2.2 Million Fewer Hunters Since 2011

Whiptail

Active member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
144
Interesting that it didn't report fewer permits available or increased cost being factors.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/hunters-ryan-zinke-interior/index.html

Hunting is down in the US. The Trump administration wants to change that

Washington (CNN)Toy gun grasped firmly in his hand and a grin plastered wide across his face while he played "Big Buck Hunter Pro," Ryan Zinke could have been a kid at an arcade. But the Interior secretary and former congressman was actually in the department cafeteria showing off the arcade game installed to commemorate hunting season.

"To highlight #sportsmen contributions 2 conservation I installed Big Buck Hunter in the employee cafeteria. Get excited for #hunting season!" Zinke tweeted from his personal account Tuesday.
But Zinke is not toying around when it comes to his support of hunters and fishers.
Hunting in the United States is down. A US Fish and Wildlife Service survey released last week found that there are 2.2 million fewer hunters in America now than in 2011. And the new administration is poised to change that.
On his first day in office back in March, Zinke issued two orders, one which overturned a recent ban of lead ammunition and fish tackle on Fish and Wildlife Service lands and waters. Last week Zinke issued another secretarial order designed to increase access to various public lands for hunters and fishers.
Zinke's passion for expanding hunting rights on public lands is both personal and political. A Montanan, the secretary has been known to hunt in his spare time. During his short stint in Congress, he was a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. He was spotted attending their annual dinner last Wednesday, a source told CNN, just two days before he issued the most recent secretarial order.
"What really kind of expedited this whole thing, was last week the US Fish and Wildlife put out a survey saying that hundreds of Americans were enjoying the outdoors, but within that survey they found that hunting was down," Heather Swift, Interior spokesperson said when asked about last week's secretarial order. "And the big thing that the secretary hears over and over again is that people just don't have access to land."
Politically Zinke also owes a lot to hunting, angler and conservation lobbyists who were largely responsible for supporting him for the position of Interior Secretary earlier this year. The issue was especially important to Donald Trump's son Don Jr., an avid hunter and active member of the Boone and Crocket Club, who helped with the search for Interior secretary.
"Mr. Zinke was the pick of the litter, not the best litter ever, but he was definitely the pick and that's why we advocated for him and that's why Jr. advocated for him as well," said Land Tawney, the president of the Montana-based Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a non-profit sportsmen's organization.
Zinke and the Interior have recently made a big show of their support of hunting groups. In addition to the "Buck Hunter" game he gifted Interior employees, the department declared Thursday that October would be National Hunting and Fishing Month.
The declaration also generated the support of the National Rifle Association.
"Hunters, anglers, and target shooters are the best conservationists who contribute so much through the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts," said Richard Childress, NRA vice president. "Last year, they contributed $1.2 billion toward conservation and protecting our natural resources. We need more mentors taking young people out and teaching them to hunt and fish, so I'm glad Secretary Zinke is promoting hunting and fishing at the federal level."
But despite Zinke's clear efforts to woo hunters and anglers, not all of his decisions have gone over well with the conservationist-minded group. For example, Zinke's leaked recommendations to the White House to shrink the boundaries of national monuments and open up some of the land to the fossil fuel industry and loggers -- first reported Sunday by the Wall Street Journal -- were met with opposition and confusion.
"With what's leaked it's super troubling. Any reduction on these monuments is an attack on the Antiquities Act," said Tawney. "All monuments are at risk now. They can become political footballs in our eyes."
Conservationists who want to expand their access to hunting on public park lands and at monuments are as weary of opening up national park land to fossil fuel industries as environmentalists are, since both value sustaining the land as is.
"We can have all the access we want to a concrete parking lot, but that access doesn't mean anything if that fish and wildlife habitat isn't there," said Tawney.
Another pro-hunting group says what they are seeing within Interior is a fight between access and conservation.
"On the access front the department has been good. Access to our own public lands is a lot harder today than it ever has been, and that is in part introduced with the decline in hunting numbers we've seen," said Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a non-profit coalition of conservation organizations and outdoor related businesses.
"On the conservation side however, I think it's a much less rosy picture," Fosburgh said. "It's been a lot more about expanding development, opening up to oil and gas. There has been no proactive conservation vision espoused for our public lands."
Fosburgh said that the hunting community started getting "a little bit critical" of Zinke after he first announced the National Monument Review earlier this year. And he's skeptical of just how far the secretarial order will go.
"They use hunting and fishing for an excuse for our changes in monuments," he said. "All of the ones under review already allow hunting and fishing very clearly."
Fosberg's criticism is similar to what environmental groups said following the secretarial order last week.
"Don't be fooled: the Trump Administration is pretending to be granting hunting and fishing rights that are already guaranteed by law and policy," said a statement from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning thing tank. "The real story is that, with this announcement, the Trump administration is trying to create a distraction from their plans to dramatically reduce the size of America's national monuments, which would be the largest elimination of protections on wildlife habitat in US history."
Nevertheless, Fosburgh said most pro-hunting and conservation minded groups are still hoping for the best with the Trump administration.
"We're very prepared, and we have been from day one. We supported his nomination and we are prepared to work with Secretary Zinke," he said. "We're not going to just say it's a lost cause in September of the first year of the administration."
 
