondents ranked it as either moderately or very important (Table 1).
Figure 5. Person who completed survey (n = 599).
18.9%
29.9%
10.8%
11.1%
29.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Master's or higher
Bachelor's degree
Associates Degree
Technical School
High school/GED
85.8%
10.5%
3.7%
Myself, as an IRAP adult participant
My child, who is an IRAP participant
Myself, as an IRAP youth participant

10
Figure 6. Outdoor recreational activities participated in (n = 599).
Table 1. Level of importance for recreational activities.
Not at all
important
(%)
Slightly
important
(%)
Moderately
important
(%)
Very
important
(%)
I do not
participate
(%)
Hunting (n = 599) 1.2 0.3 4.2 93.2 1.2
Hiking (n = 586) 7.7 25.4 24.9 22.2 19.8
Birding (n = 578) 18.3 18 9 7.8 46.9
Fishing (n = 597) 1.8 6.4 20.1 65.2 6.5
Camping (n = 586) 5.6 14.8 29.9 33.6 16
Boating (n = 583) 7.4 15.1 26.9 32.8 17.8
The type of land most often used for recreation was public lands (46.4%), followed by
private property not owned by the respondent (29.2%) (Figure 7). A majority (91.5%) of
respondents agreed that it was difficult to gain access to private properties, landowners have
become less willing to grant permission to recreate on their private land (86.9%), and it was
difficult to find places to hunt or recreate in Illinois (76.1%) (Table 2). Almost seventy percent
(69.0%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “It is easy to establish and maintain private
97.7%
77.1%
52.1% 50.9% 48.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Hunting Fishing Camping Boating Hiking

11
landowner contacts in Illinois”. Ninety percent of participants agreed that some type of hunter or
recreation program was needed to improve access to private land in Illinois (Table 2).
Figure 7. The type of land used most often for hunting or recreation purposes (n = 599).
Table 2. IRAP participants’ level of agreement with statements regarding land access (n = 598).
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%) Meana (S.D.)
It is difficult to find places to hunt/recreate
in Illinois 0.8 13.0 10.0 38.3 37.8 3.99 (1.04)
It is difficult to gain access to private
properties for recreating in Illinois 0.3 2.3 5.9 32.3 59.2 4.48 (0.74)
Landowners have become less willing to
grant permission to recreate on private land 0.2 1.2 11.7 31.8 55.1 4.41 (0.75)
It is easy to establish and maintain private
landowner contacts in Illinois 27.9 41.1 19.4 7.0 4.5 2.19 (1.06)
Some type of hunter/recreation program is
needed to improve access to private land in
Illinois 0.8 0.7 8.4 34.0 56.1 4.44 (0.75)
a1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree
46.4%
29.2%
11.4%
6.2% 5.7%
1.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Public
property
Private
property not
owned by me
My own
private
property
Private
property
owned by
family
IRAP land Private
outfitter
property

12
IRAP Participation
More than half (57.2%) of respondents became aware of IRAP by the IDNR website (Figure 8).
Other common ways participants became aware were by an IRAP participant (19.9%) or social media
(11.7). Since 2016, IRAP participants have consistently spent the most days afield participating in Sport
Fishing followed by archery hunting (Table 3). Additionally, respondents applied to participate in sport
fishing the most times a mean 3.13 times (n=43) and were drawn to participate in it a mean 2.67 times
(n=43).
Figure 8. How respondents learned about IRAP (n = 599).
(Percentages >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
3.0%
3.2%
3.2%
4.0%
5.2%
9.7%
11.7%
19.9%
57.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
State Fair booth
Where I hunt was enrolled
IRAP employee
Learn to Hunt program
Signs on property
IDNR employee
Word of mouth (Co-workers,etc.)
Friend
National Wild Turkey Federation
Family member
IRAP landowner
Pheasants Forever
Newspaper/Magazine
Social Media
IRAP participant
IDNR website

13
Table 3. IRAP activity participation, by year (n = 599).
Mean # of years
Mean # of days spent hunting IRAP by season and year.
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
IRAP activity
n
Applied
Received
Mean
(S.D.)
Mean
(S.D.)
Mean
(S.D.)
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
Spring Youth Turkey Hunting 97 2.37 2.08 2.50 (1.25) 2.57 (1.14) 2.24 (1.05) 2.55 (1.13) 2.55 (1.14)
Rabbit Hunting 10 2.38 1.70 2.00 (0.0) 1.50 (0.71) 1.40 (0.55) 3.75 (2.75) 1.6 (0.89)
Archery Deer Hunting 212 2.08 1.73 5.74 (4.92) 5.65 (4.26) 5.82 (4.27) 5.29 (4.27) 5.9 (4.27)
Spring Season 3 & 4 Turkey 147 2.11 1.81 3.16 (2.22) 2.72 (1.43) 2.87 (1.49) 3.23 (1.55) 3.02 (1.72)
Youth Shotgun Deer Hunting 30 1.74 1.63 2.67 (1.37) 3.00 (1.87) 2.67 (1.03) 2.73 (.65) 2.81 (1.17)
Squirrel Hunting 14 2.83 2.50 2.67 (2.08) 1.83 (1.60) 2.00 (1.31) 4.00 (3.67) 3.56 (3.32)
Upland Game Hunting 49 1.87 1.63 1.50 (0.58) 1.33 (0.50) 1.47 (0.52) 1.71 (0.96) 1.48 (0.57)
Waterfowl Hunting 68 1.67 1.50 1.93 (1.22) 2.08 (1.24) 2.00 (1.17) 1.63 (1.00) 2.00 (1.61)
Sport Fishing 43 3.13 2.67 7.68 (7.75) 6.27 (6.79) 6.61 (6.79) 6.14 (6.81) 6.73 (7.81)
Non-motorized Boat Access 2 3.00 3.00 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)

14
Many respondents participated in IRAP so they could hunt new places in Illinois (87.4%) and to
find private access for outdoor activities in IL (85.9%); whereas 13.2% of respondents participated to try
hunting for the first time (Table 4). Seventy-two percent of respondents preferred to access private land
over public land for outdoor recreation, however, more than half (60.1%) reported that they were
unsuccessful in their attempts to gain private land access.
Table 4. Agreement with statements regarding applying to IRAP and land access.
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%) Meana (S.D.)
I prefer to access private land over public land for
outdoor recreation in IL. 2.2 4.2 25.9 35.1 32.6 3.92(0.97)
I do not have time to meet with private
landowners to obtain access to private land. 7.5 27.6 29.8 24.1 10.9 3.03(1.12)
I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to gain
private land access in IL. 2.9 11.6 25.5 35.9 24.2 3.67(1.05)
I applied to participate in IRAP because I wanted
to try hunting for the first time. 42.9 25.0 19.0 7.7 5.5 2.08(1.19)
I applied to participate in IRAP to find private
access for outdoor activities in IL. 2.2 3.2 8.7 41.2 44.7 4.23(0.9)
Public land for hunting/recreation in IL is too
crowded. 0.5 4.7 22.1 41.0 31.7 3.99(0.88)
I applied to participate in IRAP to fish new places
in IL. 28.0 21.1 35.2 8.1 7.6 2.46(1.19)
I applied to participate in IRAP to hunt new
places in IL. 2.7 2.0 7.9 41.7 45.7 4.26(0.89)
I applied because I was denied a permit at a state
ran site. 31.7 29.8 23.1 10.3 5.1 2.27(1.16)
a1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree

15
Over one third (41.3%) of IRAP participants have applied to access IRAP properties and were
not selected, most (65.8%) reapplied (Figures 9 & 10). Thirty-four percent of respondents traveled 26-50
miles on average to participate in IRAP activities, whereas 27.2% traveled less than 26 miles, and 38.5%
traveled more than 50 miles (Figure 11).
Figure 9. Percentage of respondents who Figure 10. Percentage of respondents who
have applied to IRAP properties and reapplied to access IRAP properties after not being
have not been selected (n = 596). selected (n = 243).
Figure 11. Average traveling distance to participate in IRAP activities (n = 530).
41.3%
58.7%
Yes No
65.8%
34.2%
Yes No
2.3%
19.2%
27.5%
23.6%
11.1%
16.2%
0% 10% 20% 30%
<1 mile
1-25 miles
26-50 miles
51-75 miles
76-100 miles
>100 miles

