Number of hunters falls, worrying some

Martyn4802

New member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_us/fewer_hunters;_ylt=AiTFRrzcnSBztg3Rgbdfpo6s0NUE

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sun Sep 2, 4:53 PM ET
Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry increasingly about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.

New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 — from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.

The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.

"To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."

Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome.

"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.

Compounding the problem, the number of Americans who fish also has dropped sharply — down 15 percent, from 35.2 million in 1996 to 30 million in 2006, according to the latest version of a national survey that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts every five years.

Of the 50 state wildlife agencies, most rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund.

"They're trying to take care of all wildlife and all habitats on a shoestring budget," said Rachel Brittin of the Washington-based Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

In New Hampshire, only multiple fee increases — which produced numerous complaints — have enabled the Fish and Game Department to keep revenues robust. Its ranks of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, according to department spokeswoman Judy Stokes.

"We hear concerns about land access," Stokes said. "People grew up hunting — you went out with your family, your uncle. And now you go back, and there's a shopping plaza or a housing development. Some of your favorite places just aren't available anymore."

National hunting expert Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Virginia-based research firm Responsive Management, says America's increasingly urban and suburban culture makes it less friendly toward the pastime.

"You don't just get up and go hunting one day — your father or father-type figure has to have hunted," Duda said. "In a rural environment, where your friends and family hunt, you feel comfortable with guns, you feel comfortable with killing an animal."

Indeed, hunting remains vibrant in many rural states — 19 percent of residents 16 and older hunted last year in Montana and 17 percent in North Dakota, compared with 1 percent in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nationally, 5 percent of the 16-and-over population hunted in 2006, down from 7 percent in 1996.

As their ranks dwindle, hunters are far from unified. The often big-spending, wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, have different priorities from duck hunters frequenting close-to-home wetlands.

One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.

"The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous."

Political support for hunting remains strong, though, with several states recently enshrining the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions.

Last month, President Bush ordered all federal agencies that manage public lands to look for more room for hunting. In the 2004 presidential campaign, both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry courted hunters' and gun owners' votes. A camouflage-jacketed Kerry even toted a shotgun during a goose hunt.

Among the 2008 candidates, Democrat Bill Richardson aired a TV ad showing him hunting, while Republican Mitt Romney was derided for calling himself a lifelong hunter even though he never had state hunting licenses.

Public support for hunting also is high, in part because huge deer populations have become a nuisance in many areas. Duda's surveys indicate less than 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting, although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals denounce it as cruel.

Most major animal-welfare and conservation groups don't campaign to end hunting, but some lobby against specific practices such as bear hunting or "canned" hunts in which game is confined in fenced areas and shot by hunters who pay large sums for the opportunity.

"As a matter of principle, we should not condone the killing of any animal in the interest of sport," said Andrew Page of the Humane Society of the United States. "But as a matter of pragmatism, we target those practices that even hunters would agree are egregious."

The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities compared to $75 billion spent by hunters and anglers.

"The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing," Page said. "I suspect the day will come when a presidential candidate goes to a local humane society to adopt a homeless animal, rather than go the field and pose as hunter with a gun."

However, hunting groups and state wildlife agencies are striving to reverse the decline by recruiting new hunters. Vermont's Game and Wildlife Department, for example, sponsors thrice-annual youth hunting weekends, offers low-cost youth licenses and teaches firearms safety and outdoor skills each summer at youth conservation camps.

Another initiative is Families Afield, sponsored by three national hunting groups; it aims to ease state restrictions on youth hunting. At least 12 states have obliged, enabling thousands of youths to sample hunting before taking required hunter education courses.

Other programs seek to attract more women, though few promote racial diversity. More than 90 percent of U.S. hunters are male; roughly 96 percent are white.

Rob Sexton, a vice president of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, said one upside of the shrinking numbers is that hunting groups are more motivated to seek remedies, such as access to more land and less burdensome regulations.

"There are still a lot of us," he said. "Hunting is a great passion for our people."
 

Rembrandt

New member
One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.

"The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous."

Mr Schoenke is a fool and a "Fudd"....


Another worthless article citing game departments who wring their hands over lost revenues. These are also many of the same departments that have closed down shooting ranges and failed to replace them.