politics aside the first thing that came to my mind was; 2.2 million less hunters and yet point creep gets worse every year? The few of us left must all be trying to do more hunts than ever before? I guess that's the case at my house... :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure the biggest part of those numbers come from the east. Use to pretty much be able to get permission to hunt about anywhere now everyone is leasing the land to hunt and it's not cheap. They want close to the same amount as what they get from the farmers who rent it. Public land is almost non existent here. So a lot of guys would rather spend the money it would cost for a hunt lease to go out west and have thousands of acres to hunt instead of a hundred. Or just say forget it and quit hunting.
 
You wouldnt know that by looking at the point creep and numbers of applicants for everything across the west. Just the last five years has been brutal in places like Wyoming.
 
That's why I said the guys from the east are going west which drives up the point creep. Almost 60% of the population lives east of the Mississippi river and very little public hunting land drives them to either go to places like Wyoming or quit hunting same would go for Texas and California.
 
Interesting that it didn't report fewer permits available or increased cost being factors."

Probably because it's not actually a factor. The report cites license and fees as only 3% of expenditures, equipment makes up the bulk at 48%. Fewer permits and expensive out of state license aren't causing people to stop hunting altogether.

If I had to guess I'd say it's the loss of places to hunt.
 
The study also states that there are 64 million people in this country who feed wildlife, isn't that illegal?

I won't disputed that there are probably less participants, but election polling over the last few cycles has also caused me to become a skeptic of small-sample extrapolation: "Samples of 5,782 potential anglers and hunters and 6,231 potential wildlife watchers (5,303 of whom were the same people)".
 
Fewer permits and expensive out of state license aren't causing people to stop hunting altogether.

It's definitely limiting my hunting opportunities but unlike you I live in a federal land poor state. Several people I know don't go every year just because of those reasons.
 
It's definitely limiting my hunting opportunities but unlike you I live in a federal land poor state. Several people I know don't go every year just because of those reasons.

I agree that permit numbers and non-resident license cost do limit opportunity, but they aren't causing people to give up hunting entirely. I grew up and learned to hunt and fish in one of the few states that have no national forests and no Wilderness. But a lot of those farms that I hunted as a kid are now housing developments and strip malls. My FIL stopped hunting because he didn't have anywhere to hunt anymore.

Maybe a few people only hunt out of state and maybe don't go every year because of cost, but that's because their home state has lost wildlife habitat. Every acre of this country used to be wildlife habitat.
 
The study also states that there are 64 million people in this country who feed wildlife, isn't that illegal?

I would guess a lot of that is bird feeding, and some deer feeding (which while incredibly irritating for the neighbors is a thing is some locales).

I won't disputed that there are probably less participants, but election polling over the last few cycles has also caused me to become a skeptic of small-sample extrapolation: "Samples of 5,782 potential anglers and hunters and 6,231 potential wildlife watchers (5,303 of whom were the same people)".

Sample sizes around 5,000 are scientifically valid for a population of 250+million, but they have several problems as it relates to elections - first, error margin is 2-2.5% that gives you 4% swings in election cycles that often have 2% margins of victory; second, the heated nature of politics these days seems to have created a tendency for some like-minded voters to either refuse to participate or to be less than forthcoming on their votes; and third, low voter turn out where "likely voters" will often not actual make it to the polls a few days later. I doubt a survey about camping, fishing and hunting faces those same challenges.
 
by HighWildFree
Fewer permits and expensive out of state license aren't causing people to stop hunting altogether.

It's definitely limiting my hunting opportunities but unlike you I live in a federal land poor state. Several people I know don't go every year just because of those reasons.

Could also be how respondents interpreted the question --" I don't have anywhere to hunt" could be the simple answer, but underneath it could be some who would answer more completely, "I don't have anywhere to hunt locally, and out of state is to limited and expensive." But either way, as others note, it comes down to lack of land access.
 