16
Before receiving the questionnaire participants were most likely to be aware that IRAP offered
archery deer hunting & turkey hunting (Figure 12). Fewer hunters were aware of small game hunting
opportunities such as rabbit and squirrel. Small game hunters (rabbit and squirrel) were also the most
reliant upon IRAP (Figure 13) when reliance was restricted to those who were aware IRAP offered the
corresponding activity.
Figure 12. IRAP activities participants knew about before receiving questionnaire (n = 587).
Figure 13. Activities in which respondentsa would not participate without IRAP.
a Restricted to those hunters who were aware the activity was available through IRAP prior to questionnaire.
33%
35%
42%
42%
44%
48%
58%
58%
76%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Rabbit Hunting
Squirrel Hunting
Youth Shotgun Deer Hunting
Waterfowl Hunting
Upland Game Hunting
Fishing
Spring Youth Turkey Hunting
Spring Turkey Season 3 & 4 Hunting
Archery Deer Hunting
13%
17%
31%
37%
37%
42%
43%
45%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Fishing
Archery Deer
Upland Game
Waterfowl
Spring Youth Turkey
Youth Shotgun Deer
Spring Turkey Season 3 & 4
Squirrel
Rabbit

17
Participants rated a series of statements relating to their IRAP experience on a 5-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree.) The majority of respondents (59.4%) strongly agreed that IRAP
is beneficial for Illinois and 55.7% strongly agreed that IRAP was needed to improve hunter/recreation
access to private lands (Table 5). Eighty-six percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that IRAP
was beneficial to them personally.
Table 5. Level of agreement with statements regarding IRAP.
IRAP:
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%)
Mean
a
(S.D.)
is needed to improve hunter access to
private lands in IL.
0.2 0.5 7.0 36.6 55.7 4.47(0.66)
is needed to improve recreation access to
private lands in IL. 0.2 1.7 15.3 36.9 46.0 4.27(0.79)
is beneficial for IL. 0.2 0.2 7.7 32.6 59.4 4.51(0.66)
is beneficial to me personally. 1.2 2.0 10.1 31.7 55.0 4.37(0.84)
gives me the opportunity to spend quality
time with family and friends 1.7 4.7 27.3 29.2 37.1 3.95(0.99)
causes more hunters/recreationists to
lease places for themselves. 8.1 23.3 49.9 11.5 7.3 2.87(0.97)
decreases the number of hunters that are
leaving the sport.
6.2 10.9 36.1 33.1 13.6 3.37(1.05)
creates new opportunities to hunt/recreate
on private lands in IL. 0.2 1.0 4.7 43.2 50.9 4.44(0.65)
has no impact on retaining hunters/
recreationists in IL. 16.3 32.6 41.3 7.9 1.8 2.46(0.92)
has no impact on recruiting hunters/
recreationists in IL. 16.3 34.3 40.2 7.1 2.2 2.45(0.92)
gives me a stronger connection with
nature 1.2 3.2 26.9 38.6 30.1 3.93(0.90)
is beneficial to wildlife 0.3 2.0 19.0 43.4 35.3 4.11(0.80)
improves the quality of native vegetation 0.3 2.4 43.6 28.8 24.9 3.76(0.87)
causes hunters lose access to sites. 22.7 39.0 32.3 3.4 2.7 2.24(0.93)
a1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree

18
IRAP Experience and Satisfaction
Two thirds (67.6%) of participants were satisfied with overall with IRAP whereas, 11.6% were
dissatisfied (Figure 14). Participants applied to hunt in the greatest number to spring turkey and archery
deer seasons (Table 6). When asked about their satisfaction with the application process, 84.2% of
spring turkey hunters and 79.4% of archery deer hunters were satisfied or extremely satisfied with
process. Waterfowl hunters were the least satisfied with the application process and those who didn’t
receive a permit were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied [F(1, 45) = 5.249, p =.027]; the effect
size was moderate (η=.0326).
Figure 14. Overall satisfaction with IRAP (n = 596).
3.2% 8.4%
20.8%
40.6%
27.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Extremely
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Extremely
satisfied

19
Table 6. Participant satisfaction with the 2020 application process.
When asked how satisfied they were with aspects of IRAP, 73.2% of participants were satisfied
with the application process for IRAP activities (Table 7). Fifty percent of respondents were dissatisfied
with the availability of IRAP properties in their area, but were satisfied with the quality of private lands
selected for IRAP sites (54.4%) and the quality of wildlife habitat on the properties (57.8%).
IRAP Permit
# who
Applied
Received
(%)
Extremely
Dissatisfied
(%)
Dissatisfied
(%)
Neither
(%)
Satisfied
(%)
Extremely
Satisfied
(%)
Mean
a
(S.D.)
Spring Turkey
Hunting
176 92.0 1.7 4.5 9.6 53.1 31.1 4.07(0.86)
Archery Deer
Hunting
172 83.7 2.3 8.0 10.3 47.4 32.0 3.99(0.98)
Youth Shotgun Deer 20 95.0 0.0 9.1 18.2 31.8 40.9 4.05(1.00)
Squirrel Hunting 11 81.8 0.0 0.0 23.1 38.5 38.5 4.15(0.80)
Fishing 27 88.9 0.0 6.9 17.2 34.5 41.4 4.10(0.94)
Rabbit Hunting 8 62.5 0.0 10.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 3.60(0.97)
Upland Game
Hunting
40 82.5 4.9 14.6 19.5 41.5 19.5 3.56(1.12)
Waterfowl Hunting 46 82.6 10.6 23.4 21.3 36.2 8.5 3.09(1.18)

20
Table 7. Satisfaction level for respondents’ experience with IRAP.
Extremely
Dissatisfied
(%)
Dissatisfied
(%)
Neither
(%)
Satisfied
(%)
Extremely
Satisfied
(%)
Mean
a
(S.D.)
Application process for IRAP activities 1.0 8.4 17.3 56.4 16.8 3.80 (0.85)
Lottery selection process for IRAP activities 2.0 7.3 27.8 48.9 14.0 3.66 (0.88)
Number of IRAP activities for Youth Hunters 0.3 4.3 45.2 36.2 13.9 3.59 (0.79)
Number of IRAP activities for military vet
hunters 1.5 3.6 54.8 25.9 14.1 3.47 (0.84)
Number of IRAP activities for first time adult
Hunters 0.5 2.7 46.8 34.2 15.7 3.62 (0.80)
Availability of IRAP properties in your area 16.7 34.2 22.9 22.3 3.9 2.62 (1.12)
Timing of activities for IRAP properties 3.0 11.8 35.7 39.8 9.6 3.41 (0.93)
Quality of wildlife habitat on IRAP properties 2.9 8.1 31.2 44.0 13.8 3.58 (0.93)
Quality of private lands selected for IRAP
sites 3.2 8.9 33.4 39.6 14.8 3.54 (0.96)
Abundance of wildlife on IRAP properties 5.2 10.6 40.2 34.6 9.3 3.32 (0.97)
a1=Extremely Dissatisfied, 5=Extremely Satisfied
Hunting on IRAP Sites
Ninety-seven percent of respondents considered themselves a hunter (Figure 15).
Respondents hunted an average of 2.20 IRAP sites in Illinois (n=479). Most hunters (71.2%) saw the
species they were hunting while they were on an IRAP site (Figure 16). Roughly forty-four percent of
hunters were satisfied with the number of shooting opportunities they had hunting IRAP, 23.1% were
dissatisfied, and 33.1% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Figure 17). One-third of participants
reported harvesting game while hunting on IRAP property (Figure 18).

21
Figure 15. Percentage of respondents who Figure 16. Percentage of respondents who
considered themselves a hunter (n = 479). saw the species they were hunting (n = 476).
Figure 17. Satisfaction with the number of Figure 18. Percentage of respondents who
shooting opportunities while on IRAP sites harvested game while hunting IRAP (n =
(n = 476). 476).
Over three-quarters (77.3%) of respondents had ever participated in an IRAP youth turkey hunt
(Figure 19), and 53.4% of those would also apply for statewide turkey permits during seasons 3 and 4 if
IRAP were not an option (Figure 20). Fifty-two percent among those who had not hunted in turkey
youth IRAP were not at all interested in the IRAP youth turkey season occurring later to avoid bad
97.0%
3.0%
Yes No
71.2%
28.8%
Yes No
33.1%
23.1%
43.8%
Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied
33.2%
66.8%
Yes No

22
weather and/or Easter weekend (Figure 21). Whereas, 31.5% of those who hunted in IRAP Youth
Turkey were somewhat interested.
Figure 19. Percentage of respondents who Figure 20. Among IRAP youth turkey hunters,
have ever participated in IRAP youth turkey percentage who would still apply for state
hunting (n = 475). wide turkey hunting during seasons 3 and 4 if
IRAP were not available (n = 476).
Figure 21. Interest in having IRAP youth turkey season occurring later to avoid bad weather and/or
Easter weekend (n = 476)).
Almost all (95.0%) of respondents would still hunt in Illinois if IRAP were not available,
however, approximately 33.2% would hunt less than they currently participate (Figures 22 & 23). If
77.3%
22.7%
Yes No
53.4%
46.6%
Yes No
52.9%
7.1%
21.9%
12.9%
5.2%
20.4%
10.2%
31.5%
20.4% 17.6%
45.4%
8.0%
24.2%
14.5%
8.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Not at all
Interested
Slightly
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Very
Interested
Extremely
Interested
Non-Youth Turkey Hunters Youth Turkey Hunters Combined

