# Troubling hunter numbers



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

For anyone who simply believes we can act as we want, do as we want, and convey huntings image anyway we want, here is a report by the USFWS that shows further decline in hunter numbers. The dollars for conservation, wildlife, and wild places is going to become more and more needed and less and less available as hunter numbers decline. If you have trouble supporting things like buying a duck stamp, an upland or waterfowl slam voucher, joining a sportsmens organization dedicated to habitat, etc. You should need no further motive than to watch the funding for conservation slowly drying up as hunter numbers continue to drop. Another huge thing we all need to do is ensure we get people involved, and try to keep them involved, otherwise hunting, wildlife, and wild places face a very uncertain future. Only 5% of the American public 16 years of age or older went hunting, its a very troubling number moving forward.

PS- it would sure be nice if the 86 million wildlife viewers would also buy a duck stamp and a combination every year, but of course most of them won't.

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf

This is also a good article from Delta Waterfowl

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/de...declining-numbers-duck-hunters/#axzz4saRcQGAr


----------



## maverick9465 (Nov 21, 2016)

I highly recommend everyone listen to this recent Meateater podcast. It is an excellent discussion of how money is generated for conservation and why we need more hunters and anglers.

http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/ep-079-from-taxes-to-trout/


----------



## Crndgs8 (Sep 14, 2013)

Utah is deff not included in that study. Lol


----------



## Tall Tines (Apr 16, 2017)

I call BS. For several reasons. The first being, there's way more people living in North America than there was even 30 years ago. Not everyone hunted then or before, and definitely not everyone hunts now. There's probably more hunters now than there was back in the day, but the overall population has gone way up, which would make the hunter numbers look less, after each year that passes. Every year application numbers have a huge increase in Utah. It's getting harder and harder to draw tags because there's more demand for them than there once was (within the last 20 years. The 60s don't count since people were buying tags for their dogs). Wyoming app numbers are increasing too. So is Nevada. And Colorado. And Arizona. And New Mexico... shall I continue? I'm sure there's an overall deacrease from 50 or so years ago, but atleast in the west, it seems like there's more people to compete against every year. That's just talking about big game.

Want more proof? Go visit Farmington Bay WMA on the opening day of waterfowl season. Holy balls. Literally trucks and cars lined down the road for hundreds of yards past the parking lot. 15, hell even 5 years ago, there wasn't that many people. OB, HC, BRBR, PSG and just about every access point on Utah lake looks the same way opening morning. Swan tag apps have almost doubled in 4 years. It's not the doom and gloom they are saying. They just want more support so they make it sound worse than it is. I'm not saying we shouldn't support these organizations, but it's not as bad as they say.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Tall Tines said:


> I call BS. For several reasons. The first being, there's way more people living in North America than there was even 30 years ago. Not everyone hunted then or before, and definitely not everyone hunts now. There's probably more hunters now than there was back in the day, but the overall population has gone way up, which would make the hunter numbers look less, after each year that passes. Every year application numbers have a huge increase in Utah. It's getting harder and harder to draw tags because there's more demand for them than there once was (within the last 20 years. The 60s don't count since people were buying tags for their dogs). Wyoming app numbers are increasing too. So is Nevada. And Colorado. And Arizona. And New Mexico... shall I continue? I'm sure there's an overall deacrease from 50 or so years ago, but atleast in the west, it seems like there's more people to compete against every year. That's just talking about big game.
> 
> Want more proof? Go visit Farmington Bay WMA on the opening day of waterfowl season. Holy balls. Literally trucks and cars lined down the road for hundreds of yards past the parking lot. 15, hell even 5 years ago, there wasn't that many people. OB, HC, BRBR, PSG and just about every access point on Utah lake looks the same way opening morning. Swan tag apps have almost doubled in 4 years. It's not the doom and gloom they are saying. They just want more support so they make it sound worse than it is. I'm not saying we shouldn't support these organizations, but it's not as bad as they say.


