antlerradar
Well-known member
Montana State in Bozeman.
Decline In Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays For Conservation (NPR)
- Thread starter uster19
- Start date
Montana State in Bozeman.
npaden
Well-known member
Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the number of paid licensed hunters has gone from 14,575,484 in 2007 to 15,486,123 in 2017. By my math that seems like an increase, not a decline.
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm
2017 is the highest number of paid licensed hunters since 1993 if you want to go back that far.
Not sure what the 4 million people that are buying a hunting license but not hunting are doing, but if revenue is generated from license sales then I guess it shouldn't really matter that much.
I know that the overall population may have increased at a higher % than that but if you think you are seeing more hunters when you are out in the field than you used to, you are probably correct.
As mentioned, access is becoming harder and harder so those numbers are getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller area.
We have a lot of obstacles to overcome and we need to put our best foot forward, for sure as a % of the population hunters are getting smaller and smaller, but game animals are somewhat of a finite resource and I think we still need to focus more on habitat improvement and conservation than on hunter numbers.
If you build it they will come.
My 2 cents.
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm
2017 is the highest number of paid licensed hunters since 1993 if you want to go back that far.
Not sure what the 4 million people that are buying a hunting license but not hunting are doing, but if revenue is generated from license sales then I guess it shouldn't really matter that much.
I know that the overall population may have increased at a higher % than that but if you think you are seeing more hunters when you are out in the field than you used to, you are probably correct.
As mentioned, access is becoming harder and harder so those numbers are getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller area.
We have a lot of obstacles to overcome and we need to put our best foot forward, for sure as a % of the population hunters are getting smaller and smaller, but game animals are somewhat of a finite resource and I think we still need to focus more on habitat improvement and conservation than on hunter numbers.
If you build it they will come.
My 2 cents.
Last edited:
brownbear932008
Well-known member
I totally agree with this statement. The tag for me as well as numerous buddies I've been able to go with over the years was by far the most expensive item purchased for the out of state trips. I think the sportsman that has all this gear and expensive junk is a very small percentage of the hunting population in my experience. I think within the next ten years both eastern and western game agencies are going to have some serious funding issues if things keep going as they are now.
Last edited:
BrentD
Well-known member
Yeah but.
But 1. the percentage of the population that hunts is declining
2. about half those tags are Randy Newberg! He is everywhere
Just kidding, but that number certainly includes more people going to more states.
npaden
Well-known member
A couple other thoughts from the hard data.
In 2007 License fees generated $723 million. In 2017 that was up to $853 million. That may seem like a lot but that averages out to just 1.8% increase per year.
We whine and cry about license fee increases but they really have gone up less than the overall cost of inflation.
Going back to 1997 it was 565 million, that averages out to a 2.8% increase per year for that decade.
If you go all the way back to 1987 you see a pretty big jump from 345 million for a 6.4% annual increase from 1987 to 1997 but it seems like people are saying that raising license prices that are pricing folks out of hunting is a recent issue. The math would actually tell you the opposite. If folks were going to quit hunting because of license fee increases, they should have done it back in the late 80s and early 90s.
In 2007 License fees generated $723 million. In 2017 that was up to $853 million. That may seem like a lot but that averages out to just 1.8% increase per year.
We whine and cry about license fee increases but they really have gone up less than the overall cost of inflation.
Going back to 1997 it was 565 million, that averages out to a 2.8% increase per year for that decade.
If you go all the way back to 1987 you see a pretty big jump from 345 million for a 6.4% annual increase from 1987 to 1997 but it seems like people are saying that raising license prices that are pricing folks out of hunting is a recent issue. The math would actually tell you the opposite. If folks were going to quit hunting because of license fee increases, they should have done it back in the late 80s and early 90s.
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,151
No, the high school trap league is NOT exclusively rural, but it's not inner city either.
So you are feeling left out because you lean left. Lamb will give you a hug,maybe.
Given Hillary's distaste of personal firearm ownership, which she has gone on record with, you
must really be conflicted if you think gun ownership and supporting Hillary go hand in hand, jeez.
There are a Lot of left leaning folks that I see at the range or whom I go shoot with occasionally.
B ut the HIllary bumpersticker wearing person is not someone whom you are going to convert to
hunting.
It's the middle 40% of society that votes either way depending on the candidate, who's kid tried out
for the trap team because they don't cut anyone and they don't have to be a super athlete or any
of the other clicky stuff that goes on in high school. And they have fun.
icebreaker12
Active member
UWSP (University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point). It is the largest wildlife undergrad program in the country. There are literally "Pointers" everywhere. And they are working on making the Wildlife LE program a stand alone major.
My trap club has a good mix of R's & D's, but I live in a gov't town. My trap team is all Dems, with a 13 year old kid who has 0 interest in hunting, but loves to shoot trap. I saw about an even number of Hillary to Trump stickers there.
