National hunting license trend

[Deleted member 28227]

1. Like I said draw your own conclusions. You can base those off of online user groups, or friends, or family, people you meet at the bar, or wild ass guesses. I really don't care.

2. Does it really matter if five people are each buying one license or if one person is buying 5 licenses and hunting five states? Take the single person, if they hunt those each of those states then they = a hunter in each of those states. Hopefully they also are vested in the wildlife in each of those states, and make the time and effort necessary to advocate for wildlife in those states.

People are getting too twisted around on the details and are missing the big picture.

I guess I'm arguing this, the red trend is real. The green trend is due to multi-state hunting at a never before seen level.

So net net less individual hunters, but the hunters who are out there are using up 'more of the resource'.

I can't prove that at all, it's entirely an opinion. I think Rinella hasn't inspired that many new hunters, he's just gotten dudes from Michigan to buy CO elk tags.

I mean CPW did say that in the steamboat region of CO for OTC Archery it was 70% NR 30% Resident hunters

 

[seeth07]

I guess I'm arguing this, the red trend is real. The green trend is due to multi-state hunting at a never before seen level.

So net net less individual hunters, but the hunters who are out there are using up 'more of the resource'.

I can't prove that at all, it's entirely an opinion. I think Rinella hasn't inspired that many new hunters, he's just gotten dudes from Michigan to buy CO elk tags.

I mean CPW did say that in the steamboat region of CO for OTC Archery it was 70% NR 30% Resident hunters

View attachment 211051

My opinion would be its more like the blue line. I think for now, we have kind of leveled things off to maybe just a slight decline nationwide.

 

[COEngineer]

2. Does it really matter if five people are each buying one license or if one person is buying 5 licenses and hunting five states? Take the single person, if they hunt those each of those states then they = a hunter in each of those states. Hopefully they also are vested in the wildlife in each of those states, and make the time and effort necessary to advocate for wildlife in those states.

Advocating for wildlife is one thing, but actual votes are another. My guess is that most people do little advocacy in the non-resident states where they hunt and they definitely cannot vote there. Point being, as a percentage of voters, hunters are on the decline.

 

[Irrelevant]

I guess I'm arguing this, the red trend is real. The green trend is due to multi-state hunting at a never before seen level.

So net net less individual hunters, but the hunters who are out there are using up 'more of the resource'.

I can't prove that at all, it's entirely an opinion. I think Rinella hasn't inspired that many new hunters, he's just gotten dudes from Michigan to buy CO elk tags.

I mean CPW did say that in the steamboat region of CO for OTC Archery it was 70% NR 30% Resident hunters

View attachment 211051

And my point is again still 2 fold, 1.) that you have no actual data to support that besides anecdotal accounts (thought bigfin mentioned to be some maybe actually exist); 2) It doesn't actually matter is it's one person hunting 5 states or 5 people hunting one state, the result is the exact same.

edit: speaking of anecdotal... my extended family all USED to go out of state to hunt ID and MT in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. Then the wolves ate all the elk and now they just hunt drink beer in WA and complain about it. So it's not like hunting out of state is the new thing. It certainly has become more popular, but you're also surrounded by a skewed audience.

 

[Irrelevant]

Advocating for wildlife is one thing, but actual votes are another. My guess is that most people do little advocacy in the non-resident states where they hunt and they definitely cannot vote there. Point being, as a percentage of voters, hunters are on the decline.

If you're talking votes, then it definitely doesn't matter. Hunters haven't had a majority in so long it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[COEngineer]

If you're talking votes, then it definitely doesn't matter. Hunters haven't had a majority in so long it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Take the extreme case, which is not realistic, but can be used to illustrate the point. What if all archery elk hunters in a CO are non-residents and a bill is introduced to ban archery elk hunting. Not a single elk hunter is in any of the legislators' districts. No one calls to complain or shows up at a hearing. Like I said, it's not a realistic example, but we are getting closer to that scenario than we were before - that's the point and it's something to be worried about, or at least consider.

Maybe a different hypothetical is a better way to look at it. Would you rather have 100 million hunters that can only get a big game license every 5 years or would you rather have many fewer hunters who are basically state employees that cull animals? We are somewhere in the middle right now, but I would rather go towards the 1st choice than the 2nd (which is how I picture most of Western Europe).