I have a very big problem with this kind of logic. Yes Utah applications and a lot of western states applications are up but for overall hunter numbers (especially waterfowl hunters) the west is not a good ruberic on which to base your story. There are far more many whitetails than mule deer, and there are far more hunters east than there are west, both due to game numbers and overall human population. Even in the west, how do you think Californias application/hunter numbers are? The report doesn't just show a percentage it shows real numbers and shows hunter numbers go from around 13 million down to 11 million. It isn't just basing it off a percentage to population. If you belive hunter numbers aren't in trouble I think over the next 20-35 years you'll be quickly proven wrong. The amount of young hunters getting involved is way down and most hunters fit in that 45-65 bubble that will be popping as they begin to pass away over the next few decades. It amazes me people throw these kinds of poss out there when they have nothing to show but anecdotal eveidence of their own little hunting spot that has gotten busier. Hunter numbers are down, license numbers and duck stamp numbers prove it through actual data not anequdotal evidence of what you see on a busy weekend hunting. To deny it, is to deny we have a problem and removes any chance at addressing it. Do you really think the USFWS would have some agenda to lie about hunter numbers? How about groups like Delta Waterfowl? This is not some conspiracy it's a real problem that's going to rear its head in the coming decades. There are far less licensed hunters, tags, and wildlife in states like Utah than to the east. Sure we may see more applications here for now, but there's a lot of fish and game agencies that are going to struggle as hunter numbers continue to decline overall. One of the big reasons you see a better retention in the west is all those public lands out our back door. In the east access is a huge issue, and any report you look at for why people struggle to get into hunting or stop hunting is access. Millions of acres of public land out west certainly helps hunter numbers, whereas in the east it's a real problem and reason hunter numbers are declining. I get that Farmington Bay may be super busy, but Utah is a small percentage of duck stamps sold compared to areas which are much better waterfowl states. Funding will be an issue going forward. Get as many people as you can involved, we should all do our part to protect our sport and the money wildlife and wild places will need going forward. Even if we think because our one little hunting spot is crowded on the weekend.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Tall Tines said:


> I call BS. For several reasons. The first being, there's way more people living in North America than there was even 30 years ago. Not everyone hunted then or before, and definitely not everyone hunts now. There's probably more hunters now than there was back in the day, but the overall population has gone way up, which would make the hunter numbers look less, after each year that passes. Every year application numbers have a huge increase in Utah. It's getting harder and harder to draw tags because there's more demand for them than there once was (within the last 20 years. The 60s don't count since people were buying tags for their dogs). Wyoming app numbers are increasing too. So is Nevada. And Colorado. And Arizona. And New Mexico... shall I continue? I'm sure there's an overall deacrease from 50 or so years ago, but atleast in the west, it seems like there's more people to compete against every year. That's just talking about big game.
> 
> Want more proof? Go visit Farmington Bay WMA on the opening day of waterfowl season. Holy balls. Literally trucks and cars lined down the road for hundreds of yards past the parking lot. 15, hell even 5 years ago, there wasn't that many people. OB, HC, BRBR, PSG and just about every access point on Utah lake looks the same way opening morning. Swan tag apps have almost doubled in 4 years. It's not the doom and gloom they are saying. They just want more support so they make it sound worse than it is. I'm not saying we shouldn't support these organizations, but it's not as bad as they say.


Evidently you weren't around back in the 60's and early to mid 70's to see the number of deer hunters headed out on the Friday before the opening. Not to mention the number of red/orange sweatshirts all over the hills come opening morning.

Also look at the sales that are pointed at hunters the month before either the elk or deer seasons open now. There is nothing compared to 40-50 years ago. Look at the schools, while I never was able to get the Friday before the deer opening off a lot of my younger relatives did get it off. I even remember big buck contest being ran in the high schools among the hunters, you would never see that. Then there are the younger should be hunters. I know of 7 kids that grew up hunting. They were out every deer and elk season not to mention waterfowl, rabbits, and upland game. Then once they got into high school they couldn't care less about hunting.

Farmington bay has always been a joke on the waterfowl opener. To close to major cities and too easy to get to. It has always been a zoo.