23
IRAP were not available, respondents would most likely hunt on public property (81.1%), private
property owned by friends (37.8%), or private property not owned by themselves, family, or friends
(27.3%) (Figure 24).
Figure 22. Percentage of respondents who Figure 23. How often respondents would
would still hunt in Illinois if IRAP was not hunt if IRAP were not available (n = 458).
available (n = 479).
Figure 24. Type of land IRAP hunters would hunt if IRAP were not available (n = 455).
(Percentages >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Fifty-two percent of respondents reported that they were either likely or extremely likely to seek
permission to hunt private property that was not enrolled in IRAP (Table 8). Eighty-two percent of
hunters were likely to participate in additional IRAP activities, a majority (87.6%) of respondents would
95.0%
5.0%
Yes No
64.4%
33.2%
2.4%
Same Less More
81.1%
37.8%
27.3% 23.7% 16.9%
6.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Public
property
Private
property
owned by
friends
Private
property not
owned by me,
family, friends
Private
property
owned by
family
My own
private
property
Private
outfitter

24
recommend IRAP to a friend, and 87.8% were likely to participate in IRAP in the future. Among those
that were not likely to hunt in IRAP again, proximity of sites to home (62.2%), lack of harvest (35.1%),
and not enough wildlife (21.6%) were the main reasons (Table 9).
Table 8. Likelihood to perform the following actions regarding IRAP.
Extremely
Unlikely
(%)
Unlikely
(%)
Neither
(%)
Likely
(%)
Extremely
Likely
(%) Meana (S.D.)
Seek permission to hunt private property
not enrolled in IRAP 7.3 25.4 14.7 39.4 13.2 3.26 (1.18)
Participate in additional IRAP activities 1.5 5.3 11.4 55.6 26.3 4.00 (0.85)
Recommend IRAP to a friend 2.1 2.1 8.2 46.1 41.5 4.23 (0.85)
Participate in IRAP in the future 2.1 4.4 5.7 37.7 50.1 4.29 (0.92)
a1=Extremely Unlikely, 5=Extremely Likely

25
Table 9. Reasons for not likely hunting IRAP in the future (n = 37).
Number of
unlikely
participants
Percent of
unlikely
participants
Not enough IRAP properties close to home
23
62.2%
Lack of harvest success
13
35.1%
Not enough wildlife
8
21.6%
Health problems
6
16.2%
Unable to be drawn for IRAP
5
13.5%
Regulations are too complicated
4
10.8%
Poor site for hunting*
4
10.8%
Lack of free time
3
8.1%
Not enough IRAP activities
2
5.4%
Lack of interest
2
5.4%
Too many regulations
2
5.4%
Lack of hunting partners
1
2.7%
More places to hunt
1
2.7%
Too expensive
1
2.7%
Moved*
1
2.7%
Release of liability form*
1
2.7%
*Write-in responses provided by participants
(Percentages add up to >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
One quarter of hunters were interested in participating as a mentor in a mentor program, 39.3%
would be interested in IDNR offering a mentored program for new/beginning hunters, and 40.6% would
encourage a friend to enroll as new hunters in a program. Whereas, 51% were not at all interested in
enrolling as a new hunter and 21% were interested (Table 10).

26
Table 10. Interest level in the following actions regarding IRAP.
Not at all
Interested
(%)
Slightly
interested
(%)
Somewhat
Interested
(%)
Interested
(%)
Extremely
Interested
(%) Meana (S.D.)
IDNR offering a mentored hunting
program for youth. 26.5 12.3 26.1 23.1 11.9 2.82 (1.3)
IDNR offering a mentored hunting
program for new/beginning hunters. 23.4 13.4 24.0 25.7 13.6 2.93 (1.4)
Enroll in a mentor program as a
new hunter. 51.0 12.5 15.5 13.5 7.5 2.14 (1.4)
Participating in a mentor program
as a mentor 32.5 14.0 28.7 14.6 10.2 2.98 (1.3)
Encouraging friends to enroll as
new hunters in a mentor program 21.1 14.7 23.6 26.6 14.0 2.84 (1.3)
a1=Extremely Uninterested, 5=Extremely Interest
Hunters were asked to rate the importance and satisfaction with several aspects of hunting on
IRAP properties (Table 11). Hunters placed the lowest importance on “having a mentor to guide you”,
69.4% of hunters ranked it as not at all important ( = 1.65). Having a mentor to guide you had a mean
satisfaction of 2.52 and 57.2% moderately satisfied or greater. Seeing game species had the highest
mean importance ( = 4.27) and 84% ranked it as very or extremely important. Seeing game species had
a lower mean satisfaction ( = 3.72) and 64% of participants were very or extremely satisfied. Similarly,
“having IRAP property close to your home”, “an easy application process”, and “IRAP sites having high
quality habitat” all had higher mean importance

27
Table 11. Importance and Satisfaction with of aspects of IRAP and hunting
a1=Not at All Important/Satisfied, 5=Extremely Important/Satisfied
Not all
%
Slightly
%
Moderately
%
Very
%
Extremely
%
Mean (S.D.)
Having a mentor to guide you Importance 69.4 10.8 9.7 5.9 4.2 1.65 (1.13)
Satisfaction 28.1 14.8 40.9 9.6 6.7 2.52 (1.19)
Successfully harvesting game on IRAP property Importance 7.8 10.1 33.1 28.4 20.6 3.44 (1.15)
Satisfaction 14.3 6.8 34.4 26.4 18.1 3.27 (1.25)
Confidence in your ability to successfully
harvest game
Importance 8.3 5.9 20.8 40.3 24.8
3.67 (1.15)
Satisfaction 2.4 2.7 24.4 39 31.5 3.94 (0.94)
Confidence in your level of skill to safely hunt Importance 10.2 3.4 11.7 33.9 40.9 3.92 (1.25)
Satisfaction 2.2 1.1 15.6 36.9 44.2 4.20 (0.90)
Having enough free time to hunt Importance 6.3 5.5 20.9 38.7 28.5 3.78 (1.11)
Satisfaction 4.4 5.8 31.4 35.6 22.8 3.67 (1.03)
Having enough partners to hunt with Importance 26.4 17.5 26.8 18.4 10.8
2.7 (1.33)
Satisfaction 16.1 16.8 35.6 22.1 9.4 2.92 (1.19)
Having IRAP property close to your home Importance 3.4 7.6 18.6 31.0 39.5 3.96 (1.09)
Satisfaction 10.5 12.5 24.7 30.0 22.3 3.41 (1.25)
Crowding on IRAP properties Importance 7.4 7.2 20.8 33.5 31.0 3.73 (1.19)
Satisfaction 5.3 8.8 32.1 31.2 22.6 3.57 (1.09)
IRAP sites having high quality habitat Importance 1.3 1.9 12.4 41.1 43.2
4.23 (0.83)
Satisfaction 3.1 4.9 20.3 42.8 28.9 3.90 (0.98)
An easy application process to IRAP Importance 2.1 2.7 18.2 35.5 41.4 4.11 (0.94)
Satisfaction 2.9 7.3 27.1 35.7 27.1 3.77 (1.02)
Seeing game species on IRAP property Importance 0.6 1.9 13.5 37.8 46.2 4.27 (0.81)
Satisfaction 7.7 7 21.1 33.9 30.2 3.72 (1.19)

28
Hunting in Illinois
IRAP participants had been hunting a mean 25.7 years, and 22.8 years in Illinois. Friends
(64.4%), alone (57.8%), and children (38.3%) were the most common people with whom participants
hunted (Figure 25). The majority purchased a hunting license every year (89.1%), 5.5% did so most
years, 2.5% did so occasional years, and 2.8% purchased one rarely or never. Ninety-two percent
purchased a hunting license for 2020-21 and of those 97.5% hunted. Hunters, when not restricted to only
IRAP lands, targeted deer (84.8%), turkey (55.9%), and ducks (31.9%) in 2020-21 (Figure 26). In 2020-
21 sixty percent hunted on both public and private lands, 23.7% hunted exclusively on private land, and
16.3% only on public land. Among those who hunted both public and private land, 45.1% hunted public
more often and 54.9% private.
Figure 25. People with whom respondents reported hunting (n = 590).
13.9%
23.2%
28.3%
38.3%
57.8%
64.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Spouse
Non-immediate family
Parent
Children
Myself
Friends

