Outdoor life issue on ways to increase hunter numbers

Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
5,824
Outdoor life issue puts out some great strategies on recruiting and training hunters.

One article on shifting Hunter demographics that scares me a bit. As boomers turn 70 - the age where many stop hunting - the hunter numbers will drop by 30%.
 

N2TRKYS

WKR
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
3,954
Location
Alabama
I must be hunting the wrong places. It seems like more folks are hunting now than ever before.
 

toddb

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
298
Special youth seasons and lowering hunting age isn't helping in wisconsin. Can't get youth outdoors in large numbers to make up numbers. Hate to say it , but think future don't look to bright.
 

303TrophyHusband

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
269
Location
MT
I was discussing this the other day with someone, the special youth seasons and lowering of hunting age is great BUT it doesn't really help if parents aren't really into it, need to come up with a way to get more adults in the 25-45 age range out in the field. We didn't really come up with a solution...
 

Schaaf

WKR
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
1,231
Location
Fort Peck, MT
Outdoor Life could have started by not firing one of the best journalists the hunting community has in Andrew McKean.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2015
Messages
437
Location
New Mexico
My project this year is to mentor a ~25 year old on his first elk hunt, or maybe deer. If he draws a tag. He's shot a gun about once before but seems to be ready for the challenge. I'm looking forward to it.
 

KJH

WKR
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
547
I read an article a year or so ago and I wish I would have been smart enough to save it somewhere because I can't find it again. It was a article that made me realize that there are a few primary root causes of hunter number decline, but based on some amazing research, largest root cause by far was lack of access to places to hunt.

It basically acknowledged that the baby boomer generation had more hunters due to numerous factors, including societal, but that most of them would not have been hunters if they had the same conditions and limitations to access as new hunters do today. They hunted because it was a sport lots of people did, but lots of people did it because it you could find places to go without paying a lease and just knocking on doors. It was something that regardless of where you lived in the country you could find a place to hunt for a short period of time, like an afternoon hunt... even where public land wasn't available. The investment in time and money required by most hunters (minus some western places) in our modern environment makes people look at hunting and choose something else. You can't just own a .22 or shotgun and go hunting a few afternoons a year if you don't have anywhere to go without a multi-day trip.

The bottom line of the article was that the baby boomers will drop off and in the next 20 years the number of hunters will be reduced so greatly that the sport, and conservation supported by the hunters, will drop off to a level that cannot be recovered from. If people have places to go readily available, then the sport will survive. If not it will be an elitist sport that is only enjoyed by a few with deep pockets. Then the focus on public lands being public and conservation being important will lose its luster over time. Less support for conservation will be the ultimate end to the sport and being conservationists. People will not see the value of investing their own efforts and money into conservation and private organizations who oppose hunting will flourish without hunter opposition.

I may not have done a good job trying to summarize the article, but they want more access to make more hunters. If you build it they will come was the theme of the article. Make access programs the number one priority in each state to recruit hunters.
 

ChrisS

WKR
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
859
Location
A fix back east
... They hunted because it was a sport lots of people did, but lots of people did it because it you could find places to go without paying a lease and just knocking on doors. It was something that regardless of where you lived in the country you could find a place to hunt for a short period of time, like an afternoon hunt... even where public land wasn't available.
I sometimes wonder if the worry over hunter recruitment is overblown.

But to this point, I agree.

A lot of guys seem hellbent on buying or leasing land so that they can grow their own trophy whitetail and limit the number of people who hunt on a specific parcel. When I grew up, there might have been 10-15 hunters per 300 acre farm, but now's 2-3 because of the trophy mentality. I grew up hunting family dairy farms and there were usually large groups (15-20) who did so. It wasn't unusual to help with chores in the AM, sit til 9 or 10, lunch, and then drive til 3 and sit til dark. The groups would put on big drives at each others' farmland on rotating days. Now, farmland in my area is being sold off and divided up into small private "sportsman's camps", or, a family member or two is restricting access to grow big giant bucks, or suburban sprawl is limiting access and/or safety concerns limit huntable areas (when you can't hunt within 500 feet of residence and most of the residences sit on 2-5 acre plots, it limits alot of area quickly).
 

Daubsnu1

FNG
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
86
Location
Nebraska
I've not had the opportunity to read the article. I will tell you my nephew and his friends are very much in to hunting, and social media is helping a lot. They all love to to hunt, post pictures of themselves hunting, wearing the latest gear, "pile" pictures, etc.

We lost our 30+ year turkey hunting spot because the farmer's grand-kids wanted to start hunting.

I see tons of out-of-state hunters here in Nebraska for rifle deer season, many with younger hunters.

I wonder if Outdoor life is writing articles like this for a reason(?). I turned 50 last fall...and I've grown more and more skeptical of mass media and their intentions. When I read this post, I almost visited the outdoor life web site...but think about it...that's what they want us to do. They want us to visit their site...more visitors means more advertising $$$. And more profits for Outdoor life.