----------



## maverick9465 (Nov 21, 2016)

Tall Tines said:


> I call BS. For several reasons. The first being, there's way more people living in North America than there was even 30 years ago. Not everyone hunted then or before, and definitely not everyone hunts now. There's probably more hunters now than there was back in the day, but the overall population has gone way up, which would make the hunter numbers look less, after each year that passes. Every year application numbers have a huge increase in Utah. It's getting harder and harder to draw tags because there's more demand for them than there once was (within the last 20 years. The 60s don't count since people were buying tags for their dogs). Wyoming app numbers are increasing too. So is Nevada. And Colorado. And Arizona. And New Mexico... shall I continue? I'm sure there's an overall deacrease from 50 or so years ago, but atleast in the west, it seems like there's more people to compete against every year. That's just talking about big game.
> 
> Want more proof? Go visit Farmington Bay WMA on the opening day of waterfowl season. Holy balls. Literally trucks and cars lined down the road for hundreds of yards past the parking lot. 15, hell even 5 years ago, there wasn't that many people. OB, HC, BRBR, PSG and just about every access point on Utah lake looks the same way opening morning. Swan tag apps have almost doubled in 4 years. It's not the doom and gloom they are saying. They just want more support so they make it sound worse than it is. I'm not saying we shouldn't support these organizations, but it's not as bad as they say.


This exact argument was discussed in the podcast I referenced above. The simple fact is that what #1Deer posted is true. I don't know how anyone could debate license sales. Either they went up or they went down. And they went down. And that's less money towards habitat management and wildlife conservation.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The dollars for conservation, wildlife, and wild places is going to become more and more needed and less and less available as hunter numbers decline. If you have trouble supporting things like buying a duck stamp, an upland or waterfowl slam voucher, joining a sportsmens organization dedicated to habitat, etc. You should need no further motive than to watch the funding for conservation slowly drying up as hunter numbers continue to drop.


I think money is exactly the reason for hunter decline. My he!! it is expensive. It is getting to be a rich person sport. Money, money and more money. This is the problem and your answer is right there in the statement you posted.

Go buy a duck stamp you say. $25 each. Buy vouchers at $20. Join a group at X$$. Don't forget you need weapons too. Oh just another $500 for a rifle or bow or muzzleloader. Don't forget your wife and kids will all need one too. Don't you think all the fees for licenses, stamps and application fees add up quickly? especially for those that are buying for wife and kids. It's no freaking wonder why people are losing interest in hunting. There are other things to do that are less expensive. There are a lot of other expenses involved other than buying a stamp or license. That's the easy part.

"The dollars for conservation, wildlife, and wild places is going to become more and more needed and less and less available as hunter numbers decline."

Where do you think all this money is going to come from? Hunters will get the bill again with price increases in permits, stamps and app fees. So, who do we blame for hunter decline? Probably the same folks that are raising prices to try and keep their heads above water.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

maverick9465 said:


> This exact argument was discussed in the podcast I referenced above. The simple fact is that what #1Deer posted is true. I don't know how anyone could debate license sales. Either they went up or they went down. And they went down. And that's less money towards habitat management and wildlife conservation.


License sales go down and the price for licenses/stamps goes up. They are just going to keep losing people more and more because of this.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> I think money is exactly the reason for hunter decline. My he!! it is expensive. It is getting to be a rich person sport. Money, money and more money. This is the problem and your answer is right there in the statement you posted.
> 
> Go buy a duck stamp you say. $25 each. Buy vouchers at $20. Join a group at X$$. Don't forget you need weapons too. Oh just another $500 for a rifle or bow or muzzleloader. Don't forget your wife and kids will all need one too. Don't you think all the fees for licenses, stamps and application fees add up quickly? especially for those that are buying for wife and kids. It's no freaking wonder why people are losing interest in hunting. There are other things to do that are less expensive. There are a lot of other expenses involved other than buying a stamp or license. That's the easy part.
> 
> ...