29
Figure 26. Species hunters targeted in 2020-21 (Hunting was not restricted to IRAP land, n = 590).
Over half (59.5%) of IRAP participants had applied for a permit through Illinois DNR’s lottery
application system in 2020-21 (Figure 27). The most popular permits applied for were firearm deer
(61.7%) and spring turkey (56.1%; Figure 28). Among those who applied 87.2% successfully drew a
permit. Approximately one quarter (26.8%) of hunters hunted at least one day in another state. When
asked for the primary reason for hunting outside of Illinois, targeting a species not found in Illinois
(25%), to hunt with family/friends (21%), and access to private land (15%) were the top responses
(Table 12). Most write in responses focused on management of public lands and a lack of quality and
quantity game species.
10.6%
14.3%
16.7%
26.7%
28.5%
28.7%
30.7%
31.9%
55.9%
84.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Furbearers
Quail
Rabbits
Squirrel
Pheasant
Geese
Doves
Ducks
Turkeys
Deer

30
Figure 27. Percentage of respondents who Figure 28. IDNR lottery permits hunters
applied for an IDNR hunting lottery permit applied for (n = 359).
(n = 598).
Table 12. Primary reason for hunting in another state (n = 164).
Frequency % of hunters
Species not found in Illinois
41
25
To hunt with family/friends
35
21
I have private land access in another state
25
15
Lack of public land in Illinois
18
11
To try something new
12
7
Greater quality and quantity of game (and habitat) outside of Illinois*
10
6
Unsuccessful drawing a permit in Illinois
4
2
To get more hunting opportunities*
3
2
Moved*
3
2
Poor public land management in Illinois (Waterfowl)*
2
1
Private outfitter*
2
1
Hunting trip/vacation*
2
1
Proximity*
2
1
Shutdown of public lands due to COVID-19*
1
1
To introduce a new hunter into bowhunting*
1
1
Early and later season*
1
1
Adventure/test skills*
1
1
Easier regulations*
1
1
*Write-in responses provided by participants
(Percentages add up to >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
59.5%
40.5%
Yes No
61.7%
56.1%
28.5%
25.4%
0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0%
Firearm Deer
Spring Turkey
Free Upland
Waterfowl

31
Almost half (45.2%) of participants belong to a hunting organization such as Ducks Unlimited or
Pheasants Forever. One third of participants (35.9%) knew a female family member or friend who has
expressed interest in hunting but is uncomfortable trying it on their own. Whereas, 48.1% knew of a
family member or friend who would be interested in attending an IDNR sponsored mentoring program
for youth or beginning hunters. If hunters had only one day to hunt, most (55.4%) would choose to hunt
deer, 14.7% would hunt turkey, and 10.5% would hunt ducks (Table 13). Ninety-eight percent of
participants agreed that hunting was a critical tool for managing wildlife populations (Table 14. They
were less likely to agree with statements about the impacts of recruiting new hunters. Less than half
(47.1%) agreed that “recruiting new hunters creates more competition for permits”.
Table 13. If only one day to hunt, species hunters would target (n = 599).
Frequency % of hunters
Deer
332
55.4
Turkey
88
14.7
Ducks
63
10.5
Pheasants
56
9.3
Quail
17
2.8
Geese
11
1.8
Turkey
8
1.3
Rabbits
5
0.8
Elk*
5
0.8
Fish*
4
0.7
Dove
3
0.5
None
3
0.5
Furbearer
1
0.2
Mushroom*
1
0.2
Ruffed Grouse*
1
0.2
Bear*
1
0.2
*Write-in responses provided by participants

32
Table 14. Level of agreement with statements regarding hunting and hunters.
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%)
Mean
a
(S.D.)
Hunters make important financial contributions
to wildlife conservation 0.2 0.0 3.4 24.5 72.0 4.68 (0.55)
Recruiting the next generation of hunters is
important for the future of hunting 0.0 0.5 3.4 28.8 67.3 4.63 (0.58)
Hunting is a critical tool for managing wildlife
populations 0.0 0.2 2.2 28.4 69.2 4.67 (0.53)
Hunting provides a sustainable source of food 0.3 3.0 10.7 32.8 53.1 4.35 (0.82)
Hunters are important advocates for
conservation
efforts 0.0 0.5 2.7 26.5 70.4 4.67 (0.55)
Recruiting new hunters creates more competition
for permits 6.0 15.6 31.2 30.7 16.4 3.36 (1.11)
Recruiting new hunters creates crowding at
public hunting sites
6.4 15.7 33.7 31.0 13.2 3.29 (1.08)
a1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree
Discussion
Results of the survey of participants strongly suggests IRAP is providing private land access and
opportunities for hunting and other forms of recreation. Though the program is not recruiting many new
hunters it is allowing public access to privately areas. IRAP participants recreated predominately on
public lands. Though an overwhelming majority, 95%, would hunt even if IRAP were not available,
most would seek out public lands to do so. IRAP was rated highly among participants. Overall
satisfaction on a 5-point scale was =3.80, and over 87% of respondents would recommend IRAP to a
friend. Though those who were not successful in acquiring a permit were less satisfied with IRAP.
Almost 90% of respondents said they were likely to participate in a future IRAP activity.
IRAP participants were in agreement that IRAP is beneficial for Illinois and beneficial to them
personally. The program creates new opportunities to hunt and recreate on private land, by opening
areas that had been previously reserved to friends and neighbors of the landowners. The program is

33
drawing those that were previously relying on public lands and is needed to improve recreation access to
private lands. Generally, respondents were satisfied with all aspects of the IRAP program, however
several were given higher importance than satisfaction. The aspects with the greatest disparities were the
availability of IRAP properties in their area and seeing games species on the IRAP property. A lack of
IRAP properties available close to home was also the most common reason for unlikely future IRAP
participation, but it is important to note that uncertain future participation was cited by a minority of
respondents. Although most hunters would still hunt in Illinois if IRAP were not available, one-third
indicated they would hunt less than they do now without the program.
Youth turkey hunters were in favor of having IRAP youth turkey season occurring later to avoid
bad weather and/or Easter weekend. Over half of hunters were interested in having a mentor program for
IRAP hunters in need. Though less than 5% of hunters participated in squirrel and rabbit hunting, almost
half of those who did were dependent on IRAP. The best example of the IRAP programs ability to
recruit new hunters may lie in the youth turkey, which had fewer participants dependent on IRAP, but
had significantly more hunters participating. The popularity of this use of IRAP lands may be useful in
recruiting new hunters through a series of mentorship programs. A program that focuses on learning
hunting skills through small game hunts could increase IRAP’s ability to recruit new hunters. A program
that raises awareness of small game hunting on IRAP could be beneficial for retention and re-
engagement of small game hunters.
Although respondents typically preferred to access private land over public land for outdoor
recreation, public property was the type of land used most often. Many hunters reported that it was
difficult to gain access to private properties for recreating and were often unsuccessful in their attempts
to gain private land access. Almost all respondents believed that some type of recreation program is
needed to improve access to private land in Illinois.

34
2. IRAP Landowner Survey
Results
We sampled 187 IRAP landowners for this study, and 12 individuals were removed as addresses
undeliverable. This left a usable sample of 175 individuals, and we received 128 usable questionnaires
for a 73% response rate.
Landowner Profile
Respondents were mostly male (85.9%) (Figure 29) and had an average age of 61.5 (± 12.3,
n=128) years old. One third of landowners (34.4%) were living on the property enrolled in IRAP and
were often the sole-decision maker on the private property or shared decision making with their spouse
(Figures 30 & 31). Two thirds (66.1%) of landowners had a bachelor’s degree or higher (Figure 32).
IRAP properties were in 45 counties in Illinois; according to respondents, the most common counties
containing IRAP properties were Macoupin, Fulton, Green, Montgomery, McAdams (n= 128). The
majority (72.0%) of respondents’ private land made up only 0-10% of their total net household income
(Figure 33).
Figure 29. Gender distribution of landowners Figure 30. Percentage of respondents who
(n = 128). lived on the property enrolled in IRAP (n = 128).
85.9%
14.1%
Male Female
34.4%
65.6%
Yes No

35
Figure 31. Primary decision-makers on IRAP Figure 32. Landowners highest level of
properties (n = 124). education completed (n = 118).
Figure 33. Percentage of total net household income from IRAP properties (n = 118).
Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that they were currently enrolled in IRAP (Figure
34) Six respondents reported they were not currently enrolled in IRAP; four of those respondents
indicated that they had sold the property previously enrolled in IRAP. Respondents could check more
than one reason and the remaining responses had one person each, one was dissatisfied with the
program, another wanted to be in control of all activities performed their property, and write in values of
“were not wanting another 4 year commitment” and “price and options”.
36.2%
33.9%
20.5%
9.4%
I am the sole decision-maker
Share with spouse
Share with relatives
Share with non-family business partner
16.1%
3.2%
14.5%
38.7%
27.4%
High school or
GED
Technical
Associate's
Bachelor's
Master's or
higher
0.0% 25.0% 50.0%
72.0%
13.6%
7.6% 2.5% 4.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 to 10% 11% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100%