My rifle range is where I was told in 08 that "I ain't doin' a G#@d#$n thing that N#@(%r says," while he fondled his AR. Ever since, I've found it to be a good rule to not bring politics to the gun range, regardless of your point of view.
And I'l hug anyone. I'm a lover. And a fighter. But I'd rather love up on you first.
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,151
RobG
Well-known member
This is a good observation. I think the article might be misleading because it focuses on the percentage of population that are hunters rather than absolute numbers. Hunters have generally been the rural crowd, and you can't really grow those numbers.
I know access is a very important consideration, but to be honest I know lots of adults and kids who would like to hunt but the biggest obstacle is they aren't proficient with a gun. I don't have time to teach them, and classes don't seem to be well publicized. At least in Montana that is the issue I've seen the most.
The other thing is that if our lands get any more crowded with hunters I'd probably quit hunting. Which is to say I don't think the sport can handle that many more people. It isn't so bad in MT except on opening day, but I've hunted PA and NY and it is chaos and I wouldn't think most non-hunters would find it appealing.
Tough problem, but even if we did have more money the Legislature makes sure it isn't spent where I'd like to see it spent.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Oh my all this sounds horrible, you mean my kid might actually have a chance at drawing a sheep or moose tag because of less hunters? Terrible I tell you, terrible.
I bought one state license in 2007 and 6 or 7 in 2017. I think the trend to apply in multiple state draws has expanded state license sales.
Access is definitely a major issue but the resource itself (in my opinion) is the biggest issue. When you talk to anyone (in any sport) and ask them what the best contributor to staying with the sport is and the answer will always be success. Recently, looking at the data from the FWP of MT, you see the success rates staying about the same and by that I mean over-all, they are very low. If a person goes 2-3 years without getting something or worse, not seeing anything, they simply won't stay in the sport. I don't mean seeing a deer or elk on a place you can't hunt either. There are people who will stay in deer stand on ten acres if they have a good feeling about getting a shot at a deer but you can give them access to a 1000 acres without a shot at a deer and you will lose them as members of the hunting community. Access has to also include good game management and a possibility of getting something in the long run. I don't care what sport you play, it sucks to lose year in and year out. Most people lose interest when success is never achieved.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I don't think that's how it works lol... I don't think demand will ever slacken enough for premium tags to make a noticeable difference, but in 5-10 years you will probably be able to get a fist full of deer tags in the midwest...
F
fwagner
Guest
Way to attack the issue from the perspective of "your kid" and completely missing the forest for the trees. Everyone needs to make sure they do their part to combat this. If you aren't volunteering to help introduce new hunters into the sport then get off your ass and get on it. Doesn't need to be in a official manner but at least take a first time hunter out and show them the ropes. I live in southwestern Wisconsin, with internet access and a little of time you can find plenty of land to hunt anything you want providing that you are willing to work and aren't a fat guy wanting to hunt a deer in a heated box blind.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
I'm not and I won't!
elkduds
Well-known member
Big Fin needs to get the sarcasm emoji fixed.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The NPR article gets its numbers from the US FWS Annual survey which bases it's numbers on extrapolations from census data.
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf
The data you are referencing is ostensibly raw data from the state license sales
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm
The later would appear to be more accurate, but I'm not sure if they control for people who have licenses in multiple states. I bet most guys on here have at least 2, I think I had 5 last year. It's possible they use Socials to eliminate duplicates, I know CO, WY, MT, and UT asked for mine but I don't think I had to give that info for my Kansas and Alaska tags. Either way both datasets are being curated by the US FWS, so if they say based on their finding that hunter numbers are going down I'm going to believe them and assume there are some data busts that aren't readily apparent.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Our local rod and gun club assist WDFW put on a Youth hunting and fishing day in Wenatchee two years ago. We got maybe 70 kids. Last year we took the reins, spent way more on advertising, and solicited better prizes. Managed to pull in over 250 kids. We're hoping this year to be up to 300-400. We're making considerable in-roads and MANY of the kids had never been exposed to hunting at any level. Many of the parents and grandparents also seemed to be energized about it. I think this type of program is something we should all volunteer for.
npaden
Well-known member
That sounds reasonable but the facts don't seem to back that up.
Nonresident tags, permits, etc. in 2017 were 3.51 million, 2007 they were 2.99 million. For sure an increase, but not enough to explain the nearly 1 million increase in total licenses sold from 2007 to 2017.
Go back to 1997 and you are at 2.05 million nonresident tags, permits, etc. sold. I think for sure you could extrapolate that into a reduction from 1997 in total hunters.
But to me it seems like the trend has stopped and is going back up, not continuing to decline.
Similar threads
