Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[Deleted member 28227]

Whatever. I don't like broad brushes to paint social portraits. In fact, I hate them and find them to be disingenuous and counterproductive. And I especially don't like that they are used on moving targets.

In the meantime, I think your generalizations are pretty far from the mark and I can make powerpoints too. I was on the leading edge of that crutch and used it for 3 decades, in round numbers. So, yeah, I put anything in a graph too. Big deal.

Real Boomers are far too old to be schelpping elks out of the backcountry. Nouveau boomers like myself are pretty slow at best, and most of us talk a lot more than we apply, much less hunt - at least when it comes to big game. Of the ones that have your kind of money, only a tiny number have legs that make 18 holes with a cart, much less 1800 vertical with a pack. Upland birds might be slightly different but there was only one boomer on your grouse adventure, and he was of the nouveau variety, minus the $80,000 pick up and Sitka anything.

The term doesn't equate to an age it changes over time...

Perhaps I've been unclear I think some part of hunting pressure currently has to do with this demographic bulge.

So in 2011 the first boomers were retiring... but that means that the peak of the generation was turning 52. Which is my argument Time + Money. I don't think 52 is an unreasonable age to pack an elk... I hope not.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Whatever. I don't like broad brushes to paint social portraits. In fact, I hate them and find them to be disingenuous and counterproductive. And I especially don't like that they are used on moving targets.

In the meantime, I think your generalizations are pretty far from the mark and I can make powerpoints too. I was on the leading edge of that crutch and used it for 3 decades, in round numbers. So, yeah, I put anything in a graph too. Big deal.

Real Boomers are far too old to be schelpping elks out of the backcountry. Nouveau boomers like myself are pretty slow at best, and most of us talk a lot more than we apply, much less hunt - at least when it comes to big game. Of the ones that have your kind of money, only a tiny number have legs that make 18 holes with a cart, much less 1800 vertical with a pack. Upland birds might be slightly different but there was only one boomer on your grouse adventure, and he was of the nouveau variety, minus the $80,000 pick up and Sitka anything.

Have you heard of this guy Buzz...

 

[SAJ-99]

Very interesting radio program I caught last week about this very topic (stereotyping generations). It's a relatively "new" thing, and it is pretty much full of shit too. Which tends to make discussions using those labels pretty fruitless.

Wait...didn't you just stereotype a generation when you said "Looking at the grip and grins, it's pretty clear that boomers ain't the big problem."? Maybe not stereotyping, but certainly using a sampling method that is a little biased.
Thinking about your other post, I go back to the Montana problem*. There are three ways to "fix" the supply/demand problem (which in turn presents a "pressure" problem). Price, space, and time = raise the price until demand meets supply, or force people to pick a unit and/or week to hunt. Most western states are going to choose the first one because they can fix other budget problems with it.
*The Montana problem is hunters wanting the "opportunity" 6 months out of the year to wack an elk across half the state and then complaining about NRs being in their spot or pressuring elk to inaccessible land.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wait...didn't you just stereotype a generation when you said "Looking at the grip and grins, it's pretty clear that boomers ain't the big problem."? Maybe not stereotyping, but certainly using a sampling method that is a little biased.
Thinking about your other post, I go back to the Montana problem*. There are three ways to "fix" the supply/demand problem (which in turn presents a "pressure" problem). Price, space, and time = raise the price until demand meets supply, or force people to pick a unit and/or week to hunt. Most western states are going to choose the first one because they can fix other budget problems with it.
*The Montana problem is hunters wanting the "opportunity" 6 months out of the year to wack an elk across half the state and then complaining about NRs being in their spot or pressuring elk to inaccessible land.

You can also put more animals on the landscape.

 

[SAJ-99]

You can also put more animals on the landscape.

Long-term, maybe. Although that will be harder now given CWD. Humans suck at thinking into the future. That said, looking at WY elk, the number of new applicants is around 20k each year so we are adding to the pool like 2.5-3x the number of tags. Adding animals is an admirable goal that I back, but is it a serious solution?

 

[Nick87]

Adding animals is an admirable goal that I back, but is it a serious solution?

In Montana on public probably.

 

[Flatrock]

In 2015, there were 52,548 people with WY elk points. In 2023, there will be 167,938. 115,000 additional people in the game in just eight years. THAT is the problem. It isn't that the average Joe is getting priced out. It's that there are thousands of Joes jumping into the game every year.

 

[WapitiBob]

In 2015, there were 52,548 people with WY elk points. In 2023, there will be 167,938. 115,000 additional people in the game in just eight years. THAT is the problem. It isn't that the average Joe is getting priced out. It's that there are thousands of Joes jumping into the game every year.

Good for them, I hope they enjoy WY hunting as much as I have.

 

[Archer86]

In 2015, there were 52,548 people with WY elk points. In 2023, there will be 167,938. 115,000 additional people in the game in just eight years. THAT is the problem. It isn't that the average Joe is getting priced out. It's that there are thousands of Joes jumping into the game every year.

as much as I hope this increase doesn't make it I don't see it helping draw odds on the special.

Even if 25 percent of those buying points are willing to apply in the special the draw odds won't change much in the special and hopefully they will get worse and I am willing to bet that more then 25 percent are willing to pay that new special fee if they think they will gain a advantage I am going to go out on a limb and say the special will creep more then the regular once everything settles after the first year.

Then what does everyone think happens next? the outfitter draw will rear its ugly head again then the guys that said they don't mind the price increase will change there tune on that one.

 

[SAJ-99]

In Montana on public probably.

Isn't that simply changing their distribution across the landscape, rather than increasing their numbers?