36
Figure 34. Respondents currently enrolled in IRAP (n = 128).
The top three reasons why respondents chose to enroll their land in IRAP were to improve
habitat for wildlife, recruit youth & new hunters by providing a place for them to hunt, and to receive
financial cost-share assistance for habitat projects, (77%, 75%, and 70%, respectively) (Table 15).
95.3%
4.7%
Yes No

37
Table 15. Reasons for choosing to enroll properties in IRAP (n = 128).
Reason for enrolling
Number of
landowners
Percent of
landowners
To improve habitat for wildlife. 99 77%
To help recruit youth & new hunters by providing a place for them to hunt.
96 75%
To receive financial cost-share assistance for habitat projects.
90
70%
To receive technical assistance with habitat improvements. 82 64%
To provide hunting/recreation opportunities for others. 81 63%
Financial lease payment incentive provided by Illinois DNR. 75 59%
To have a habitat management plan implemented on my land. 73 57%
To have semi-controlled hunting/recreation activities on my land. 37 29%
To have someone (participants) report trespassers while using my land. 13 10%
Reducing/helping with taxes* 2 2%
Deer control* 2 2%
Our organization is 100% about habitat; 95% of the reason for our
enrollment is to help pay for restoration work* 1 1%
Win, win for everyone* 1 1%
To improve upland game with professional help* 1 1%
Primarily for youth* 1 1%
Insurance coverage* 1 1%
Purple paint application* 1 1%
Control invasive species* 1 1%
Show goodwill to Illinois* 1 1%
Help in maintaining CRP ground* 1 1%
*Write-in responses provided by participants
(Percentages add up to >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)

38
Conservation Practices Prior to IRAP Enrollment
Figure 35. Percentage of respondents who had Figure 36. Among those who had habitat
any habitat improvements on their property improvements percentage whose improvements
prior to enrollment in IRAP (n = 128). were due to enrollment in a conservation.
program (n = 92).
Over two-thirds (71.9%) of landowners reported implementing habitat improvement projects on
their property prior to their enrollment in IRAP (Figures 35). The majority (83.7%) of those habitat
improvements occurred due to enrollment in a conservation program (Figures 36). Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve Easement Program (CREP) were the most popular programs
in which landowners previously enrolled (Table 16). Ten percent of landowners had previously
participated in one of several timber improvement practices but did not provide which organization
helped facilitate or require the timber improvements. Over 90% of landowners felt improving the quality
of habitat on their land for game species was important or extremely important (Table 17). Whereas,
82.6% of landowners felt improving the quality of habitat on their land for non-game species was
important or extremely important. However, when asked about the importance of the amount of habitat,
landowners placed similar levels of importance for game species as for non-game species. Mean levels
of importance for those who had and those who had not enrolled their land previously in a conservation
program were compared and no statistical differences were found.
71.9%
28.1%
Yes No
83.7%
16.3%
Yes No

39
Table 16. Percent of landowners who had participated in various USDA and Illinois state conservation
programs, in order of participation.
Reason for enrolling
Number of
landowners
Percent of
landowners
Conservation Reserve Program: CRP
63
82%
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: CREP
17
22%
Other*
8
10%
Conservation Stewardship Program: CSP
5
6%
Wetland Reserve Program: WRP
4
5%
Environmental Quality Income Program: EQIP
3
4%
Farmable Wetlands Program: FWP
2
3%
State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement: SAFE
2
3%
Forestry Development Act: FDA
1
1%
National Wild Turkey Federation: NWTF
1
1%
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program: ACEP
0
0%
Source Water Protection Program: SWPP
0
0%
*Write-in responses provided by participants
Table 17. Importance of habitat conservation to IRAP landowners (n = 126).
Extremely
Unimportant
Unimportant
Neither Important
Extremely
Important
Protecting native plant species on my land 2.4% 2.4% 8.7% 43.3% 43.3%
Preserving native plant species on my land 2.4% 2.4% 9.4% 44.1% 41.7%
Restoring native habitats on my land 2.4% 1.6% 8.8% 40.8% 46.4%
Improving the quality of habitat on my land for
game species 2.3% 1.6% 3.1% 31.3% 61.7%
Improving quality of habitat on my land for non-
game species 3.2% 4.0% 10.3% 43.7% 38.9%
Increasing the amount habit on my land for
game species 2.4% 2.4% 8.7% 43.3% 43.3%
Increasing the amount of habitat on my land for
non-game species 2.4% 2.4% 9.4% 44.1% 41.7%

40
Concerns Before IRAP Enrollment
Over one half (55.5%) of landowners reported they had concerns about enrolling their land in
IRAP; however, 90.1% of these property owners felt that these concerns were adequately addressed
(Figures 37 & 38). Behaviors of hunters and other recreationists on their land, personal liability, and the
use and possible damage to the property were among the top concerns of respondents (Figure 39). Other
concerns landowners reported included not knowing when or who was using the property (2.8%),
concerns of hunters using non-enrolled adjacent properties (1.4%), and unfulfilled promises or payments
(1.4%). Among the seven respondents who did not feel that IRAP had adequately addressed their
concerns, three (42.5%) felt that their concerns related to the habitat work performed had not been
addressed (Figure 40). Two participants wrote-in that their concerns about when and who was hunting
their property had not been addressed and would prefer access to contact information for hunters.
Figure 37. Percentage of respondents who had Figure 38. Percentage of respondents who felt
concerns about enrolling in IRAP (n = 128). their concerns were adequately addressed
(n = 71).
55.5%
44.5%
Yes No
90.1%
9.9%
Yes No

41
Figure 39. Respondents’ concerns about enrolling in IRAP (n = 71).
(Percentages >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Figure 40. Respondents’ concerns that were not addressed after IRAP enrollment (n = 7).
(Percentages >100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
7.0%
21.1%
29.6%
42.3%
56.3%
64.8%
80.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Safety
Habitat work performed
Use/possible damage to property
Being unable to use my property during
IRAP
Personal liability
Behavior of hunters/recreationists
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
42.9%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Safety
Use/possible damage to property
Other
Being unable to use my property
during IRAP
Personal liability
Behavior of hunters/recreationists
Habitat work performed

42
Hunting Prior to and After IRAP Enrollment
Figure 41. Recreations open to non-family members prior to IRAP enrollment (n = 128).
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Hunting was the most allowed activity on IRAP properties prior to enrollment (Figure 41). Four
of every five (82.0%) of landowners have denied access to hunters asking for permission to hunt on their
land (Figure 42). Respondents were asked how often they would deny hunting access on their property,
using a 7-point scale. The scale was reduced to a 3-point scale, with landowners denying hunting access
on their property rarely, sometimes, or often. More landowners indicated they rarely denied hunting
access than those who often denied it; 43.7% rarely denied hunting, 31.0% sometimes denied hunting,
and 25.3% often denied hunting. Eighty-three percent of respondents allowed hunters to access their
property before enrolling in IRAP (Figure 43). Similar percentages of landowners had denied access
among those who allowed hunting prior to IRAP as compared to those who had not, and they did not
differ statistically. Most landowners (66.3%) had denied hunters access to their property because they
wanted to keep it open to their family and friends (Figure 44) and 53.3% denied access over liability
0.8%
0.8%
3.1%
3.9%
8.6%
14.8%
18.0%
21.9%
32.0%
78.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Hiking
Education
Foraging
Boating
Off-roading
Birding
Trapping
Camping
Fishing
Hunting

43
concerns. Write-in responses were safety concerns because the property was open to hiking, trophy deer
management, and owning a hunting club.
Figure 42. Percentage of respondents who Figure 43. Percentage of respondents who
have ever denied access to hunters asking allowed hunters to access their property before
for permission to hunt their property (n = 128). enrolling in IRAP (n = 126).
Figure 44. Reasons hunters were denied permission to hunt (n = 105).
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
82.0%
18.0%
Yes No
83.6%
16.4%
Yes No
1.9%
5.7%
6.7%
18.1%
21.9%
22.9%
23.8%
53.3%
66.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
I don't like hunting/hunters
I got tired of people asking to hunt
Injury to livestock
Hunters were inconsiderate of my land
Concerns for my family's safety
Damage to property/equipment
I have other hunting arragements
Liability
I keep it for myself/family/friends