Hopefully from taxes on those nonconsumptive users of our public lands and wildlife. But hunters better be open to them having a seat at the table if it ever happens. As for prices, let's say you go hunt deer and ducks. A combination costs $38, a duck stamp $25, and a deer tag $40. Let's say you're feeling really generation and join DU and the MDF for $70. That's $173 for an entire year for all those things, go ahead and tell me what's less expensive than that? Is that really so much money for an entire year? A day at Lagoon with your family will cost that, these things are for a year. For most things I don't even begin to agree they are less expensive. A year worth of fishing for $34 is a small fee for what you get IMO. I get there are extra expenses such as ammo, gas, etc. but those come with any hobby or anything you do. The cost to hunt/fish is actually relatively low compared to most things, and I don't know anyone truly interested in it that can't do some hunting because of the cost. The problem is, so few people have the chance to get introduced, and yes a result will be an even more expensive future for hunting as fish and game agencies struggle because less licenses are being sold. I get what you're saying critter, but for a lot of hunting and fishing as compared to other activities you can go do, hunting is actually very low cost. $20 for a DAY at a golf course? $60 for a DAY at Lagoon? Heck Directv is around $80-90 a month, I just don't think $38 a year for combination license is that expensive as compared to other activities we all choose to engage in. You're right to an extent, but the funding has to come from somewhere, and if we aren't willing to spend it, idk where else we will find it. $40 for a deer tag to fill a freezer? Hunting is relativly low cost if you don't get carried away. I'm not asking everyone to do all those things, but each of us could make sure we are at least doing 1 extra thing and try to invite someone to hunting. Expense is a factor for a lot of people you are probably right, but I just don't feel like it's a real burden if someone is truly interested. We don't need one hit wonders, we need people who will stay hunters not just do it once.


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

Tall Tines said:


> I call BS. For several reasons. The first being, there's way more people living in North America than there was even 30 years ago. Not everyone hunted then or before, and definitely not everyone hunts now. There's probably more hunters now than there was back in the day, but the overall population has gone way up, which would make the hunter numbers look less, after each year that passes. Every year application numbers have a huge increase in Utah. It's getting harder and harder to draw tags because there's more demand for them than there once was (within the last 20 years. The 60s don't count since people were buying tags for their dogs). Wyoming app numbers are increasing too. So is Nevada. And Colorado. And Arizona. And New Mexico... shall I continue? I'm sure there's an overall deacrease from 50 or so years ago, but atleast in the west, it seems like there's more people to compete against every year. That's just talking about big game.
> 
> Want more proof? Go visit Farmington Bay WMA on the opening day of waterfowl season. Holy balls. Literally trucks and cars lined down the road for hundreds of yards past the parking lot. 15, hell even 5 years ago, there wasn't that many people. OB, HC, BRBR, PSG and just about every access point on Utah lake looks the same way opening morning. Swan tag apps have almost doubled in 4 years. It's not the doom and gloom they are saying. They just want more support so they make it sound worse than it is. I'm not saying we shouldn't support these organizations, but it's not as bad as they say.


I tend to agree with you from looking at draw history's in the few states I hunt in there sure seems to be an increase in hunters. Funny how 6 years ago was the first time Utah sold out of bull tags in the history of OTC bull tags and we have sold out 3 or 4 years since.

I think pushing hunting and trying to increase hunter numbers is a slippery slope, sure we need numbers to keep the sport alive both politically and habitat wise but theirs a point when we get to many hunters and the numbers will start dropping off due to over crowding. Where at the point now that most general season hunts are ridiculously over crowded.

Guys have been complaining about tag costs since I was a kid 40 years ago, same old story about look how much it cost and I have x number of kids so it cost me even more but these same guys are wearing $1500 in boutique hunting clothes. I would gladly pay up to 5 times as much for a tag if it meant less people in the woods and a more enjoyable hunt.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

IMO there are less people hunting than when I grew up, loss of habitat, fewer tags, when I was a boy everyone in the town I'm from hunted, now not so. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Many people will point to Utah as an example of growing hunter numbers. Hunting and fishing numbers appear stable in our state. But sometimes I wonder if they are hunters or appliers. Either way they are investing in our wildlife.

