Is the current high tag demand a bubble that will crash in the next 10 years?

[Dos Perros]

do you guys saying that there are large numbers of young hunters to replace us ol farts still see schools canceling class for deer season?

When you're home schooled you just do the schooling later that day after your buck is hanging in the yard.

 

[Crowmangler]

Everyone likes to bad mouth NR's but very little is said about the insta bros who apply for elk, deer & bear tags in 6 different states just to crank out more content

 

[Dos Perros]

Everyone likes to bad mouth NR's but very little is said about the insta bros who apply for elk, deer & bear tags in 6 different states just to crank out more content

Really? I think those dudes get raked here pretty often. I can try to up my game if you like.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Everyone likes to bad mouth NR's but very little is said about the insta bros who apply for elk, deer & bear tags in 6 different states just to crank out more content

Oh i definitely pour the hate out on guys like that. The YouTube, instagram bro’s and bro-esses who have to shoot 4-12 big game animals a year all over the country and Alaska, and then try to claim that it’s all about meat when they give most of it away…, get bent. Social media hunters and huntresses have done more damage than just about anything.

 

[SDHNTR]

As long as the internet exists there is zero chance of such a bubble bursting.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Everyone likes to bad mouth NR's but very little is said about the insta bros who apply for elk, deer & bear tags in 6 different states just to crank out more content

Roksliders never do this.

 

[rogerdoger]

I am curious on this thought. I watched a video explaining this view in the ski industry. They are predicting a possible decline in the amount of skiers since the baby boomer generation is leaving the sport and due to cost not as many younger kids are getting into the sport, and if they are it’s just for a couple of days, they are not making a lifestyle out of it.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Oh i definitely pour the hate out on guys like that. The YouTube, instagram bro’s and bro-esses who have to shoot 4-12 big game animals a year all over the country and Alaska, and then try to claim that it’s all about meat when they give most of it away…, get bent. Social media hunters and huntresses have done more damage than just about anything.

And then don't forget the content features ads for online services pointing to when, where, and how to apply for western hunts.

 

[Hnthrdr]

And then don't forget the content features ads for online services pointing to when, where, and how to apply for western hunts.

Yep it’s all a giant self licking ice cream cone, but really the joke is just on us. The connected youtubers or meateater types who made their name hunting on public with simply transition to private land hunts while we stand in line trying to get a tag or two or have to subscribe to burn ya points new-burg for a strategy on how to apply to 27 states so you can hunt every year

 

[Crowmangler]

Really? I think those dudes get raked here pretty often. I can try to up my game if you like.

release the hounds bro

 

[displacedtexan]

Total number of hunters may be decreasing, but people are hunting more. This is evident in the Montana general units. I think people are specializing their lives and less folks are generalists. I do not think it's logical to believe that, for people posting in this thread right now, tags are going to get easier to draw in the future.

The people just getting started today are happy if there are only two dozen trucks at the trailhead. It's nuts. It's only going to get worse.

I basically echo your thoughts on the subject. I think there's one possible exception. And I don't how many people will check it...

But I see a lot of people in their 20s abs 30s who care about the lifestyle more than the activity. They don't need to hunt (or whatever it may be) several times a year, or even every few years. They need to do it a couple of times, or every several years. Enough to wear the clothes and be able to say they did it.

I know a kid who actually sees it as a checklist. He already checked Colorado mule deer off. He didn't punch a tag. But he did it, so that's done. He's got a couple more tags he wants to draw, but I doubt he'll punch any tags, or go more than once.

 

[Macintosh]

It definitely seems this way, but the numbers don't support the idea. There are less than half as many hunters under 30 as there are over 60.

There may be something to the idea that people who hunt are spending more time hunting, but again, retired people have more time than anybody.