44
Prior to enrolling in IRAP landowners allowed an average of 6 hunters on their property each
year (Table 18). Landowners reported that they, family, friends, and neighbors were the most common
groups allowed to hunt the property and that they allowed an average 4.8 hunters from those groups hunt
the property. After enrollment in IRAP these groups were also the primary hunters known to be on the
property (Figure 45). Among those landowners who previously hunted their property, 71.3% hunted
their property about as often as did prior to enrollment, 20.7% hunted less often, and 8% hunted more
often (Figure 46).
Table 18. Number and types of people allowed to hunt property prior to IRAP enrollment.
Persons who hunted
Number of
landowners
Percentage of
landowners
Total number
of hunters
allowed
Mean number
of hunters
allowed
Me and/or immediate family 80 75.5% 214 2.7
Extended family, friends, and neighbors 70 66.0% 259 3.7
Hunters who asked permission 22 20.8% 54 2.5
Hunters who leased the property 20 18.9% 108 5.4
Open to anyone who wanted to hunt 0 0.0% 0 0
Total 106 635 6.0

45
Figure 45. Types of people who hunted on Figure 46. Amount of time hunting own
property after IRAP enrollment (n = 106). property compared to years before
(Percentages are >100 because respondents selected enrollment in IRA (n = 87).
all that applied.)
Prior to IRAP enrollment deer and turkey were the most common game hunted on landowner
property, 92.5% and 70.1% respectively (Figure 47). After enrollment in IRAP Spring youth turkey was
the most popularly allowed season for hunting (79.8%) (Figure 48). Less than fifty percent of
landowners allowed archery (44.5%) or youth shotgun deer hunting (43.0%).
Figure 47. The type of game hunted on respondents’ properties before IRAP enrollment
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
20.3%
28.9%
49.2%
68.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Hunters
who
requested
permission.
Only IRAP
participants
hunted.
Extended
family,
friends and
neighbors.
Me and/or
immediate
family.
20.7%
71.3%
8.0%
Less often About the same More often
15.9%
19.6%
21.5%
25.2%
40.2%
50.5%
70.1%
92.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Waterfowl (ducks, geese)
Furbearers (trapping)
Upland birds (pheasant, quail)
Dove
Predators (coyote, fox, raccoon)
Small game (rabbit, squirrel)
Turkey
Deer

46
Figure 48. The type of game allowed to be hunted on properties after IRAP enrollment
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Whereas the most allowed IRAP activity was turkey seasons, deer hunting was the most popular
activity on the property among non-IRAP hunters (Figure 49). There were 10% fewer landowners who
allowed non-IRAP deer hunting on their property after enrollment as compared to before IRAP
enrollment. A similar trend was among other hunted species, but to a greater degree among turkey and
small game. Ten percent of landowners had only IRAP participants on their property after enrollment
(Figure 50). Fifty percent of landowners had 1-5 non-IRAP hunters on their property.
2.3%
3.1%
4.7%
5.5%
8.6%
8.6%
10.9%
18.0%
43.0%
44.5%
47.7%
78.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Non-motorized boat access
Upland game hunting
Waterfowl hunting
Rabbit hunting
Small game hunting
Naturalist
Sport fishing
Squirrel hunting
Youth shotgun deer hunting
Archery deer hunting
Spring season 3 & 4 turkey hunting
Spring youth turkey hunting

47
Figure 49. The type of game hunted after enrollment on landowners’ properties by non-IRAP hunters
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Figure 50. The number non-IRAP hunters hunting landowners’ property after IRAP enrollment.
Following enrollment in IRAP, respondents perceived less need to contact an Illinois DNR
Conservation Officer with problems on their property involving hunters (Figure 51). Prior to enrollment
17.9% of had to contact an officer every few years about hunters without permission and 68.3% had
never made contact. There was no statistical difference in the number of times landowners contacted
officers over IRAP hunters and non-IRAP hunters with permission. In addition, when asked about non-
hunting recreationists the same pattern was noted (Figure 52).
10.2%
14.8%
15.6%
18.8%
29.7%
50.0%
82.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Waterfowl (ducks, geese)
Dove
Upland birds (pheasant, quail)
Small game (rabbit, squirrel)
Predators (coyote, fox, raccoon)
Turkey
Deer
18.8%
3.9%
0.0%
16.4%
50.8%
10.2%
0% 30% 60% 90%
I don't know
>15
11 to 15
6 to 10
1 to 5
None

48
Figure 51. How often respondents needed to contact an Illinois DNR Conservation Officer with
problems on their property involving hunters before and after IRAP enrollment.
0.8%
4.9%
17.9%
8.1%
68.3%
0.0%
1.9%
2.8%
1.9%
93.5%
0.8%
0.8%
1.6%
1.6%
96.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Multiple times a year
Once a year
Every few years
Once
Never
After: IRAP hunters.
Before: Hunters with permission.
Before: Hunters without permission.

49
Figure 52. How often respondents needed to contact an Illinois DNR Conservation Officer with
problems on their property involving nonhunting recreationists before and after IRAP enrollment.
When asked about their satisfaction with hunters who hunted their property, 84.4% of
landowners were “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” after IRAP enrollment whereas 91.2% were before
IRAP enrollment (Figure 53). After enrollment there were 9% more landowners who were neither
dissatisfied or satisfied as compared to before enrollment. There were 3.9% before and 1.6% landowners
after IRAP enrollment who reported being dissatisfied with the hunters who hunted their property
(Figure 53).
1.7%
2.6%
15.5%
5.2%
75.0%
0.9%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
95.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
98.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Multiple times a year
Once a year
Every few years
Once
Never
After: Other IRAP recreationists.
Before: Other recreationists with permission.
Before: Other recreationists without permission.

50
Figure 53. Satisfaction rating of respondents with the hunters who hunted their property before and after
IRAP enrollment.
IRAP Experience
Landowners indicated whether they were satisfied with the service they received from IDNR
representatives regarding IRAP; 92.1% were satisfied or extremely satisfied with the service received
(Table 19). Similarly, 92.1% of landowners were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their overall
experience with IRAP. The timing of IRAP activities was the aspect landowners were least satisfied
with and 6.3% of landowners were dissatisfied. Overall, 89.7% of landowners rated their experience
with IRAP somewhere between good and excellent (Figure 54). Most landowners (72.3%) rated their
overall experience with IRAP as extremely or very good, 17.5% as good, 7.1% as fair, and 3.2% rated it
as poor (Figure 55).
1.0% 2.9% 4.9%
59.2%
32.0%
0.0% 1.6%
13.9%
55.7%
28.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Extremely
Satisfied
Before IRAP enrollment (n=103) After IRAP enrollment (n=122)

51
Table 19. Satisfaction level for landowners experience with IRAP.
Extremely
Dissatisfied
(%)
Dissatisfied
(%)
Neither
(%)
Satisfied
(%)
Extremely
Satisfied
(%)
Mean (S.D)
 (σ)
Overall IRAP experience. 0.0 1.6 6.3 51.2 40.9 4.31 (0.66)
Service you received from the Illinois
DNR representative administering IRAP. 0.8 0.8 7.1 38.6 52.8 4.42 (0.73)
Procedures required for participation in
the IRAP program. 0.0 3.2 7.1 57.1 32.5 4.19 (0.70
Amount of communication between
yourself and representatives for IRAP 1.6 3.2 10.3 44.4 40.5 4.19 (0.86)
Service and professionalism of persons
who performed habitat work on your
IRAP property.
0.8 0.8 12.4 31.4 54.5 4.38 (0.80
Behavior of hunters who have visited
your IRAP property. 0.0 0.0 19.0 45.2 35.7 4.17 (0.72)
Behavior of non-hunting recreationists
who have visited your IRAP property. 0.0 0.9 43.5 32.4 23.1 3.78 (0.81)
The timing of IRAP activities. 1.6 4.7 11.0 51.2 31.5 4.06 (0.87)
Figure 54. Overall experience with IRAP Figure 55. Value of habitat improvement
(n = 126), reduced from a 7 point scale by made on property enrolled in IRAP
combining extreme with very scores. (n = 87).
72.3%
17.5%
7.1%
3.2%
0.0%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
18.4%
46.0%
31.0%
3.4%
1.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low