As for the Any Bull and spike elk demand, I think this is great. But do they sell out because of the increasing hunter numbers or do they sell out because people want to hunt together? The increase in demand coincides with the restrictions placed on mule deer hunting. 

In Utah we have a finite resource which can only lend to a certain amount of hunting opportunity and our management strategy further limits hunting opportunities.

.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> In Utah we have a finite resource which can only lend to a certain amount of hunting opportunity and our management strategy further limits hunting opportunities.
> 
> .


why is that? How are our elk herd numbers determined? How do we determine carrying capacity for elk on our forests? What could be done to increase those numbers, and thus increase opportunity for additional hunting?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

PBH said:


> why is that?  How are our elk herd numbers determined? How do we determine carrying capacity for elk on our forests? What could be done to increase those numbers, and thus increase opportunity for additional hunting?


Go to war with livestock producers and the Department of agriculture. Elk numbers in Utah could grow.... a lot.... if not for depredation issues and conflict with livestock grazers on public and private land. Pronghorn could grow by a big number...if not for the same reason. Look at a unit like the Parker. I hunted there last year, and the general sentiment from farmers I ran into was shoot them all. The Parker pronghorn herd could double in size if not more if there weren't so many social reasons keeping them down. Should we discuss Bison? Bison could be introduced in many places, opportunity could be increased ten fold if not for the same reasons. We do have to find balance though, and honestly I belive opportunity has likely reached its peak on some species due to issues and pressures that won't be changing anytime soon.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Pre 1993 over 200,000 Deer hunters every year now 97,000. Yep lots more pressure now.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Hunting numbers are being sustained mostly do to the phony representation of hunting by the marketers of "hunting stuff". Many potential new hunters drop the sport from disillusionment after a few hunts. Population growth has been able to sustain pretty high actual licence sales and hunt applications, but, sorry to say this, hunting is just not what it used to be and declining numbers...percentage, not numbers... are the result.
The hunting experience that we had back when a high percentage of the population went hunting is gone and sadly, there is no fix!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Pre 1993 over 200,000 Deer hunters every year now 97,000. Yep lots more pressure now.


280,000 deer tags was the peak.

-DallanC


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

If there were Quality numbers of animals, and size, it would encourage hunters to spend the dollars. To many "Organizations" now IMO. They have there own agenda, and not the hunters interests that donate to them. 

I'd purchase a couple thousand acres, and lease it for HUGE $$$ and call it a CWMU just to get a landowner tag every year.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> I think money is exactly the reason for hunter decline. My he!! it is expensive. It is getting to be a rich person sport. Money, money and more money. This is the problem and your answer is right there in the statement you posted.


Fowlmouth....you have any kids in organized sports? Good hell...you want to talk about expensive. My kid played travel hockey. I don't even want to add up the money spent in the last 13 years doing that. Skates now run up to $1k, sticks up to $260 (and they break). Daughter is playing travel lacrosse and just the yearly team fee's are easily more then I spent on my last hunting rifle setup...not including travel and expenses. These teams are packed with kids wanting to play and parents eagerly pulling out their checkbooks. How much...no problem..sign them up. What's crazy is many have a handful of kids they are doing this with. Recently bought my son a mnt bike for graduation present. Went into a few bike shops to look at options....not sure about you, but I never had a +$3k mountain bike as a kid, but there were rows of them. In fact there were more bikes price above $3k then below! Just had to buy our family ski passes by this past weekend to get the "good" rate. $1000 for a season's pass at Alta per adult...and you know what....on a good snow day....it will be packed with people wearing their $800 Arcterxy jackets and $1200 ski's.

I think a $50 elk tag is a steal.

