Hunter numbers and management funding

[BrentD]

If you are interested in the topics, this NPR story might also interest you.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation

 

[elkduds]

Meanwhile, point creep in CO is becoming point leap from increasing demand for limited licenses. I found the article accurate, showing boomers aging out of hunting. Are mandatory conservation fees for hikers, riders, birdwatchers in the future? When less hunters are paying for conservation, who will pick up the slack? The article reports conservation is short of necessary funding by 95%.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I wish hunting numbers were going down like depicted in this article. That has not been the case in the places I've hunted.

 

[Huntkook]

There is also a couple good articles in Petersen's Hunting on the declining hunter numbers and Pittman-Robertson. It's amazing the number of hunters that we are losing. Without the hunting dollars it'll be interesting to see how they recoup the lost funds.

 

[JLS]

Meanwhile, point creep in CO is becoming point leap from increasing demand for limited licenses. I found the article accurate, showing boomers aging out of hunting. Are mandatory conservation fees for hikers, riders, birdwatchers in the future? When less hunters are paying for conservation, who will pick up the slack? The article reports conservation is short of necessary funding by 95%.

It's borderline criminal that we haven't found a way to create additional funding for fish and wildlife management. While the PR and DJ acts have done a miraculous job of funding conservation efforts, it's beyond time to find additional monies. Every state with healthy fish and wildlife resources benefits from it. In addition, as hunters we don't have exclusivity when it comes to the Public Trust Doctrine. Therefore, it only makes sense for others to share part of this load. Every business owner and/or employer benefits directly or indirectly from outdoor recreation. It creates jobs, and creates demand for jobs. The benefits are very broad ranging.

 

[JLS]

I wish hunting numbers were going down like depicted in this article. That has not been the case in the places I've hunted.

Hunter numbers ARE going down. However, that does not necessarily equate to reduced hunting pressure in all areas. Backcountry bowhunting is the flavor du jour, and it's getting much more difficult to find solitude in the elk woods. In addition, I firmly believe the existing hunters are hunting more states than in the past.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are several attempts to add funding to conservation, such as the Recovering America's Wildlife Act & the recently passed (In the House) PR adjustment that allows PR funds to be spent on hunter recruitment as well as the other program needs (I'm still ambivalent to this).

There is a slug of people out there who would help pay for our wildlife, but that means the hunting community would need to recognize other legitimate uses of wildlife than simply hunting & angling. We're clearly not ready to do that.

 

[JLS]

There is a slug of people out there who would help pay for our wildlife, but that means the hunting community would need to recognize other legitimate uses of wildlife than simply hunting & angling. We're clearly not ready to do that.

Very true Ben. We live under the illusion if we pay for it, we get exclusive say in it. Clearly that’s not the case.

 

[vanish]

Hunter numbers ARE going down. However, that does not necessarily equate to reduced hunting pressure in all areas. Backcountry bowhunting is the flavor du jour, and it's getting much more difficult to find solitude in the elk woods. In addition, I firmly believe the existing hunters are hunting more al than in the past.

More hunters traveling to hunt. You see things like Born and Raised Outdoors hunting elk in 5 states. That's just not something that was that common that long ago. Yes, that's an extreme example, but I don't think it's as unusual as it feels like it should be. I have friends that hunt 6 or 7 states for various species every year. "Image" is a big thing with the internet these days, and "you aren't serious about it unless you're obsessed." I think this pushes people to go a little overboard. This gives the illusion that there are more hunters, because there really are more hunters in an individual area, but its those same hunters buying licenses across multiple states.

In CO, for residents, there were 104k 1st choice elk licenses applied for in 2005 while 113k 1st choice elk licenses in 2017, an increase of approximately 10% However, the population of CO went from 4.6 to 5.6 million, an increase of more than 20%! Even with national population increases, from 2005 to 2017, the number of NR's applying went from 92k to 72k ... that's a pretty big drop.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Hunter numbers ARE going down. However, that does not necessarily equate to reduced hunting pressure in all areas. Backcountry bowhunting is the flavor du jour, and it's getting much more difficult to find solitude in the elk woods. In addition, I firmly believe the existing hunters are hunting more states than in the past.

They aren't down where I hunt. There's more folks hunting now than I can ever remember.

 

[JLS]

They aren't down where I hunt. There's more folks hunting now than I can ever remember.

I can't speak to your specific locale, and overall declining numbers does not necessarily correlate to decreased numbers and/or density in each individual location. However, national trends are down. I haven't look at each individual state, but hunter participation is clearly declining.

Hunter numbers where I live have been in steady decline for many years, yet each year I can find units that have an increase in overall hunting pressure. I anecdotally attribute much of this to the internet era where it is so much easier to learn new spots than it was 25-30 years ago.

 

[vanish]

They aren't down where I hunt. There's more folks hunting now than I can ever remember.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20171028/outdoors-number-of-deer-hunters-declining-in-alabama


Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries records show the state sold 247,000 all-game licenses in 1985 compared to 167,000 last year. The gap between all licenses is smaller, 293,000 in 1985 and 264,000 last year.

