A sample of 1959 Ohio hunting license buyers was surveyed using a mailed questionnaire in 1960-61. A sample of those who responded to the 1960-61 survey, a group of 1972 Ohio hunting license buyers, and a sample of 1972 Ohio drivers license holders (to represent non-hunters) were included in another mailed questionnaire survey in 1973-74. The data were analysed in 4 separate cohorts: hunters who purchased hunting license in 1972; hunters surveyed in 1961-62; hunters of 1961-62 re-surveyed in 1973-74; and non-hunters. Comparisons of socioeconomic characteristics and preferences, and opinions about hunting and conservation, of hunters and non-hunters were the primary objectives of this study. The analyses showed that most hunters were males, they were slightly older than non-hunters, and their educational and income achievements were lower than those of non-hunters. The hunting habits and preferences of 1961-62 hunters re-surveyed in 1973-74 changed; they hunted fewer days and killed less game, fewer of them fished, fewer of them hunted pheasants, and a significantly higher proportion of them hunted deer. They were less willing to pay an increased license fee. Blacks, Catholics and Jews were fewer among hunters than among non-hunters. Hunters supported additional wilderness lands but were strongly against firearms restrictions. The proportion of professionals and residents of cities during formative years (ages 7-20) were significantly higher among non-hunters than among hunters. Residence on farms during formative years and actual participation in sports were significantly higher among hunters than among non-hunters. Hunters were better informed about the sources of wildlife funds than non-hunters. As distinct socioeconomic groups and with widely differing opinions about hunting and conservation, Ohio hunters and non-hunters can be expected to influence legislation and law enforcement relating to wildlife in different ways. Wildlife management and information programs must recognize the dichotomy of views and respond to the needs of both groups, but retain the welfare of the resource as their primary objective.