52
Sixty eight percent of landowners had habitat projects implemented by IRAP on their property.
Habitat projects increased the amount of habitat acres on the property for 78.2% of those landowners.
When asked about to quality of habitat improvements made on the property which were enrolled in
IRAP, 64.4% of landowners valued them high or very high, 4.5% valued them very low or low, and
31.0% found the improvements of moderate quality. When asked where they receive their information
about habitat improvements and land management practices from state sponsored programs followed by
federally sponsored programs (Table 20). Illinois recreation access -program (24.3%), National Wild
Turkey Federation (22.9%), and Pheasants Forever (20.0) were the organizations sought out most often
by landowners for the information. Mailed materials such as books and pamphlets (64.1%) were the
medium preferred most often for learning habitat and land management practices (Table 21). The
remaining preferred mediums were demonstrations in person and onsite visits (32.8%), online videos
and DVDs (30.5%), and webinars, demonstrations, or conferences (20.3%).
Table 20. Sources used for information about habitat improvement and land management practices.
Source
Number of
landowners
Percent of
landowners
State sponsored programs (Illinois recreational access program, etc.).
84
65.6
Federally sponsored programs (CRP, CREP, WRP, etc.).
69
53.9
Other landowners who I personally know.
67
52.3
Hunting organizations (Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation,
etc.)
44
34.4
Conservation non-governmental organizations (Nature Conservancy, Sierra
Club, etc.).
20
15.6
Other landowners who I find online.
13
10.2
State and federal ecology/wildlife professionals
6
4.7
Hunting magazines
4
3.1
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)

53
Table 21. Sources used for information about habitat improvement and land management practices.
Source
Number of
landowners
Percent of
landowners
Illinois Recreation Access Program (IRAP)
17
24.3
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF)
16
22.9
Pheasants Forever
14
20.0
Quail Forever
10
14.3
Ducks Unlimited
9
12.9
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
8
11.4
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
7
10.0
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
5
7.1
Whitetails Unlimited
3
4.3
National Deer Association
3
4.3
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2
2.9
Quail and Upland Game Association (QUGA)
2
2.9
Tree Farm Organization/American Tree Farm System
2
2.9
Illinois Native Plant Society
2
2.9
US Fish and Wildlife Service
2
2.9
Illinois Forestry
1
1.4
Audubon Society
1
1.4
Missouri Conservation
1
1.4
Delta Waterfowl
1
1.4
Whitetail Institute
1
1.4
Internal staff
1
1.4
Facebook groups
1
1.4
Parklands
1
1.4
Forester
1
1.4
Local Farm Services Agency (FSA)
1
1.4
Reading
1
1.4
Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA)
1
1.4
Midwest Whitetail
1
1.4
UI Extension (Master Naturalists)
1
1.4
Illinois Habitat Strike Team (HST)
1
1.4
Mainly magazines and other landowners
1
1.4

54
Five IRAP participants responded that one of their neighbors complained about the behavior of
IRAP hunters. No complaints were received about trappers, anglers, or other non-hunting recreationists.
Eight IRAP landowners (6.4%) had to contact an IDNR conservation officer for an incident that
occurred on their IRAP property. Nine incidents were reported: four were related to trespassing, two
incidents of conflict with a neighbor, one incident of conflict among IRAP users, and one incident of
stock damage. No landowners reported contacting an IDNR conservation officers about property
damage, safety violations, vehicle use, or littering. Slightly more than two-thirds (69.6%) of
respondents were contacted by an IDNR representative to check on how the program was progressing
from the landowner’s perspective (Figure 56). Over four fifths (89.8%) of landowners felt that regular
follow-up from IRAP personnel was important (Figure 57).
Figure 56. Percentage of respondents who Figure 57. Importance of a regular “check
were contacted this year by an IDNR in” by an IDNR representative (n = 124,
representative to “check in” on how things 5-point scale: 1=extremely unimportant,
were going (n = 119). 5=extremely important).
69.6%
30.4%
Yes No
3.1% 7.1%
89.8%
Unimportant Neither Important

55
Almost two-thirds (63%) of landowners had recommendations for IRAP. Of those who had
recommendations, the most mentioned were for parking and property access. The third most common
suggestion was written in and related to follow through and completion of work. Fourteen percent of
landowners indicated there was a need for IRAP to complete or finish all the projects or work that was
promised (Table 22). Other write in recommendations included a desire for more input, contact, and
communication from IRAP personnel.
Table 22. Sources used for information about habitat improvement and land management practices.
Number of
landowners
Percent of
landowners
Parking 8 18
Property access 6 14
Follow through on projects (some things mentioned were never done or
completed), Do something & get the job done so I would not have to resign
6 14
Participant behavior 5 11
More contact with IRAP agent for my area; more communication from IRAP 5 11
Hunter feedback (areas of improvement and satisfaction) 4 9
Additional activities 3 7
Vehicle use 3 7
Let the landowner know who, where, when and vehicle of hunters 3 7
Safety 2 5
More & easier access to habitat work cost assistance and/or higher stipend 2 5
Doe only youth hunt 2 5
Feedback from results; how as an owner can I improve my land;
landowner/hunter feedback 2 5
Dependable aerial contractors 1 2
Habitat management teams’ availability 1 2
Aerial spraying 1 2

56
A majority (87.3%) of landowners were likely or extremely likely to recommend a friend enroll
in IRAP. Similarly, 89.6% of landowners were likely or extremely likely to re-enroll in IRAP,  = 4.24
on a 5-point scale (extremely unlikely to extremely likely). The number of landowners who were likely
to increase the acres enrolled was close to the number who were unlikely, and 36.6 % were likely,
31.3% were neither, and 32.1% were unlikely to enroll additional acres in their next contract (Table 23).
Participants were mostly likely to have recommended IRAP to private landowners (76%), hunters
(41%), and anglers (9%; Figure 58)
Table 23. Likelihood of performing the following actions involving IRAP (n = 112).
Extremely
Unlikely
(%)
Unlikely
(%)
Neither
(%)
Likely
(%)
Extremely
Likely
(%) Mean (S.D
Recommend a friend to enroll
in IRAP 2.4 3.2 7.1 50.0 37.3 4.17 (0.87)
Re-enrolling in IRAP 4.0 1.6 4.8 45.6 44.0 4.24 (0.93)
Enroll additional acres in IRAP 9.8 22.3 31.3 22.3 14.3 3.09 (1.19)

57
Figure 58. Groups which landowners have recommended try IRAP (n = 105).
(Percentages are greater than 100 because respondents selected all that applied.)
Ninety five percent of landowners agreed to some extent that IRAP has provided additional
hunting opportunities, and 87.3% agreed that IRAP has introduced new hunters to the sport of hunting
(Table 24). Over one third (40.7%) of respondents agreed IRAP has decreased the number of hunters
leaving the sport, whereas 66.4% of respondents disagreed IRAP had no impact on retaining hunters in
Illinois.
1%
1%
2%
2%
9%
41%
76%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Neighbors
Nature lovers
Conservation Organization
Forester (IFA)
Anglers
Hunters
Private Landowners

58
Table 24. Level of agreement or disagreement with statements about IRAP.
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%)
Mean (S.D)
IRAP has introduced new youth and
adult hunters to the sport of hunting. 0.0 0.0 12.7 50.8 36.5 4.24 (0.66)
IRAP has provided additional
hunting opportunities for those
without hunting access in Illinois.
0.0 0.0 4.8 50.0 45.2 4.4 (0.58)
IRAP has provided hunting
opportunities to the same people
who hunted my property.
13.1 16.4 29.5 24.6 16.4 3.15 (1.26)
IRAP has decreased the number of
hunters leaving the sport. 10.6 8.9 39.8 30.1 10.6 3.21 (1.1)
IRAP has displaced hunters who
previously hunted my property. 30.0 33.3 28.3 5.0 3.3 2.18 (1.03)
IRAP has had no impact on retaining
hunters in Illinois. 26.4 40.0 28.0 4.0 1.6 2.14 (0.91)
IRAP has had no impact on
recruiting hunters in Illinois. 28.0 40.0 27.2 2.4 2.4 2.11 (0.93)

59
Discussion
Landowners participating in IRAP reported that they were satisfied with the program and
89.8% rated their overall experience as good or very good. Ninety percent of landowners were satisfied
or extremely satisfied with their overall IRAP experience. Most respondents (87.3%) reported that they
were likely to recommend a friend to enroll in IRAP, and 89.6% were likely to reenroll in the program.
Almost all (95.3%) landowner respondents were currently enrolled in IRAP at the time of this study.
Although slightly more than half of landowners had concerns prior enrolling their land in IRAP, 90% of
them felt their concerns were addressed. These concerns included behavior of recreationists on their
property, personal liability, and possible damage to their property. Among the few whose concerns were
not addressed the quality and completion of habitat work was the primary complaint. IRAP enrollment,
landowners needed to contact IDNR Conservation Officers about problems involving hunters on their
property less than before enrollment. Overall, respondents had less dissatisfaction with hunters after
enrolling in IRAP, and were more likely to choose neither satisfied or dissatisfied.
Many respondents chose to enroll their land because they wanted to improve habitat for wildlife,
help recruit new and youth hunters, to receive financial incentives, and to receive technical assistance
with habitat improvements. Sixty-two percent of landowners valued habitat improvements made on the
property through IRAP enrollment as high or very high. Over 90% of respondents were satisfied or
extremely satisfied with the service received from IDNR representatives, and 84% were satisfied with
the amount of communications with IDNR representatives. Ninety percent of respondents felt that a
regular “check in” by an IDNR representative is important; however, slightly more than two-thirds
(69.4%) of respondents were contacted during the 12-month period prior to this study.

