Outdoor life issue on ways to increase hunter numbers

[PathFinder]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but is fewer hunters really all that bad? The money seems to be be pouring in now more than ever. Out west we can't just lock everyone out and manage herds how we want. More hunters equals more demand on a limited number of critters. As for the decline in numbers, I'm just not seeing it here. Seems like there are mobs of people everywhere for every season.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Gobbler36]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but is fewer hunters really all that bad? The money seems to be be pouring in now more than ever. Out west we can't just lock everyone out and manage herds how we want. More hunters equals more demand on a limited number of critters. As for the decline in numbers, I'm just not seeing it here. Seems like there are mobs of people everywhere for every season.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

This is exactly my thoughts also, I feel we as hunters should just do more for conservation more for habitat and more for funding and more for the image of hunting not place more people in the field just because.....

 

[bigdesert10]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but is fewer hunters really all that bad? The money seems to be be pouring in now more than ever. Out west we can't just lock everyone out and manage herds how we want. More hunters equals more demand on a limited number of critters. As for the decline in numbers, I'm just not seeing it here. Seems like there are mobs of people everywhere for every season.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

My suspicion is that this is a result of dwindling opportunity elsewhere. There may be fewer hunters overall, but we're seeing more and more in some states because committed hunters from low opportunity states are travelling to where they can hunt. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but my experience has been that there are more and more rigs parked at the trailheads and in the campgrounds where I hunt here in Idaho. Same goes for steelhead seasons. I still maintain that the best thing we can do is promote access and opportunity everywhere - even in places where we will never set foot. The second a guy has to travel a couple states over for decent hunting, the cost goes from a couple hundred to a couple thousand in a hurry, and unfortunately, that disqualifies a lot of guys that would otherwise be hunting and promoting conservation in their own states.

 

[KJH]

Hunters are lumped into one large group here, but there are some very different types of hunters... for example:

The person who goes out twice a year to try and shoot a couple of pheasants/rabbits/grouse/etc. A nice morning or two out with his buddies id fun. Doesn't really cross his mind the rest of the year. If someone didn't say, "let's go" he wouldn't.

The person who only hunts the opening weekend or the week of a rifle deer season away from home at deer camp. This is a tradition and hunting is something fun to do once a year. Thinks about it from time to time, but it isn't going to make any effort to go any other time.

The person who archery hunts day after day after work and tries to shoot a great buck. He puts in his time on his little chuck of ground and owns it like a kingdom.

The guy who hunts ducks and geese every weekend and loves it. complains about this season, but still enjoys the hell out of the hunt. Will do it every year. This guy doesn't give a hoot about a deer or a elk.

The person who obsesses about hunting and lives to hunt. Plans their life around hunting and their next trip or planning for their next hunting trip.

Obviously there are hundreds more types and some crossovers... My point is that trying to lump all hunters into one group and then try to fix a single problem of the whole group might be hard to do, if possible. Some of these types of hunters are growing, some are not. How do hunters by license type compare from 1982 (or any other year)? What is the problem by type of hunter or species or location. This seems like important information to know before trying to recruit hunters to replace the boomers who are going to drop off. Is there a common denominator of the problem? Someone smart should weigh in.

Fewer hunters is a bad thing. Hunters are the people who donate and make conservation most possible. The contributions of sportsmen are the reason why habitat projects exist on a broad scale. Without hunters advocating for wildlife, who would be? Not many. I'd like to have the fields to myself, but I'm one person and hunting sponsors conservation by small contributions of many.

I can tell you that when I was a kid, everyone I knew hunting, young and old. Now the number is much, much lower for lots of reasons. I'd like to see more people in the field. I have volunteered to be a mentor and take kids and their parents hunting... really introduce them to hunting. Its was a program and we had some amazing land to hunt as long as they were in the mentorship program. We got the parents into it too so hopefully it sticks into a family activity. The new hunters had great hunts and lots of memories. They loved it. When I reconnect with them after a few years, I always ask how hunting seasons were last year and the answer is always the same... "didn't hunt, no where to go".

Could access be the common factor in limiting new hunters... I now think it is.

 

[KJH]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but is fewer hunters really all that bad? The money seems to be be pouring in now more than ever. Out west we can't just lock everyone out and manage herds how we want. More hunters equals more demand on a limited number of critters. As for the decline in numbers, I'm just not seeing it here. Seems like there are mobs of people everywhere for every season.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Why can't states manage things how they want by tag allocation? Reduce NR permits, limit permit numbers in general, etc? What is stopping a State from managing herds how they want?

I bet people come to your state because there is a place to go and they can get a tag. Remove the tag and they have no reason to go... management issue solved, right? The State allows mobs of people to get tags.

Educate me... I need the learnin'

 

[MallardSX2]

WHen I go hunting it never fails I run into someone. lol

 

[PathFinder]

Why can't states manage things how they want by tag allocation? Reduce NR permits, limit permit numbers in general, etc? What is stopping a State from managing herds how they want?

I bet people come to your state because there is a place to go and they can get a tag. Remove the tag and they have no reason to go... management issue solved, right? The State allows mobs of people to get tags.