The whole point of that...people have and are spending a lot of money on sports/outdoor activities, but hunting continues to fall from the mainstream. Hunter recruitment is terrible with our kids. Was just talking to my buddy who owns a major game call manufacturing company and how things were going in the industry. Within the first few sentences out of his mouth, hunter recruitment continues to be a major problem. I know with my son (18 yrs old), the vast majority of kids he knows and goes to school with don't hunt. We've had this talk numerous times. I coached the Brighton hockey team and we had 1 kid on our team that hunted. Small sampling, but still...1 kid out of 20 here in UT.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

G- well said. I see the same thing working with youth groups and coaching. Very few hunt.

A kid/adult can buy a pass and go skiing. They can buy a mtn bike a go ride. They can go for a hike up the canyon. They can go with a friend or snag a bus pass. 

To hunt deer-- a kid needs a parent to get them thru hunter safety and have adult with them in the field, figure out how to apply for a permit months ahead of the season, play the points games, and hope they draw. If they don't draw they have to wait another year. It isn't a quick decision type activity. Back when 200,000+ people hunted deer they could buy the tag the night before the hunt and go. 

Pheasants are almost non-existent for most hunters. Gone are the days of hunting easy access private lands. Duck hunting is much harder as accessible areas become harder to find. Doves are the same-- few large grain fields to walk. 

All that said--Hunting has never been better and it has never been more complicated. imo

.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Screw all you hunters! I want less of y'all on my mountain anyways lol. 

In all seriousness though: if you are concerned about the decline of hunters, get youth involved!!! This doesn't just mean get YOUR KID involved, this means get OTHER KIDS involved! Even better yet, bring their parents along too. Let them see why it's such an amazing piece of life that they are missing. I bet most kids will talk about their first deer camp for years to come. 

Plant the seeds and reap your reward fellas.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

gdog said:


> Fowlmouth....you have any kids in organized sports? Good hell...you want to talk about expensive. My kid played travel hockey. I don't even want to add up the money spent in the last 13 years doing that. Skates now run up to $1k, sticks up to $260 (and they break). Daughter is playing travel lacrosse and just the yearly team fee's are easily more then I spent on my last hunting rifle setup...not including travel and expenses. These teams are packed with kids wanting to play and parents eagerly pulling out their checkbooks. How much...no problem..sign them up. What's crazy is many have a handful of kids they are doing this with. Recently bought my son a mnt bike for graduation present. Went into a few bike shops to look at options....not sure about you, but I never had a +$3k mountain bike as a kid, but there were rows of them. In fact there were more bikes price above $3k then below! Just had to buy our family ski passes by this past weekend to get the "good" rate. $1000 for a season's pass at Alta per adult...and you know what....on a good snow day....it will be packed with people wearing their $800 Arcterxy jackets and $1200 ski's.
> 
> I think a $50 elk tag is a steal.
> 
> The whole point of that...people have and are spending a lot of money on sports/outdoor activities, but hunting continues to fall from the mainstream. Hunter recruitment is terrible with our kids. Was just talking to my buddy who owns a major game call manufacturing company and how things were going in the industry. Within the first few sentences out of his mouth, hunter recruitment continues to be a major problem. I know with my son (18 yrs old), the vast majority of kids he knows and goes to school with don't hunt. We've had this talk numerous times. I coached the Brighton hockey team and we had 1 kid on our team that hunted. Small sampling, but still...1 kid out of 20 here in UT.


I get what you are saying and I agree people are spending money on other sports. Maybe those things are more important for them, and maybe it just doesn't leave enough money left for hunting. I just don't think anyone can say that hunting isn't expensive. Yes it's probably less expensive than some other things, but it's still costly.

Yep, I never had a $3k mountain bike when I was a kid, but I had several well over that figure when I worked for Specialized. And a few nice road bikes as well.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Some interesting things about the actual survey

Results are based on data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau selected 22,416 households to contact for screening interviews. Samples of 5,782 potential anglers and hunters and 6,231 potential wildlife watchers (5,303 of whom were the same people) were given detailed interviews about their participation and expenditures.

Average spending

Almost 39.6 million Americans participated in fishing, hunting, or both sports in 2016. These sportsmen and women spent $41.7 billion on equipment, $30.9 billion on trips, and $7.8 billion on licenses and fees, membership dues and contributions, land leasing and ownership, and plantings for hunting. On average, each sportsperson spent $2,034 in 2016.