60
Most landowners allowed spring youth turkey hunting on their property. Deer was the most
common species hunted on landowners’ properties before IRAP. Turkey was most common after IRAP,
most likely due to the Spring Youth Turkey Hunting program.
Many landowners reported that, prior to enrollment, they have denied access to hunters asking
for permission on their property, but 84% have allowed hunters on their property prior to IRAP
enrollment. Friends, neighbors, and family were the most common people that were allowed to hunt on
their property, typically only 1-5 people a year. After IRAP enrollment hunting by the landowner,
family, friends, and neighbors all decreased, and 20% of landowners hunted less often. Some
recommendations landowners had for the program were knowing when hunters are signed up to hunt,
knowing names of the hunters on their property, property access and parking. More contact with IRAP
agents and completion of habitat work were concerns that were written-in.

61
3. Illinois Statewide Recreationist Survey
Results
We surveyed 3,000 Illinois resident hunting license purchasers; 112 were removed as
undeliverable, which reduced the sample to 2,888. We received 835 usable questionnaires for a 29%
response rate.
Recreationist Profile
Respondents were mostly male (94.7%) (Figure 59), had lived in Illinois an average of 51 years,
and were an average of 55 years old. Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported they had internet
access and 80% of those had high speed internet. Most respondents lived in a rural area (42.1%) or small
town (24.5%) (Figure 60). Approximately 41.5% of respondents had a total gross household income of
$90,000 or more, whereas 45.4% had a household income of less than $75,000 (Figure 61). Almost half
(42.6%) of respondents had completed high school or had their GED, whereas 27.2% had a bachelor’s
or terminal degree (Figure 62).
Figure 59. Gender distribution of respondents (n = 835).
94.7%
5.3%
Male Female

62
Figure 60. Type of area respondents currently live in (n = 834).
Figure 61. Approximate total (gross) household income (n = 732).
Figure 62. Highest level of education completed (n = 816).
42.1%
24.5%
14.5%
9.1%
7.8%
2.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Rural
Small town
Small city (5,000-49,999)
Suburb of medium/large city
Medium city (50,000-500,000)
Large city (over 500,000)
1.8%
6.7%
8.3%
11.6%
16.9%
13.1%
41.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
less than $15,000
$15,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $44,999
$45,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $89,999
$90,000 plus
42.6%
13.5%
16.7%
17.6%
9.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
High school/GED
Techinical School
Associates Degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's or higher

63
Outdoor Recreation in Illinois
Twenty-eight percent of respondents reported having children under the age of 18 living at
home. The most common outdoor activities children participated in were fishing (86%), hunting (69%),
and camping (58%) (Figure 63). The most common write-in values included 4- wheeling, ball sports,
ball sports, and shooting.
Figure 63. Outdoor activities children (<18 years old) participate in (n = 238).
Eighty-seven percent of respondents ranked hunting as either moderately or very important, and
72 % ranked fishing as moderately or very important (Table 25). The most frequented types of land that
recreationists in Illinois used were public lands (34%) and private property owned by someone else
(34%) (Figure 64).
86.1%
68.5%
58.4% 53.4%
10.9% 8.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fishing Hunting Camping Hiking Birding Other

64
Table 25. Importance rankings for recreational activities.
Not at all
important
(%)
Slightly
important
(%)
Moderately
important
(%)
Very
important
(%)
I do not
participate
(%)
Hunting (n=835) 1.0 2.4 9.6 86.5 0.6
Hiking (n=834) 10.0 19.4 25.8 23.0 21.8
Birding (n=834) 17.1 18.9 15.1 9.8 39.0
Fishing (n=834) 2.5 7.2 18.2 66.7 5.4
Boating (n=834) 7.6 16.2 26.5 33.2 16.5
Figure 64. The type of land used most often for hunting or recreation purposes (n = 835).
Sixty percent of respondents agreed that it was difficult to find places to hunt or recreate in
Illinois, and 80% agreed that gaining access to private properties was difficult (Table 26). Four-
fifths (84.8%) of recreationists agreed that landowners have become less willing to grant permission
to access their land; 14% of respondents agreed that it was easy to establish and maintain private
landowner contacts. Almost two-thirds (63%) of recreationists agreed that some type of
hunter/recreation program was needed to improve access to private land. Recreationists in Illinois
34%
30%
20%
14%
1% 0.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Private
property not
owned by me
My own
private
property
Public
property
Private
property
owned by
family
IRAP land Private
outfitter
property

65
generally preferred to access private land over public land for outdoor recreation (67%). Forty
percent of recreationists agreed they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to gain private land
access, whereas one-third disagreed, and one-third neither agreed nor disagreed. Two-thirds of
respondents agreed that public land used for hunting or recreation was too crowded.
Table 26. Recreationists’ level of agreement with statements regarding land access (n = 824).
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
Agree
(%) Meana (S.D.)
It is difficult to find places to hunt/recreate in
Illinois. 4.7 17.2 17.1 36.2 24.7 3.59 (1.17)
It is difficult to gain access to private properties
for hunting/recreation activities in Illinois. 2.3 5.6 12.0 38.3 41.9 4.12 (0.98)
Landowners have become less willing to grant
permission to hunt/recreate on private land. 1.7 3.5 10.0 40.8 44.0 4.22 (0.89)
It has become easy to establish and maintain
private landowner contacts in Illinois. 20.2 35.0 30.4 10.8 3.5 2.42 (1.04)
Some type of hunter/recreation program is needed
to improve access to private land in Illinois. 6.5 7.9 22.4 36.4 26.8 3.69 (1.14)
I prefer to access private land over public land for
outdoor recreation in Illinois. 2.1 6.6 24.4 39.2 27.8 3.84 (0.97)
I do not have time to meet with private
landowners to obtain access to private land. 10.0 28.3 35.7 18.8 7.1 2.85 (1.07)
I feel comfortable approaching private
landowners to obtain access to private land. 8.2 25.2 22.1 36.5 8.0 3.11 (1.12)
I have the ability to approach private landowners
and obtain access to private lands. 6.5 20.6 25.9 41.2 5.8 3.19 (1.04)
I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to gain
private land access in Illinois. 5.0 17.2 37.9 30.3 9.6 3.22 (1.00)
Public land for hunting/recreation in Illinois is too
crowded. 1.6 5.6 27.1 40.0 25.8 3.83 (0.93)
a1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree

66
IRAP Participation
Three-quarters (75.6%) of recreationists surveyed were not aware of IRAP before receiving the
study questionnaire (Figure 65). Of the respondents who were already aware of IRAP, most heard of the
program through the IDNR website (56%) or a friend (28%) (Figure 66). Most common write in values
were from an IDNR employee or game warden, other hunters, IDNR hunters digest, and the previous
version of this questionnaire.
Figure 65. Percentage of respondents who were aware of
IRAP before this survey (n = 835).
Figure 66. How respondents became aware of IRAP (n = 204).
24.4%
75.6%
Yes No
2.5%
3.9%
7.4%
7.8%
13.2%
19.1%
28.4%
56.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
IRAP landowner
IRAP participant
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Facebook
Newspaper/Magazine Article
Friend
IDNR website

67
Among those who were aware of IRAP, 6.9% applied to access IRAP properties (Figure 67). More than
half (62%) reapplied after not being selected (Figure 68). Participants were asked about their likelihood
to participate in IRAP in the future; 35.4% reported that they were likely to participate, 43.9% were
unlikely, and 20.7% were neither (Table 27). Whereas 48.4% were likely to recommend it to a friend
and 45.6% were likely to try IRAP sites that are new to them. Of the respondents who were likely to
participate in IRAP, 62% were interested in archery deer hunting, 59% were interested in sport fishing,
and 55% were interested in upland game hunting (Table 28). Sixty-eight percent of respondents would
hunt more often in Illinois if IRAP participation was likely, whereas 30% reported they would hunt the
same amount. Sixty-two percent of hunters who are likely to participate in IRAP plan on hunting more
or much more often whereas 36% plan to hunt about the same.
Figure 67. Percentage of respondents who Figure 68. Respondents who reapplied to
have applied to access IRAP properties access IRAP properties after not being
(n = 203). selected (n = 5).
4.4% 2.5%
93.1%
Applied & accepted
Applied & rejected
Never applied
60.0%
40.0%
Yes No

68
Table 27. Likelihood of performing the following actions involving IRAP (n = 834).
Extremely
Unlikely
(%)
Unlikely
(%)
Neither
(%)
Likely
(%)
Extremely
Likely
(%) Mean (S.D.)