ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
What is the percentage of youths trained in relation to the number of hunters in the state and what is the percentage of the youth trained with respect to the number of those that actualy move forward and purchase a youth hunting license?
Way to much MATH for me Dars 
Understood.
My point is this, without you doing all of the math:
With regard to the percentage of youth trained in relation to the number of hunters, the resultant percentage shows how large of a proportion, indicating the number of future hunters (unless a high percentage quits), there is of youth to adults. As an example, if State A trains 500 youths and State B trains 5,000 youths that does not necessarily mean that State B is more youth "friendly," for lack of a better term and that there is a great future for the hunting tradition in that State because these are just raw numbers. To put them into perspective, we need to know how many adult hunters there are in the state.
Again, State A trains 500 youths, but there are only 5,000 adult hunters. That means that State A has trained an additional 10% of possible hunters that could move forward to become hunters and hopefully adult hunters. While State B trained 10X more youths that State A, let's say that State B has 100,000 adult hunters. That means that they trained 5% of their current population census of possible hunters. In other words, State B trained, in terms of raw numbers, 10 times the number of possible hunters than State A, but State A trained 2 double the number of possible hunters in relation to their current hunter population and is actually carrying on the hunting tradition much stronger that State B, albeit with few actual possible hunters.
With regard to the percentage of youths that are trained vs. the number that actually purchase a license, and more importantly continue to purchase a license for some number of years into their adult license years shows if the efforts of the training bore fruit with respect to getting youths interested in hunting and then keeping that interest.
An example here would be that State A again trains 500 youths with 400 of those youths buying a license the first year or 80%. The other 20% may not buy a license for various reasons -- parents "made" them take the course because they wanted their youths to hunt, but the youths didn't want to hunt; took the training in one state where they live because it is more convienent, but will use it to purchase a license in anieghboring state; etc. A point of note here is, again, raw numbers don't tell the whole story because a youth trained does not necessarily turn into a youth hunter. Further, it is important to know what happens in succeeding years. Let's say that of the 400 that purchased a youth license the first year, 300 purchase on the next year; 250 purchase one the third year, and so forth until at age 18 -- a few years into the adult buying license cycle, that number is 125 of the original 500 that took the class. This means that 25% of the orignal class takers stuck with hunting up to this point. Coupling this data with the percentage of adult hunters census at the inception of this training class, that would mean that for that year class, 2.5% took the class and stayed with hunting. Of course, the 18 -22 year old number may drop because of starting jobs, going to post secondary education, joining the military, etc., but for this model, what needs to be known is how many hunters are attritting out of the census due to age, injury, lack of interest, etc. Is it greater than 2.5% or less?
Of course, while this orignal class makes it way through the adult licnes process, there are now several other classes behind it that will add to the total. All of this data is required to understand the big picture -- not just a snap shot of raw numbers of youths trained.