Educate me... I need the learnin'

My thinking is that the resident population of hunters is growing in Utah. Idaho seems to be growing both in terms of resident and non resident hunters. This may just be correlated to the rising populations of both states, I'm not sure that the percentage of the population is any higher.
On private property, it's much easier to directly control what happens. Ground can be managed specifically to benefit wildlife, and populations can easily be increased. No permission, no rules, no laws, just make the changes that need to happen.
Here, most everything is public. More people vying for tags means two things: pressure on the DWR for "opportunity", and lower draw odds. Overall, more people in the woods means more competition and lower quality. Our mule deer herds in particular aren't growing, and aren't going to because more people want to hunt them. Less hunting will always be better for their herds. We'd love the money to go to deer fences and habitat improvement, but it seems to go elsewhere. The big money and true change comes from private organizations. The DWR is just a large and highly inefficient bureaucracy.
I completely believe that hunting is the only source of conservation worth noting in our day and age. But in the western states, we are rapidly reaching a point where wildlife populations can't keep up with hunter demand. Just look at draw odds and point creep for elk, premium deer, and once in a lifetime in Utah. There are hundreds of applicants one or two points under max for many hunts. Anybody just starting out will be lucky to draw before they die for some hunts.


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[KJH]

Thanks. I understand what you're trying to say now.

 

[FreeRange]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but is fewer hunters really all that bad? The money seems to be be pouring in now more than ever. Out west we can't just lock everyone out and manage herds how we want. More hunters equals more demand on a limited number of critters. As for the decline in numbers, I'm just not seeing it here. Seems like there are mobs of people everywhere for every season.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I absolutely understand where you're coming from and selfishly would want the same, who wants to see other guys out in the field? But at the same time reading that number, 11.4 million hunters, scares the hell out of me. That is 3.5% of the population. It really shows what a minority we've become. At the peak of hunter participation in 1982 hunters accounted for over 7% of the population. I understand that people who actually hunt aren't the only people who'd vote in favor of hunting if it came to that, but that diminishing presence on the social landscape is alarming. If people don't personally know someone who hunts sad to say they're probably only going to hold a negative image of hunting due to the way hunting is presented in so many negative ways these days.

I see the best way to present hunting in a positive light is through face to face personal interactions and relationships initiated by respectful, ethical hunters with everyone they encounter. Cut the representation of hunters in the population in half and that positive influence for hunting gets cut in half. This is most needed in urban environments because most people don't know anyone who hunts so the potential to educate non hunters and take people hunting who never would have gone is great.

This is all too real for me here in California where I can easily see how in the not too distant future hunting could be voted out of existence piece by piece, which has in fact already started.

 

[realunlucky]

I don't think you can use utah as an example. Utah goes out of it's way to limit oppertunity and limit tag numbers to increase thier value to the highest bidder.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Diesel]

Why can't states manage things how they want by tag allocation? Reduce NR permits, limit permit numbers in general, etc? What is stopping a State from managing herds how they want?

I bet people come to your state because there is a place to go and they can get a tag. Remove the tag and they have no reason to go... management issue solved, right? The State allows mobs of people to get tags.

Educate me... I need the learnin'

If you limit non-resident hunters even more than the limits imposed now, money will dry up for conservation in the respective state. Non-resident fees and tags are huge to state game agencies. Non-resident tag costs today are already out of reach for many hunters and is already effecting the number who can experience elk and mule deer hunts. Think of how much money is spent on gear alone to do a non-resident trip. It's not cheap.

Sites like Rokslide would not have the following without hunt opportunities in other states. Subalpine gear versus whitetail gear would not be necessary if one could not hunt beyond their own backyard. It is a concern right now that only the well healed will be able to hunt and with that smaller number conservation dollars will be scarcer yet. I see in the FNG thread that people are on here from all over, not just western states. Companies like Kifaru, Sitka, First Lite, Stone Glacier, Mystery Ranch and all the others will lose their customer base by further methods to limit non-residents. Who would need that special backpack or ultra light tent if they have no place to hunt.

The bottom line is fewer hunters will translate into the end of hunting altogether. No matter how you hunt, what you hunt, how long you hunt or what type of bow, rifle or shotgun you use, we need to all be brothers and sisters in supporting the sport we all love. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

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.

I think you are becoming un-trusting and hard to get along with. :^)







Seriously, I think you are way off base. Hunter numbers are dwindling much quicker than recruitment at this point. And all studies I have read says access is the biggest culprit. And, you can think the "trophy mentality" for that. Also, how could anyone enjoy hunting the way those guys do it? I am taking a few kids here in WV and neither of them had dads to show them. So, they learned what they knew watching it on TV. These kids couldn't walk far, had never even climbed a ladder before, and didn't know a 30/06 would kill a deer at 85 yards. We all want t blame something but, I blame us for the rest of the equation. Dads like to watch football and drink beer instead of taking kids on camping/hunting trips.