 

[RunNGunSC]

I am against the increase, but think that price can rebalance odds between the two draws. I also think it would significantly increase odds for the regular draw hunter, which sucks for the future of hunting. Despite all of the moaning, I don’t see enough hunters checking out to make a difference. OTC hunts are becoming a thing of the past. If you want to hunt, you are going to play ball. I think it will push a material number from the special to the regular. Regardless of the tag price, the 2.5% fee and pre-funding the tag for a random chance will impact application budgets. Those that have the points to draw or the money to throw around will still use the special, but I bet the special odds dramatically improve.

 

[SAJ-99]

but I bet the special odds dramatically improve.

That is what WOGA is betting too. I would say beware of making predictions on price elasticity. Particularly in cases where demand exceeds supply by more than 20x.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Looking at the grip and grins, it's pretty clear that boomers ain't the big problem.

That's cause most boomers can't post a picture to Instagram without an hour long tutorial from their grandkids.

 

[Bambistew]

The term doesn't equate to an age it changes over time...

Perhaps I've been unclear I think some part of hunting pressure currently has to do with this demographic bulge.

So in 2011 the first boomers were retiring... but that means that the peak of the generation was turning 52. Which is my argument Time + Money. I don't think 52 is an unreasonable age to pack an elk... I hope not.



View attachment 262268



View attachment 262267

Did someone do a study showing hunting demographic by age? it seems like it was a youtube video presentation or something, but maybe I'm misremembering. It would also be interesting to see the age demographic for guided hunts over time, even average age. Sure seems like a lot of younger guys chasing sheep these days compared to the past, but maybe I just notice more because I'm older.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Did someone do a study showing hunting demographic by age? it seems like it was a youtube video presentation or something, but maybe I'm misremembering. It would also be interesting to see the age demographic for guided hunts over time, even average age. Sure seems like a lot of younger guys chasing sheep these days compared to the past, but maybe I just notice more because I'm older.

I'm see similar esk graphics by a couple of state agencies in the past.

Why We Suck at Recruiting New Hunters, Why It Matters, and How You Can Fix It

Baby boomers make up our nation's largest cohort of hunters, and they've already begun to age out of the sport. Within 15 years, most will stop buying licenses entirely. And when they do, our ranks could plunge by 30 percent—along with critical funding for wildlife management, advocacy for...

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[88man]

To flesh this out a bit more, if demand outstrips supply even just 1% you feel the effects. I'm not sure where we are at now, but maybe it's 10%?

Who knows. I don't think there is one singular cause for the increase in demand, and I think R and NR hunting have some overlapping causes but also some differences.

Populations of western states of increased, so more residents that's huge.
Private landowners have closed off properties in other states.
Less private land habitat.
Definitely increased information on public hunting, and folks hunting because of influencers.
All of the various ways outfitters in various states have tried to increase the slice of pie their clients get.
Herds have also declined.

But then there is definitely a demographics piece, it can't be purely a coincidence. First boomers turned 65 in 2011, youngest boomers are 59 today. When did the pressure spike start?

Baby boomers are also way healthier at their age then previous generations, which means folks using a resource longer than previous generations. So even if all else stayed exactly the same that one piece might cause some supply constraints.


The red box is your key out of state hunting demo... college kids are buying $1000 elk tags.

Just population wise, there will be a decrease in hunters in about 10 years.

Millennials will screw it up again in about 30 years.
View attachment 262261

Hunter personalities by age...
Jim Shockey 65 - Boomer
Cam Hanes is 55... so gen X
Rinella 48 Gen X
Joe Rogan 55 Gen X
Jason Matzinger -44

To your last point I'm definitely a high resource user, I've gotten to spend a ton of time hunting and had a ton of tags, I'm not sure if my experience is necessarily representative of the mean.

Last... there is definitely some weird pieces of data I can't explain, like CO has a huge pressure increase... but if you look at historic numbers we are waaaaay down in totally elk hunters numbers in the last 15 years. How does that work?

Many of those college & 20 something kids are getting tags/points/hunts paid for by their Boomer and Gen x Dads. Heck they have money to buy buy sitka first lite and Kuiu or is santa bringing it??? Someone is paying and its most likely dad or the well to do uncle. Lots of travel hunts are family time. I bet dad would pay for a $2000 tag also. Heck he would pay for a $5000 lease if he could find one. Many have the money and just want the autonomy of the hunt with friends and family and are willing to pay for that.

 

[Nick87]

Isn't that simply changing their distribution across the landscape, rather than increasing their numbers?

Not what I was thinking it private calouod continue to support the numbers is down now along with more on the public landscape. IDK?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Many of those college & 20 something kids are getting tags/points/hunts paid for by their Boomer and Gen x Dads. Heck they have money to buy buy sitka first lite and Kuiu or is santa bringing it??? Someone is paying and its most likely dad or the well to do uncle. Lots of travel hunts are family time. I bet dad would pay for a $2000 tag also. Heck he would pay for a $5000 lease if he could find one. Many have the money and just want the autonomy of the hunt with friends and family and are willing to pay for that.

I think, presumably, all generations wanted to hunt with their kids at the same rate. So while what your saying is true I'm not sure if it's happening more than before. Maybe it is, their just isn't anyway to say.

This is USFWS Hunter survey
2006/2011/2016

35-44 Shrunk

55+ increased.

16-24 stayed at the same rate

There was a new survey in 2021 and I think the data will be out sometime this year, will be interesting to see what changed.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

2006 (gold) v. 2016 (Blue)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR)

One of the most important sources of information on fish and wildlife recreation in the United States.

www.census.gov