Maybe i'm getting curmudgeonly in my old age.
 

Diesel

WKR
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
428
Location
Western Pennsylvania
I read an article a year or so ago and I wish I would have been smart enough to save it somewhere because I can't find it again. It was a article that made me realize that there are a few primary root causes of hunter number decline, but based on some amazing research, largest root cause by far was lack of access to places to hunt.

It basically acknowledged that the baby boomer generation had more hunters due to numerous factors, including societal, but that most of them would not have been hunters if they had the same conditions and limitations to access as new hunters do today. They hunted because it was a sport lots of people did, but lots of people did it because it you could find places to go without paying a lease and just knocking on doors. It was something that regardless of where you lived in the country you could find a place to hunt for a short period of time, like an afternoon hunt... even where public land wasn't available. The investment in time and money required by most hunters (minus some western places) in our modern environment makes people look at hunting and choose something else. You can't just own a .22 or shotgun and go hunting a few afternoons a year if you don't have anywhere to go without a multi-day trip.

The bottom line of the article was that the baby boomers will drop off and in the next 20 years the number of hunters will be reduced so greatly that the sport, and conservation supported by the hunters, will drop off to a level that cannot be recovered from. If people have places to go readily available, then the sport will survive. If not it will be an elitist sport that is only enjoyed by a few with deep pockets. Then the focus on public lands being public and conservation being important will lose its luster over time. Less support for conservation will be the ultimate end to the sport and being conservationists. People will not see the value of investing their own efforts and money into conservation and private organizations who oppose hunting will flourish without hunter opposition.

I may not have done a good job trying to summarize the article, but they want more access to make more hunters. If you build it they will come was the theme of the article. Make access programs the number one priority in each state to recruit hunters.

Access is indeed a big part of hunter participation. I am 65 and moved away from small town, farm, rural area to the big woods for just that reason. Almost all the land I hunted for 30 years became posted. I hope I never quit hunting, but the body starts to betray you and climbing that mountain gets harder every year. As a hunter, giving back to the habitat, the game and the kids becomes more important as you age and a huge part of the hunter population is about to be too stoved up for the woods.

Another factor in Pennsylvania was the decision by the state and feds to end camp leases. Many lost their place to go to hunt the big woods. Camp life was the kids first taste of being around the old guys and traditions that had been around for generations. That social aspect along with splitting wood, story telling, freedom to be male, shooting, card games, campfires, cooking and seeing deer on the pole was the hook. Hunting was more than just killing. Hunters came from surrounding states to "camp". Life was good.

Media started to do their part in shaming the hunter with old Dan Rather's hit piece "The Guns of October". Most of you are too young to remember that crap, but it was the start of anti-hunting.

Hate to say this but trophy hunting is also a factor in media pounding the hunter. Killing for horns has been used against us to turn the folks who don't hunt into part of the anti hunting side. Used to be that the average Joe was very happy to bring home meat and so were kids. Any deer was a trophy. Then, it became if it didn't have a big rack, your status as a hunter was diminished.

So much is perception. Kids want to be "cool". Hunting has to be cool again. Taking a gang of kids hunting together could kick start the hunting bug for kids. That takes a big commitment on the adult's part, and you need a camp and mentors. Kids would definitely have a great time and create the buzz needed to create cool. The camo, guns and general gear is part of what all on here at Rokslide find fun and rewarding as our passion. Kids just need exposed to it as a group, not just as an individual. The kids that didn't make those initial hunting trips would hear the buzz and want to attend. Kids become lifelong friends through hunting and carry it forth to their kids. It is simply human nature really.

Another aspect that can be a boost to hunting, and you can see some of it today is the food factor. Game is free of additives and that is becoming more attractive as the organic trend becomes mainstream. I even see some of the magazines in the outdoor industry touting the benefits of wild game as a healthy choice. They are doing it to sell more outdoor gear, but every little bit helps in making hunting desirable.

Hunting has a lot to overcome. Urbanization of the population, high costs of getting a tag, less space to hunt, politics, and so on. We all as hunters need to make the effort to bring the next generation into the fold.

Nick
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,527
Location
Colorado Springs
I must be hunting the wrong places. It seems like more folks are hunting now than ever before.

Ya, they should break this all down by state to see the state to state impact versus the nation as a whole. And the vast majority of folks I see during hunting seasons are in the <50 crowd. I hardly ever see any older folks even camping during hunting season let alone hunting.
 

Gobbler36

WKR
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,352
Location
None your business
Not afraid to say that in Idaho at least I’m not concerned with getting more people in the field. I think that is more of a marketing ploy, I am however more interested in keeping the people on the fence about hunting with a good positive image about hunting which I believe is more important why do I want to increase the likelihood that someone will be in my spot or that tag availability could be impacted.
 

