Outdoor life issue on ways to increase hunter numbers

[brownbear]

PA Blue laws are keeping hunter numbers down. Not sure how many other states prohibit Sunday hunting, but for us in the prime of our (working) lives, we really only have one day- Saturday. Even if Sunday were archery only as they are in other states, that may convert a few of the fence sitters on purchasing a license.

 

[Diesel]

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.

If I recall correctly, Pennsylvania had one million hunters alone and now roughly just over half that number. And with a large population.

 

[KJH]

No doubt that the number of hunters correlate to the number of people who will vote for hunting related freedoms and supporting conservation to sustain our wildlife populations.

4% of the population (or less) being hunters makes it harder to advocate for hunting and conservation. This doesn't mean 96% of the population are against conservation and hunting, but I bet it doesn't really matter to 90% + of the population. The more boomers pass on, the lower the number of hunting advocates That's my concern.

Without it mattering to more people, it will be harder to continue our sport/lifestyle for generations. You need more people advocating for public lands and public access programs so that we can keep and recruit more hunters.

 

[bigdesert10]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I'm curious how much trouble these dwindling numbers really put us in. Even if 20% of the population were hunters, that's not a large enough voting block to protect hunting rights on its own. The reality is that we hunt and fish at the pleasure of the non-hunting public whether we make up 1% of the population or 45%. I don't think there's any reason to doubt the projections that hunter participation is shrinking, but I think it also bears mentioning that the younger generation of hunters tends to have a higher concentration of conservation-minded folks that consider how their actions impact the sustainability of the sport and also the public opinion of hunting. I think that the only thing that a dwindling hunting public really hurts is the cash flow - both to hunting gear vendors and manufacturers and to wildlife agencies. You can solve the first problem by diversifying into non-consumptive recreation niches and the loss of funds in the agencies is offset by a more engaged, albeit smaller, hunting public. I realize I'm assuming a lot here, but am I wrong about the trend of the conservation mindset in younger hunters?

 

[KJH]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I'm curious how much trouble these dwindling numbers really put us in. Even if 20% of the population were hunters, that's not a large enough voting block to protect hunting rights on its own. The reality is that we hunt and fish at the pleasure of the non-hunting public whether we make up 1% of the population or 45%. I don't think there's any reason to doubt the projections that hunter participation is shrinking, but I think it also bears mentioning that the younger generation of hunters tends to have a higher concentration of conservation-minded folks that consider how their actions impact the sustainability of the sport and also the public opinion of hunting. I think that the only thing that a dwindling hunting public really hurts is the cash flow - both to hunting gear vendors and manufacturers and to wildlife agencies. You can solve the first problem by diversifying into non-consumptive recreation niches and the loss of funds in the agencies is offset by a more engaged, albeit smaller, hunting public. I realize I'm assuming a lot here, but am I wrong about the trend of the conservation mindset in younger hunters?

I don't think you're wrong. As a matter for fact, your point is fantastic, but it further muddies the discussion and what the overall impact is... it adds another variable to this complicated equation. Albeit a variable that is worthy of discussion.

Its probable that the percentage of younger hunters with a conservation mindset is higher than ever before. There isn't enough of them voting for conservation/hunting/public lands/ 2nd ammendment/ outdoors/ etc. The problem is that although younger hunters can vote, they don't typically have the financial resources to support the quality conservation organizations and efforts that support public land advocacy. Maybe someday they will. For now, votes is the best we can hope for, but fewer votes is not helping.

Regardless of the mindset, I'd rather have more voters on our side and more money to support the causes. The next generations doesn't seem likely to have both... or either if numbers keep declining.

I would not want to be a hunting focused sporting goods retailer in 20 years... I know that for sure.

 

[ndbuck09]

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.

This is exactly what I think the Heart of the issue is for Western states. If you wanted to start hunting in your 20's or 30s, without a family member guiding you through things, imagine the level of BS there is with preference points in most every western state. Managing for 350"+ class bulls, 180" bucks limits hunting. Bottom line. It limits hunter opportunity. It limits where you can hunt. It limits everything. Then, more and more people come to Idaho where the herds are managed by and large for opportunity. Heck, I moved to Idaho from Indiana back in the early '14. And I can tell you finding a pope and young elk is a very real possibility for nearly anywhere here. And it's the best thing in life to be able to hunt P&Y bulls every year. More fun than hunting a 350 bull once every 20 years (and going up every year bc of point creep).

Key up point system ranting...

So, as a 31 yr old who has hunted since I was 14, I can't help but place at least some blame on the baby boomers aging out of the hunting world who put into place all these terrible point systems in all these states. I started elk hunting out west from Indiana when I was 24 with college buddies. I could only afford to do that trip every year. You think I could just pony up a bunch of money to apply to build points? heck no. All the while, the guys in their 40's in the mid 2000's were just licking their chops envisioning all of the drive to terrain where only 25 people had tags since they all pushed this points agenda and they knew that being on the ground floor meant they were far and ahead of the curve, penalizing younger people in the future....And now folks are concerned that people in their 20's-30's aren't hunting....

I digress

 

[5MilesBack]

This is exactly what I think the Heart of the issue is for Western states. If you wanted to start hunting in your 20's or 30s, without a family member guiding you through things, imagine the level of BS there is with preference points in most every western state. Managing for 350"+ class bulls, 180" bucks limits hunting. Bottom line. It limits hunter opportunity. It limits where you can hunt. It limits everything. Then, more and more people come to Idaho where the herds are managed by and large for opportunity. Heck, I moved to Idaho from Indiana back in the early '14. And I can tell you finding a pope and young elk is a very real possibility for nearly anywhere here. And it's the best thing in life to be able to hunt P&Y bulls every year. More fun than hunting a 350 bull once every 20 years (and going up every year bc of point creep).

For Colorado, trophy quality is better now than at any other time in my lifetime, and I'm 52. I remember back in the early 80's it was tough to find even a branch antlered bull at times, let alone a 6x6......and most the state was OTC. Then they instituted point restrictions and made more draw units. But today, you can find multiple P&Y bulls in a season even in heavily hunted OTC units. And occasionally you'll find some real good bulls in those units as well. Last year I hunted a 1 point unit and saw four 6x6's in two days of hunting, and those two days were the first time I'd set foot in that unit. Still lots of opportunities out there, but it's definitely a lot more crowded than it used to be.

 

[TXCO]

Another reason for the potential increase of hunters out west (or at the local trailhead) can also be attributed to the internet and amount of information available online. It has never been easier for a new person to learn about how to get started hunting out west and feel confident enough to go. With less access and higher costs in whitetail lands, this can make a difference on how the average person chooses to hunt.

Hunting will live and die by access to land and the middle ground of voters. One big thing that can help is not necessarily how many people hunt, but how many share/describe that experience in a positive way to their non-hunting friends, especially people who don't live in a hunting community. If someone travels from a major city to get an elk or pheasant or whatever and then cooks it for a group of friends who aren't hunters it has a pretty good chance of leaving a favorable impression on that person when it comes time to vote or take a survey. We always cook wild game for that reason when we have non-hunters over. Social media can have the same effect to a certain extent.