I think people are short-sighted to dismiss the value of overall hunter-numbers to conservation and fish and wildlife management funding, and to dismiss the importance of hunting being a mainstream, accepted activity by the majority of the population. The numbers are what they are, there is ZERO debate about actual numbers of hunters--example, here are actual numbers for 2004-2015:
https://wildlifeforall.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/HuntingLicCertHistory-2004-2015-1.pdf . Other periods are harder to find except your state data should be easy to find. But overall these numbers in the big picture are pretty easy to get and should not be in question.
since 1960 overall hunter numbers have increased about 9%. The peak of hunter numbers was in the early 1980's and has been declining since, with 2020-2021 being questionably a short-term spike, maybe a change in trend. However, as a % of the overall population, hunter numbers have dropped precipitously, so now hunters only make up about 4.5% of the US population--about HALF of what it was in my lifetime as a hunter.
Example is colorado below from the above link:
2004: 300,570 paid license holders, 548,000 tags sold, generating $52,000,000 in revenue
2015: 281,200 paid license holders, 530,700 tags sold, generating $53,000,000 in revenue
2020: 295,451 paid license holders, 582,956 tags sold, generating $59,006,693 in revenue
(2020 data from this link: https://stacker.com/colorado/see-how-many-registered-hunters-are-colorado )
From the numbers, even in the state I have seen most-talked about here as being "wildly overcrowded", hunter numbers in 2020 are DOWN from 2004, and while they have increased since 2015 it's not back up to the level it was 18 years ago, let alone in the 1980's--and yes, this includes both residents and non-residents. However, based on the number of TAGS sold, which INCREASED, it's still possible (likely?) that at any given time during the hunting season more hunters were in the woods than 18 years ago. I live in Vermont, and this is exactly what our state numbers reflect, that overall numbers are consistently down, but that more individual tags are sold, and that overall hunter effort (time in the woods) is UP. i.e. fewer hunters are out more, making things MORE CROWDED WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN TOTAL HUNTERS. I don't know what is so difficult for people to understand about this...the casual hunters who spent a weekend per year hunting have dropped off, and the hunters left spend more time doing it, more days afield, and that makes things feel more crowded, especially in places where access is more limited than it was in the past.
To me there is zero question about hunter numbers and crowding, tag availability, etc, the numbers dont lie. Not that the numbers aren't important, but they are NOT IN QUESTION. To me the questions are entirely around revenue and politics and how that affects the future of hunting and hunting opportunity. Do you think the revenue generated from license sales, and the associated federal $ that go to the states to match this, are valuable? Based on colorado numbers above, $52million in 2004 equals $71million in 2020 (so there was a gap of about $12million from actual, representing a decline of about 17% from 2004-2020) , so the financial impact on conservation and wildlife management of hunting license revenue DROPPED by a significant amount during this time. Depending on how valuable people think the work of state fish and wildlife dept's is, this could be a pretty big deal, as this is a large% of the budget of each state agency and is also part of the math on how federal$ are given back to the states.
At the same time, the population of colorado went from 4.575million in 2004, to 5.685million in 2020, so as a % of the population those combined res/non-res license holders above represent 6.5% of the population were hunters in 2004, while in 2020 that had dropped to 5.2%. That's a 20% reduction in 16 years. With a growing % of the population (not just in colorado) living in urban and suburban areas and with no contact with hunters or wildlife conservation and management, do people think regulations and seasons will continue to be set based on maximizing hunting opportunity? I dont. I think if people believe hunter numbers declining as a % of the voting population wont limit their opportunity over the next decade or two, they are fooling themselves. It's no wonder states are pushing to change how hunting regulations are set, banning trapping and predator hunting, etc with this in the picture. Also look at regions where population is growing fastest and you'll also see some significant correlation with the intermountain west where this conversation on this website is perhaps most relevant.
So my 2 cents is we should STFU about whether hunter numbers are declining or not, because it is not in question--unless we are looking at only a extremely narrow window of time, overall hunter numbers have declined both in real numbers and especially as a % of the population, nearly everywhere. A few states like MT show very small increases, on the order of 1%, while population has grown tremendously, so would be interesting to see updated consolidated numbers from 2016-present--I wasnt able to find consolidated #'s. Regardless, Instead of debating the numbers that we can check, we should be using that data to talk about what the implications are of the actual numbers both federally and within any given state, and what needs to/should be done about them. If you think having fewer hunters is a good thing, great, then lets talk about whether political clout and conservation funding is important, and deal with that. But unless you are talking specifically about a narrow geography--one state or a small group of states where hunter numbers and inflation-adjusted revenue is actually increasing consistently and you have DATA to show it, don't try to tell me that hunter numbers aren't declining and it's a non-issue.