In recent years the best thing to promote hunting interest has been the explosion of stores like Cabela's, Bass Pro, Gander Mountain, Scheels, and Sportsmans Warehouse.
 

rwilson452

New member
Rule of unintend

It's strange, one part of the government does everything it can to demonize guns and hunting and another part complains because of the loss. Hunting is primarily a rural avocation. As people continue to migrate to urban living it's not a suprize that the number of hunters has decreased.
 

Gaffer

New member
As a retired Hunter Safety instructor I am aware that many of the state fish and wildlife oranizations are also to blame. In many instances they are so clogged up in bureaucracy that they cannot function as they should. Many have ignored the youth and that is definitely the very future of the sport. The state I taught in would not allow students to shoot anything but BB guns and .22rf's at range days. They even went so far as to not allow range days unless the sponsoring range provided the liability insurance coverage rather than the state.

We used to have some very good range days with each young person being able to have hands on compass, target identification and rifle/shotgun use but the powers that be and lawyers for the state felt the liability was too great and stopped it.

And they now wonder why so few young people are taking up the sport!
 

lockedcj7

New member
As the number of hunters falls, so will our political influence. State fish and game departments may be shooting themselves in the foot, but we can't use that as an excuse to watch out way of life die out.

Take a kid hunting, fishing or shooting today! I've mentored three young men who's fathers were either too busy or not involved enough to take them hunting. One shot his fist deer with me, (with a muzzle-loader!). Every year, I try to take at least one kid to a youth dove or deer hunt. What are you doing? Get out there and promote our sports!
 

Knotthead

New member
"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.

While researching a paper on the contributions of hunters to restoration of wildlife during the last century, the Pittman-Robertson Act was, of course, well featured. Most of those here are familiar with it as an excise tax on firearms and ammunition dedicated to restoration of wildlife habitat and other programs that support wildlife and hunting. I do remember reading that a similar tax was proposed on binoculars and other optics, but it was vigorously opposed and defeated by the bird-watching crowd, leaving hunters to do all of the heavy lifting.
 

NCLivingBrit

New member
I think another problem is folks like me, who didn't grow up hunting or shooting and are having issues getting started.

Sure, I could head over to HuntingShootingStore, load up with the thousands of dollars of gear they'll tell me I need, plug in my heated socks, gloves, buttwarmer and jacket then douse myself in seven kinds of scent blocked, scent replacements and deer pee.......... and I'll doubt I'll even see a deer.

Why? Because I've learned through several rough experiences that learning by the side of someone familiar to the activity can never really be replaced with gadgets, books and guesswork.

Of course those falling hunter numbers make it a lot harder to find a hunting mentor, which leads to a nasty spiral.....
 

lockedcj7

New member
"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.

More than Pittman-Robertson (and Dingle-Johnson, for fishing) dollars, this speaks more to the fact that hunters are quick to join and support conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Quail U., Trout U., NWTF, RMEF, etc. Not to mention the $75/yr. I pay for licenses, permits, etc.
 

Bottom Gun

New member
The fish cops here in Arizona are making hunting a rich man’s sport by constant fee increases.
They need to pay for their multimillion dollar facility they decided they need and have consequently priced some tags beyond the reach of younger hunters. They have also increased the number of tags sold for many hunts to the point that some units are so choked with hunters, the success rates are declining. In other words, they are compromising the quality of our hunts so they can rake in a few more dollars.

For example, deer tags were approx $18 not long ago. They are over $40 now.
Elk tags were approx $76 a couple of years ago, now they are twice that amount.
License fees have also climbed considerably.

They say they want to encourage young people to hunt, then they price hunting beyond the means of many young folks and seniors on fixed incomes.

And who decided we needed to plant all these wolves back in our state? Where is the value added there? I wonder how much of our money they spend on that program?

Actually the fish cops see LESS revenue from us now because of their fee increases. We used to buy javelina tags, lion tags whether we planned on hunting or not just in case we decided to hunt pigs or in case we ran into a lion.
We no longer buy them.

We would have normally bought or put in for at least four tags every year. Now we only put in for elk. The species such as deer and javelina simply aren’t worth the tag fees any longer.

As far as I am concerned, higher fees = less revenue from me.

Also, if they keep crapping on the quality of the hunts we do put in for by overselling tags for a given area, we may start looking at hunting out of state. I was appalled at the number of hunters in the field during my last elk hunt in 5B. It made for very difficult hunting.
 

Smokey Joe

New member
What can we do about it???

IMHO, LockedCJ7 has it right:
Take a kid hunting, fishing or shooting today!
Each of us, separately, can't influence the "Powers that Be" very much--although writing your elected representatives is still an influence, believe me--but each of us CAN help a neighbor kid to become a lover of the outdoor sports.