To beat this, we have to put fun back into for our kids. Make it an event. But, adults have been too consumed with their own entertainment and wants to do that. As demand for hunting drops, lease demands increase. Landowners no longer have family and friends that want to hunt. So, they let it pay them to let a leasor hunt. Which makes it impossible to take a kid for quick hunts. And to the parents who would take the kids, they can no longer justify paying thousands to take a kid hunting 3 or 4 times a year. Because the "Big Buck" killer will pay it for seclusive rights. God Bless

 

[5MilesBack]

11.4 million hunters

Let's put that number into perspective.........11.4 million hunters is 228,000 hunters per state. Do we really want or even need more than that in ANY state in the nation? People talk about wanting to increase hunter numbers, but to what extent? Can every state absorb twice as many hunters and still maintain their wildlife effectively? Would a 10% increase in numbers satisfy those that want to increase numbers? At what point are the numbers a hindrance for the state's wildlife management objectives?

14% of our population would be ~50 million. At that rate each state would average 1 million hunters. 14% still sounds low as a % of the population, however 1 million hunters in each and every state sounds ridiculous.

 

[realunlucky]

What we need are more involved hunters in issues that effect hunting that would far more effective than any increase in actual numbers that just hunt.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[mfllood3800]

This is a good reason to join some of the groups that are trying to get elk and deer herds repopulated in areas they are low or non existent. If the Eastern States can stay there to elk hunt, it increases hunter population THERE, and decreases in your home state out west.

Many just wont spend the $$ to help groups like RMEF, SWF, etc.....

I'm not saying this is the only answer, but in a puzzle with tons of pieces, each one carries it's own weight.

Where I hunt, I see more NR hunters during archery spike elk (OTC) but during deer rifle, it's mostly resident where I am. I am sure Utah has a variety mixtures depending where area is.
And I am certain each western state is similar.
No doubt Colorado has way more NR elk hunters than deer hunters.

We are fortunate to have a mild winter here, but this summer we may be paying for it in fire hazards, which can have a direct impact on herd strength as well.
You cant predict some things Nature sends, it only takes 1 major curve ball to start a nasty process of unforeseen issues to be added to the attempt to "control herd population thru conservation"

I live in a town that almost every household hunts. So I don't see a shortage of hunters, especially young. I have a hard time accepting the reported info, when I see the opposite.
There may be a shortage in certain areas, but it aint here.

 

[S.Clancy]

Quick question... Are hunter numbers decreasing as a % of population, total number or both? Only asking because hunter numbers as a whole could be increasing (slightly) while the % by population decreases due to population growth over the last 50 years. Obviously both are important when looking at voting, etc. Thanks.

 

[PathFinder]

Quick question... Are hunter numbers decreasing as a % of population, total number or both? Only asking because hunter numbers as a whole could be increasing (slightly) while the % by population decreases due to population growth over the last 50 years. Obviously both are important when looking at voting, etc. Thanks.

I think it depends on the state. In Utah I think the percentage of the population that hunts has stayed fairly close to the same, while population has increased. Other states seem to have opposite trends.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[boom]

hunting has to have dropped off.

i cant see a bunch of millennials out there hunting. i see crowds, because where the animals are, naturally the hunters congregate there.

it isnt just the hunting funds/revenues. we need hunters at the polls. we dont want the kids with the man-buns voting for the fate of the sport.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Quick question... Are hunter numbers decreasing as a % of population, total number or both? Only asking because hunter numbers as a whole could be increasing (slightly) while the % by population decreases due to population growth over the last 50 years. Obviously both are important when looking at voting, etc. Thanks.

Quick answer is both. Although as pointed out, some states are growing on a per Capita basis, as pointed out above while others are losing. More losers than gainers.

To the point about not needing more hunters, I have two thoughts:

First, not all are hardcore, diy, deep woods steely-eyed killers. That number includes the once a year folks or the week of tree stand sitter type stuff. So any increase may not directly impact everyone the same.

Second - 11 million is less than 4% of the total US pop. Fact of the political matter is that the bigger our voice is, the more likely we are to be able to get political support to protect, preserve and expand hunting options. I don’t like seeing crowds in the woods anymore than other folks but if it is the price I have to pay to keep hunting for the next 20-30 years and pass it along to my kids, then so be it. Also for contrast, there are an estimated 47 millions US hikers and backpackers and 41 million US mountain bikers (some overlap for sure) to share the back country with. Along wit 6.5PETA members and 60 million birdwatchers that may not support us of hunting comes under fire.

 

[vanish]

Anecdotal evidence would suggest there are more hunters in the field, but I believe that's merely a symptom of more hunters traveling to hunt more states, which gives the illusion of more total hunters.

I believe there are two reasons for this:

1.) The economy is doing well, and thus hunters have more disposable income.
2.) Social media pressures people to "be obsessed" with whatever hobby they have. If you aren't doing it 100% of the time, you're a poser. This means applying and hunting more places more often.

As far as OL's point about hunter age, I believe this graph, while its just a selection from PA pheasant seasons, makes it abundantly clear that we're due for a crash in the total number of hunters:

This was from 5 years ago, so you can probably slide everything to the right, except for the youth. The youth should be pretty obvious - relatives try to get them involved, but few stick around past 16 years old.