Time in the field

In 2016, 11.5 million people, 5% of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, went hunting. Hunters in the U.S. spent an average of 16 days pursuing wild game. Big game like elk, deer and wild turkey attracted 9.2 million hunters (80%) who spent 133 million days afield. Over 3.5 million (31%) pursued small game including squirrels, rabbits, quails, and pheasants on 38 million days. Migratory birds, such as geese, ducks and doves, attracted 2.4 million hunters (21%) who spent 16 million days hunting. Hunting for other animals such as coyotes, groundhogs and raccoons attracted 1.3 million hunters (11%) who spent 13 million days afield


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

IMO it is more of an eastern problem than a western problem.

Umm. as far as hunt crowding, I think people should go try to hunt public land out east. If you do not have acres leased, allowed access, etc then you have a difficult time hunting hunt outside of hitting deer with your car. Not having enough public land for hunting out east is killer for hunter recruitment. With money being the primary issue why people do not have access to private land.

As far as money goes, there are a few things that contribute. Kids now adays go to college and major in something that isn't the best for their employment opportunities. After college and are now stuck in debt, because they made a stupid decision to major in communication, liberal arts, etc and thought that credit cards are magic that you just have to make the minimum monthly payment on. It is a debt that you cannot get rid of, until you pay it back. Add that with credit cards, car payments, mortgage/rent payments, food, having kids, etc. It does not allow for of money for spending on outdoor activities. I mean it is tough to muster a lease or an out of state elk hunt, when you live paycheck to paycheck. Now, when their kid gets into sports, band, art, etc the disposable income that could have went to hunting is now in something else.

With school, unless you go into finance, you do not get exposure to personal finance. Intermediate algebra the class that teaches you how interest works, is not a requirement for most majors. It isn't a surprise to me how many people struggle with money, because they were never taught how to not struggle with money.

Anyway that is my 2 cents. End Rant


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

if memory serves... and it often doesn't, we used to put 250,000 deer hunters in the field on opening day back in the 60's and 70's. now, split between flip stickers, smoke poles and the rifle hunt we have a total of some 80,000 tags?
that sound about right?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Peak deer tags was right around 280,000. Today we are around 90k tags.


-DallanC


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Any guess as to how many hunters we would have if we just had a deer hunt and you could go buy a tag over the counter and go hunting?

Limited Entry = Limited opportunity =less hunters! 

I remember when they started all this LE stuff and when they put a cap on the number of hunters we could field...thousands upon thousands of people just stopped hunting. Mostly because they couldn't get a permit. Well, all those hunters stopped taking their kids hunting. And all those kids grew up not being hunters and not teaching their kids to be hunters. Also, the LE system favors solo hunting, and for the most part has destroyed the old family hunt system, which has driven down the interest in hunting. 

Private land owners for the most part used to allow hunting on their property...boy, it ain't that way any more. All those places to hunt are now closed...NO TRESPASSING...forcing more hunters onto less ground causing more frustrations resulting in more hunters quitting the sport.

These are just some of the things that are putting an end to hunting. Back when we had 250,000 hunters, nobody was quitting hunting. The mass migration from hunting didn't start until we started building the system we have today. 

The hunting system we have today is destroying it's self.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> Private land owners for the most part used to allow hunting on their property...boy, it ain't that way any more. All those places to hunt are now closed...NO TRESPASSING...forcing more hunters onto less ground causing more frustrations resulting in more hunters quitting the sport.


Why would private landowners allow free hunting on their property now days? They get their land owner vouchers and sell them for as much as they can get.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> Why would private landowners allow free hunting on their property now days? They get their land owner vouchers and sell them for as much as they can get.


Just another part of today's failing hunting system.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is much about today's system that is good...I think the hunters of today are more ethical and conservation oriented than we were back then for example, and I think the system itself is more responsive to biological factors, but as far as promoting and encouraging more hunting, today system is very counterproductive.


----------