It's only in encouraging young people that our sports can be passed on to the next generation. When we're old and decrepit, we won't have any influence at all, just by wheezing and waving our canes in the air.

ETA--It's no good whining about the reduced availability of land or the added cost. Scout more; get permissions earlier; find out about public land; be prepared to travel further. Other sportspeople travel to their venues (whitewater canoeists, rock climbers, and bird watchers come to mind) why are we any different in this regard. Count the gas $$ as part of yr hunting expenses. Mebbe you don't need that giant gas-guzzling 4x4 pickup after all. That's reality today; we don't have to like it, but we do have to deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Manedwolf

Moderator
And who decided we needed to plant all these wolves back in our state? Where is the value added there?

They're quite effective at deer population control, and at making sure that the deer that survive are the strongest and healthiest. They weed out the sick and weak, lessening the incidence of things like chronic wasting disease.

They have their purpose. Talk to an Innuit.
 

JWT

New member
Loss of available land that can be hunted is a significant problem. In many states farmers now lease the hunting rights for their land to a single individual or group of individuals - sometime for the money and sometimes just to control who is on their land.

The urbanization of the country also significantly reduces the available hunting land. As housing developments encroach on farm land and woodlands the 'enlightened' homeowners complain if they hear gunshots from hunters.

I grew up in a small Wisconsin town and hunting was something almost everyone did and took for granted. Had plenty of access to good hunting land. The lands I hunted as a kid are now closed to hunting by the current owners - if they allow hunting it's all leased out or family only.


My kids never hunted since my job eventaully took me to Connecticut where there just wasn't the available land for hunting.

At least in Arizona land is available that can be hunted - though the license and tag costs are way too high in my mind.
 

Bottom Gun

New member
They're quite effective at deer population control, and at making sure that the deer that survive are the strongest and healthiest. They weed out the sick and weak, lessening the incidence of things like chronic wasting disease.

So do mountain lions and coyotes. There is no shortage of them here and they don't cost anything.
 

Manedwolf

Moderator
So do mountain lions and coyotes. There is no shortage of them here and they don't cost anything.

But wolves are pack animals who are very shy of humans. Coyotes are not, and mountain lions, being solitary, are more likely to venture into populated areas.

Coyotes eating housepets is not at all uncommon, they're scavengers. Mountain lions sometimes end up in a suburb and might attack someone. But you'll never hear of a wolf pack running down the street of a suburb! They keep well away from people, and thus are far less of a nuisance than other predators.

They also keep coyote populations down too, since coyotes are competitors.
 

SIGSHR

New member
In addition to the loss of open land due to creeping suburbanization there is
the disintegration of the American family due to na fault divorce and illegitimacy. My old man walked out on me when I was 6, back in the "Good Old Days" of the 1950s that made me one of the 10-15%, nowadays I'd be
one of the 50%. My first proper exposure to shooting and firearms was in the
Boy Scouts when I was 13.
 

Ian2005

New member
Don't know about others... but Texas is 97% privately owned.. kind of makes it impossible to hunt on the cheap.
 

Bottom Gun

New member
But you'll never hear of a wolf pack running down the street of a suburb! They keep well away from people, and thus are far less of a nuisance than other predators.

Somebody must have forgotten to tell the wolves about that because there has been more than one occurence in AZ where people have defended themselves, family or pets from them.
There was a guy over in the Chiricuahua Mts who was forced to shoot one a year or so ago and they really made his life miserable over it. I never did hear what the final outcome was but he spent a bundle on legal fees.
Does anyone know how the guy finally made out?

There was a pair of them which showed up at my place in Elgin a few years ago and hung around the area for weeks. They showed no fear of humans whatsoever.
Animals do not always do what they are expected to.

I later found one of the two wolves dead about 8 miles away in a canyon. I never saw the second wolf after that. I suspect it met the same fate from the local ranchers.
 

Csspecs

New member
What is funny is that gun and ammo sales are up (over the same time frame).

It could be that most kids (people 25 and younger) don't make enough to hunt, and can't take the time off.

When I move out I will not be able to hunt for several years, in that time it is likely that I will just go to target shooting only. I have all the fun of a week of hunting with no tags or fees and I can buy a chicken on my way home.

See the problem? There is NO NEED for me to go hunting, I like it but I can buy more better tasting meat and still get to go shooting.
 
Top