 

[Bambistew]

I wasted an hour my time but and found this interesting. We've had a net migration out of state since about 2013 due to low oil prices and high unemployment. The state also slashed capital budgets, and laid off a lot of people. All in all our economy sucks, to be honest. The birthrate offset migration out, but not much. We've lost a lot of high paying jobs in the last 8-9 years, about 55,000 more people have left than moved here in the last 8 years.

In 2017 the cost of licenses and tags almost doubled. The board of game also passed a reg to require next of kin (NOK) to share their bag limit for sheep/bear/goat with their resident kin in 2016, hence the spike and people making sure to get it while the getting was good. It was rescinded and never implemented. Also note the number of NR tag and resident license sales dropped in 2017, most likely due to the fact they more or less doubled in price. The percent of residents that hunted in 1990-1995 vs 2015-2020 has declined from 14% to 13%.

Seems we can control NR and resident hunters with their wallet?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I wasted an hour my time but and found this interesting. We've had a net migration out of state since about 2013 due to low oil prices and high unemployment. The state also slashed capital budgets, and laid off a lot of people. All in all our economy sucks, to be honest. The birthrate offset migration out, but not much. We've lost a lot of high paying jobs in the last 8-9 years, about 55,000 more people have left than moved here in the last 8 years.

In 2017 the cost of licenses and tags almost doubled. The board of game also passed a reg to require next of kin (NOK) to share their bag limit for sheep/bear/goat with their resident kin in 2016, hence the spike and people making sure to get it while the getting was good. It was rescinded and never implemented. Also note the number of NR tag and resident license sales dropped in 2017, most likely due to the fact they more or less doubled in price. The percent of residents that hunted in 1990-1995 vs 2015-2020 has declined from 14% to 13%.

Seems we can control NR and resident hunters with their wallet?



View attachment 211080

I mean... I think making NR go guided for Sheep/goat/moose, and saying NR are not be allowed to hunt any elk herd in the front, flat tops, west elks, or San Juans would probably do wonders for curbing CO license sales... we can let'em hunt black bears, and whitetail

You're point is well made though, I'm just being a smartass.

 

[Irrelevant]

Take the extreme case, which is not realistic, but can be used to illustrate the point. What if all archery elk hunters in a CO are non-residents and a bill is introduced to ban archery elk hunting. Not a single elk hunter is in any of the legislators' districts. No one calls to complain or shows up at a hearing.

Counter point. I have written 5 comments in the last two years advocating for wildlife in MT because as a NR hunter in that state I am just as vested in their wildlife as I am in WAs wildlife. The same holds true in ID and AK (and I've only ever fished there).

 

[COEngineer]

Counter point. I have written 5 comments in the last two years advocating for wildlife in MT because as a NR hunter in that state I am just as vested in their wildlife as I am in WAs wildlife. The same holds true in ID and AK (and I've only ever fished there).

Yes, but your opinion doesn't count. You can write all the comments you want, but if it's legislation, the legislators don't care (or care a lot less) about your opinion because you don't decide if they keep their seat.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yes, but your opinion doesn't count. You can write all the comments you want, but if it's legislation, the legislators don't care (or care a lot less) about your opinion because you don't decide if they keep their seat.

In zero of those cases was I ever asked or had to present my location.

 

[cedahm]

Actually 6.67%

In pretty much any data set, if your willing to accept that level of inaccuracy you aren't going to have a very credible source of data. Especially since we are talking about just one inaccurate variable.

It's not inaccurate - that dataset just isn't MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive). So it doesn't fully address the details of the question that you (and others of us) would like to answer (which is also likely not the question the data model was designed to answer).

 

[EastTNHunter]

How does that account for someone like myself and my kids, who do not purchase annual licenses within our state since we have lifetime licenses? How about for people who buy licenses in multiple states?