Glendon Mullins

Hillbilly Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
2,125
Location
Highland County Virginia
IMO there are a lot of reasons hunter participation could go down. Although some things that jump out to me are the following:
1. Don’t start kid’s deer hunting. At least here in the east where it is not spot and stalk like out west. Nothing worse to ruin a kid on hunting like telling them to sit still, don’t move, don’t talk, regardless of how cold it is for 10 hours straight. Take them squirrel hunting, you can move a lot, making noise isn’t to much of a deal, and there’s more action and shooting.
2. Stop the trophy shaming on social media and other places. Let’s get one thing straight you’re not going to kill the next world record deer, and neither am I, so why tell everyone “the deer needed another year” and other such nonsense. If someone buys a tag, they can use it as they see fit. People get way to bent out of shape over this nowadays.
3. Stop telling other hunters to “hunt their own state” or stay away from my state etc. Again, there seems to be an uptick of this recently even here. Blaming out of state hunters for this and that. Saying they shouldn’t be allowed to hunt public land pout of state etc. “We don’t want you here” etc. If that’s how you feel honestly, sell all your gear, and move to Richmond VA and join up with PETA. Nothing I smore ANTI hunting than hating on someone for doing what they love on public land they helped fund. To some people maybe hunting that state or species is a dream come true and to see people say things like that, that people shouldn’t chase their dreams is downright un-American.
 

Trial153

WKR
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
8,187
Location
NY
acess, acess and more acess. Once everything is monitized to the point that you have to play to play its all over. Why? because new hunters dont have a solid foundation and love of the sport to build on. They arent shelling out money to hunt untill it engrained in them. Most guys i know in the east that stop hunting will say its because they dont have the places to hunt anymore. If hunters are willing to give it up because its too much work to overcome acess issues how do you expect new people to break into it.
 

bigdesert10

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
293
Location
Idaho
So many of these problems stem from this unhealthy trend of trophy obsession. It's bad for access, bad for the image of hunting, bad for hunter recruitment, and in some cases, bad for the game populations. If we prioritize access, opportunity and sustainable herds (sustainable, not trophy), we can go a long way towards solving many of the problems facing the future of big game hunting in America.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,527
Location
Colorado Springs
The biggest hurdle is just demographics. I once saw a stat that said in 1900 almost 90% of the population lived in rural areas, but by 2000 almost 90% lived in urban areas. It's not rocket science that people growing up in the city just aren't going to value the activity of hunting like those that grow up with it in their back yard. That's just a fact. It takes effort to (1) even find a place to shoot (bow, gun, whatever), and (2) then find a place to hunt something you aren't even familiar with, and (3) that's even if they have an interest to start with.

It's like two totally different cultures we have. That's why so many are afraid of guns and want them banned. They didn't grow up with them and see no need for them. We haven't been anymore successful in changing those people's minds, than we have been in getting folks to "want to hunt". It's just not in their interest. No more than it is in mine to go to the opera. How successful would they be in recruiting hunters or country folks in that endeavor? I don't see it happening.
 

ChrisS

WKR
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
859
Location
A fix back east
Must be different back east. Seems to me like there are more people hunting than ever out west.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

NY Hunting licenses sold 2006-07: 562,250
NY Hunting licenses sold 2016-17: 569,247

Avg Baby boomer age in 2006-07: 57
Avg Baby boomer age in 2016-17: 67

No slow down yet.

Some of the western states are seeing more hunters because their populations are growing much more rapidly than more populous states. Idaho's pop increased 60% over the last two decades. I don't know if the percentage of hunters in Idaho has stayed the same or decreased or what, though.
 

JWP58

WKR
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
Somehow make small game hunting cool again. Heck i love hunting big trophy bucks.....buck rabbits that is...
 
OP
Desk Jockey
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
5,824
NY Hunting licenses sold 2006-07: 562,250
NY Hunting licenses sold 2016-17: 569,247

Avg Baby boomer age in 2006-07: 57
Avg Baby boomer age in 2016-17: 67

No slow down yet.

Some of the western states are seeing more hunters because their populations are growing much more rapidly than more populous states. Idaho's pop increased 60% over the last two decades. I don't know if the percentage of hunters in Idaho has stayed the same or decreased or what, though.


Not to get mathy on you but the trends they use are concerning.

for reference the Outdoorlife article references peak US hunters was in 1982 at 17 million. Now down to 11.4 million
Despite substantial increase in us population so hunters are declining as a % of total population in addition to decline in numbers.

The baby boomer thing is shown via data from Arizona. Boomers were 30% of hunters in 1992 they were 30-50. They are still 30% and are now 50-70. 70 seems to be a magic number when people stop hunting. Point is, if boomers follow that pattern we would lose 2-4 million net hunters as they gave up the sport.

Final point, they show a graph of per CAPITA growth of hunting license purchases. Only 4 states show per CAPITA increases since 1960.
 
Top