Alabama population 1985: 3.97 million
Alabama population 2017: 4.86 million

Assuming you hunt in the state your profile mentions, statistics don't support you. I wouldn't doubt if there are more NRs hunting Alabama now that the "February Rut" is well known.

 

[N2TRKYS]

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20171028/outdoors-number-of-deer-hunters-declining-in-alabama


Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries records show the state sold 247,000 all-game licenses in 1985 compared to 167,000 last year. The gap between all licenses is smaller, 293,000 in 1985 and 264,000 last year.

Alabama population 1985: 3.97 million
Alabama population 2017: 4.86 million

Assuming you hunt in the state your profile mentions, statistics don't support you. I wouldn't doubt if there are more NRs hunting Alabama now that the "February Rut" is well known.

That's the problem with statistics, they don't tell the whole story. That's the problem, people see that and think that's the way it is, but it isn't.

 

[brymoore]

The funding shortfall solution would be for state legislature to recognize that the work F&G agencies do goes far beyond hunting and fishing. Agencies need funding from the state legislatures to cover the expenses to manage additional non-game species.

 

[vanish]

That's the problem with statistics, they don't tell the whole story. That's the problem, people see that and think that's the way it is, but it isn't.

Can you tell us the whole story?

Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky. I really am trying to figure out the whole story. If anything, I would think the statistics would trick us into believing there are more hunters than before, when in reality its fewer hunters buying more licenses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

They aren't down where I hunt. There's more folks hunting now than I can ever remember.

Alabama and many other states re seeing a lot of lost access, which tends to concentrate hunters closer together as they look for places that they can hunt without shelling out thousands for a lease. Your experience is not unique, and goes to show that with declining access to public lands through either loss of access programs, suburban development, lack of time or through the commercialization of hunting, working class folks who want to hunt close to home are generally the first squeezed out.

If we were serious about recruiting new hunters, we'd all be clamoring for a full reathorization of the Land & Water Conservation Act & full funding for it.

Monkeying with percentages for PR just means we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a game of declining pie - everybody gets a piece, but it's smaller than it ever should have been.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Alabama and many other states re seeing a lot of lost access, which tends to concentrate hunters closer together as they look for places that they can hunt without shelling out thousands for a lease. Your experience is not unique, and goes to show that with declining access to public lands through either loss of access programs, suburban development, lack of time or through the commercialization of hunting, working class folks who want to hunt close to home are generally the first squeezed out.

If we were serious about recruiting new hunters, we'd all be clamoring for a full reathorization of the Land & Water Conservation Act & full funding for it.

Monkeying with percentages for PR just means we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a game of declining pie - everybody gets a piece, but it's smaller than it ever should have been.

Actually, Alabama has been buying up land for public use, which I don't agree with. I'm not sure of those numbers (cause I know some public land has reverted back to private because of leasing issues), but public land over all may be on the rise here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Actually, Alabama has been buying up land for public use, which I don't agree with. I'm not sure of those numbers (cause I know some public land has reverted back to private because of leasing issues), but public land over all may be on the rise here.

Thanks for the jog in my memory about that. I remember a big fight a few years ago over the fund used for those purchases.

My point wasn't just about public land, but about the loss of traditional access subdivisions, new growth, paid hunting, leases, etc. It would be interesting to see the overall acreage of once publicly accessible land (including private) compared to today.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Can you tell us the whole story?

Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky. I really am trying to figure out the whole story. If anything, I would think the statistics would trick us into believing there are more hunters than before, when in reality its fewer hunters buying more licenses.

What the statistics show is that folks aren't buying a license. Does it mean hunter participation is down? I don't think it does. Landowners(regardless of acreage) don't have to buy a license to hunt their own land. With the ever increasing leasing cost, folks have decided just to kill a deer or two off of their land and not worry about buying a license. Residents over 65 don't have to buy a license, either. Over the timeframe listed in the article, the baby boomer generation has gotten older. What does this mean? Perhaps, they have purchased their own land and/or fell they into the 65 and older category of not needing a license.

Another thing that happened during that time is the increase in license costs. I know, I know, a resident license doesn't cost much, but some folks balked at it and still are. How many folks quit buying licenses because of that?

Also, when asked, the State doesn't seem to know if lifetime licenses holders are included in the current licenses numbers or just the year that they're bought.

Another tidbit, the article makes it seem like the deer are almost overpopulated now compared to years ago. Quite the contrary, depending on your location. With the State going to 2 does a day from October 15 to February 10, in most places, it put a hurting on the population. There again, depending on your location, you may or may not agree with that.

How much have these things factored into the decrease in license sales? The reality is that nobody knows for sure. However, I think that just looking at it on the surface of just the numbers of licenses sold and saying there's a decrease in hunting is foolish.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Thanks for the jog in my memory about that. I remember a big fight a few years ago over the fund used for those purchases.

My point wasn't just about public land, but about the loss of traditional access subdivisions, new growth, paid hunting, leases, etc. It would be interesting to see the overall acreage of once publicly accessible land (including private) compared to today.

Oh, no question it's lower. When my Dad was young, you just went hunting and nobody cared who's land you were on and neither did the landowners.

Now, leases are crazy high for pine plantation land.

Heck, I started going out West one or two weeks a year instead of getting in a lease.