 

[VikingsGuy]

If the percentage of hunters with lifetime tags stayed the same over the last 60 years, the number of hunters buying multiple licenses stayed the same over the last 60 years, and the average number of licenses bought by those having multiples stayed the same over the last 60 years, then OP's chart would tell us something. Or if the data removed repeat licenses and added back in prior lifetime license buyers it would also tell us something. But since these three assumptions are all false and the later corrections don't appear to be done, then I am not sure it tells us much of anything beyond a very vague, very fuzzy trend line (kind of).

 

[Irrelevant]

If you run into someone in the field does it matter what state they come from?

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you run into someone in the field does it matter what state they come from?

How many "hunts" is different than how many "hunters". If your premise is that there are too many "hunts" (number of active hunters times number of hunts they participate in) that is fine, but that particular data set is usually pulled out when folks are trying to gauge how many individuals hunt. For the reasons already raised repeatedly in this thread, neither question is really well addressed by this data set.

 

[SAJ-99]

Actually 6.67%

In pretty much any data set, if your willing to accept that level of inaccuracy you aren't going to have a very credible source of data. Especially since we are talking about just one inaccurate variable. There are more than that. There are lifetime license holders. There are combination licenses that may or may not be counted. There are differences in state calendar years for counting. With each of these, the data set confidence interval changes. It would be interesting to see if the USFWS actually has a confidence interval on their data. I don't see one published.

I believe the USFWS is actual data. Every state sends in how many hunting and fishing licenses they sold. For that number, there is no confidence interval. It should be spot on. Are you referring to something else? It has been difficult to follow this thread as there are multiple ideas flowing through.

 

[crock239]

I'm not sure what the discussion point is, but there are some good chart skills in this thread.

My anecdotal conjecture says this....overall reducing participation in hunting nationwide, but that is being offset specifically in western big game hunting by unprecedented levels of interest amongst hunters, mostly driven by advances in technology and information since 2000s.....if I didn't have access to the wide tail of the internet, I probably wouldn't get as much access to western big game hunting content, information, and how to videos....if I didn't have a hand-held GPS in my pocket I sure would be less confident hiking and hunting the backcountry or even a short distance off the trail (yes, I can read a map and orienteer w a compass, but many can't or won't)....now w ONX i have that handheld GPS in my pocket all day everday AND i can figure out access points from my couch and hunt fringe edges of public without the same fear of trespassing....if I didn't have all kinds of access to draw odds I wouldn't know how to apply for western big game tags

So, fewer hunters overall but MUCH better access to information to drive interest and easier access tools to utilize those public lands and hunt big game in the west places increased demands on limited resources.

And those same access tools are used by other recreationists not just hunters so overall use intensity of landscape is growing

Also, I'm part of the problem and not the solution....

Carry on!

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not sure what the discussion point is, but there are some good chart skills in this thread.

My anecdotal conjecture says this....overall reducing participation in hunting nationwide, but that is being offset specifically in western big game hunting by unprecedented levels of interest amongst hunters, mostly driven by advances in technology and information since 2000s.....if I didn't have access to the wide tail of the internet, I probably wouldn't get as much access to western big game hunting content, information, and how to videos....if I didn't have a hand-held GPS in my pocket I sure would be less confident hiking and hunting the backcountry or even a short distance off the trail (yes, I can read a map and orienteer w a compass, but many can't or won't)....now w ONX i have that handheld GPS in my pocket all day everday AND i can figure out access points from my couch and hunt fringe edges of public without the same fear of trespassing....if I didn't have all kinds of access to draw odds I wouldn't know how to apply for western big game tags

So, fewer hunters overall but MUCH better access to information to drive interest and easier access tools to utilize those public lands and hunt big game in the west places increased demands on limited resources.

And those same access tools are used by other recreationists not just hunters so overall use intensity of landscape is growing

Also, I'm part of the problem and not the solution....

Carry on!

And we can now safely close this thread. #dropthemike

 

[Irrelevant]

How many "hunts" is different than how many "hunters". If your premise is that there are too many "hunts" (number of active hunters times number of hunts they participate in) that is fine, but that particular data set is usually pulled out when folks are trying to gauge how many individuals hunt. For the reasons already raised repeatedly in this thread, neither question is really well addressed by this data set.

And my point, that apparently I can't correct convey, is that it is irrelevant to any application of the data if that person in the field is in state or out of state.