Sample sizes around 5,000 are scientifically valid for a population of 250+million, but they have several problems as it relates to elections - first, error margin is 2-2.5% that gives you 4% swings in election cycles that often have 2% margins of victory; second, the heated nature of politics these days seems to have created a tendency for some like-minded voters to either refuse to participate or to be less than forthcoming on their votes; and third, low voter turn out where "likely voters" will often not actual make it to the polls a few days later. I doubt a survey about camping, fishing and hunting faces those same challenges.

Yeah, I took statistics, and I read this UFWS report. When I see notations like this "* Not a significant difference at the 95% level" in regard to nearly all of the 'Percent Change' results with a small, one-sample only set of data, it just makes me wonder what the true numbers are. I wish the survey said where and who they surveyed as well...
 
Yeah, I took statistics, and I read this UFWS report. When I see notations like this "* Not a significant difference at the 95% level" in regard to nearly all of the 'Percent Change' results with a small, one-sample only set of data, it just makes me wonder what the true numbers are. I wish the survey said where and who they surveyed as well...

Sorry, mistook your earlier comment as just another run of the mill, "pollsters can't be trusted" comments.
 
Fortunately, i live in the great state of Calif. Wait! Don't run off! lol Up in the northern part where i live we can draw a good mule deer hunt every 4-6 years and are still guaranteed a tag if you don't draw first choice, or, if you want you can just get two blacktail or cross buck tags, in different zones if you choose, every year. Myself, i'm looking forward to drawing out on a decent Lassen Co muley tag next year, give up the deer points game, and then hunt right outa my timber country cabin home surrounded by millions of acres of Public Owned Land every year on a 100% draw tag after that. Things ain't as bad here as one might be led to believe. This next months Wy trip will be my last of many hunting and fishing adventures out of state. Gonna miss them i will. Cost and some mobility issues mainly but i ain't giving up hunting bucks, believe i never will.

Now, just how long we can keep it the way it's been is a topic in all the states but so far, Calif is holden their own.
 
Last edited:
I wish there were fewer hunters, but each year there are more and more hunters in the places I hunt, both for big & small game. Just drawing a deer tag in Colorado is well on its way to being a every-other year thing here. Of course Colorado whores out its tags with 20-25% transferable landowner vouchers and a way to generous nonresident percentage.
 
I wish there were fewer hunters, but each year there are more and more hunters in the places I hunt, both for big & small game. Just drawing a deer tag in Colorado is well on its way to being a every-other year thing here. Of course Colorado whores out its tags with 20-25% transferable landowner vouchers and a way to generous nonresident percentage.

I don't think CO is going to give up it's revenue printing apparatus....; )
 
I don't think CO is going to give up it's revenue printing apparatus....; )

You got that right! They made $10.7 million profit last year and are sitting on $17+ million in cash. Last Commission meeting a few Commissioners are worried they wont get they're license fee increase bill passed now because they have too much money on hand. They also have another few million dollars laying around in unspent habitat stamp money too! :rolleyes:
 
Access is definitely an issue, as are rising costs. So is the overall urbanization of our country. Another issue has been hinted at.
Many, many folks, our host for instance, apply for permits in a half a dozen(or more) states in an effort to be able to hunt every year. And they apply for multiple species. This has the effect of driving down the odds in most hunts. I also apply for more than 1 specie, not throwing rocks, just pointing out a fact. I honestly feel like this is part of the problem with displacement.
Every year I help out folks who have never hunted my back yard because they drew a permit. I probably drew a permit near his house and he drew near mine. Now both of us are hunting unfamiliar land with added costs for transportation and shelter, food, etc. if we are not successful in taking game we can blow hard about 'a great experience' but most will not pay for the privilege again next year. So more drop out.

Also, the pursuit of trophies can be a problem. My biggest trophies have come when I did not have a snot nosed brat tagging along, kicking rocks, stepping on twigs and running their mouths constantly. I hunt with children a lot. I have taken more does, cows and forkies than trophies by a wide margin. But, when I go after bigguns, I leave the kids home to increase my odds. A kid sitting on the couch may never know the bittersweet irony that accompanies the taking of an animal. Again, I am guilty.

I just want to point out that many factors contribute to the erosion of participation. If we only focus on the center of the fields we may miss the edges and that is where the action is.
 
I know several guys that have quit here. Land access and availability to OTC elk tags obviously wasn't the problem, it was all crowding issues that most complained about. It is just hard to get away from people here unless you hunt private. With the exception of grouse, I hunt everything on private land and cringe at the thought of hunting public land. I hear the horror stories from my coworkers. Always get the same story every year, "did you get anything? nope didn't even see an elk, just a lot of other hunters"
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
111,012
Messages
1,943,582
Members
34,962
Latest member
tmich05
Back
Top