This has come up here a number of times, and this^ is totally true when you look at numbers nationally. In my state, roughly 12% of the population buys a hunting license every year, compared to the national average of about 4.5%. Based on surveys done in my state a few years ago, within my state the rate of hunters within millennials and younger generations is roughly the same as it is in the baby boom and older generations, the difference is simply the % of the total population made up by each age-group--12% of the baby boom generation was so large that it cannot be equaled by 12% of Genx. As a result my state sells roughly 55% of the hunting licenses every year now, as it did in the mid 1980's...that's right just over HALF.
BUT that's not necessarily true when you look at numbers regionally or at a state level. Nationally, most hunters live in the east and midwest--PA and WI alone have almost twice as many hunting licenses sold every year as the entire population of a state like Wyoming, just as one example. The trends at play in the east and midwest--aging population, the baby-boom of hunters aging out, and not being replaced 1:1--affect the entire nation, since the tax funding that pays a significant % of every state's fish and game dept's budget is generated nationally, largely by the concentration of hunters in the east in midwest. Yet, it's also true that the colorado front range, boise, bozeman, etc are some of the fastest-growing populations in the country, and some of the states in the rockies and west have seen much larger increases in population as a % of the total than the national average. So my takeaway is that while the national trend IS relevant for hunting and the north american model of funding the whole shebang (which forces states to raise the same $ elsewhere, such as thru tag $ increases), it's not a perfect picture of demand within a state even if the number of tags remained constant, which it isnt. More people living in each western state=more development, less habitat, poorer habitat=fewer tags in total. A higher resident population means more demand on resident tags, so even if you cap and reduce NR tags that cant make up the difference at some point, especially from a $ perspective.

so no, I dont see the tag shortage and price increases going anywhere. But I do see less and less reason in the future to blame non-residents for that. I think non-residents are an easy scapegoat now, but not the root of the issue.

 

[goathunter]

This has come up here a number of times, and this^ is totally true when you look at numbers nationally. In my state, roughly 12% of the population buys a hunting license every year, compared to the national average of about 4.5%. Based on surveys done in my state a few years ago, within my state the rate of hunters within millennials and younger generations is roughly the same as it is in the baby boom and older generations, the difference is simply the % of the total population made up by each age-group--12% of the baby boom generation was so large that it cannot be equaled by 12% of Genx. As a result my state sells roughly 55% of the hunting licenses every year now, as it did in the mid 1980's...that's right just over HALF.
BUT that's not necessarily true when you look at numbers regionally or at a state level. Nationally, most hunters live in the east and midwest--PA and WI alone have almost twice as many hunting licenses sold every year as the entire population of a state like Wyoming, just as one example. The trends at play in the east and midwest--aging population, the baby-boom of hunters aging out, and not being replaced 1:1--affect the entire nation, since the tax funding that pays a significant % of every state's fish and game dept's budget is generated nationally, largely by the concentration of hunters in the east in midwest. Yet, it's also true that the colorado front range, boise, bozeman, etc are some of the fastest-growing populations in the country, and some of the states in the rockies and west have seen much larger increases in population as a % of the total than the national average. So my takeaway is that while the national trend IS relevant for hunting and the north american model of funding the whole shebang (which forces states to raise the same $ elsewhere, such as thru tag $ increases), it's not a perfect picture of demand within a state even if the number of tags remained constant, which it isnt. More people living in each western state=more development, less habitat, poorer habitat=fewer tags in total. A higher resident population means more demand on resident tags, so even if you cap and reduce NR tags that cant make up the difference at some point, especially from a $ perspective.

so no, I dont see the tag shortage and price increases going anywhere. But I do see less and less reason in the future to blame non-residents for that. I think non-residents are an easy scapegoat now, but not the root of the issue.

Uhh... what?

 

[goathunter]

I am curious on this thought. I watched a video explaining this view in the ski industry. They are predicting a possible decline in the amount of skiers since the baby boomer generation is leaving the sport and due to cost not as many younger kids are getting into the sport, and if they are it’s just for a couple of days, they are not making a lifestyle out of it.

That may also be because the snow pack has consistently sucked since the 90s

 

[CJ19]

i dont think tag demand or prices are going down ever. I have started to incorporate other activities into the trips that used to be western hunting trips. Saltwater fishing has been a lot of fun for me lately. I think a Gulf of America fishing trip is my 1-2 year plan since i havent been down there fishing in a long time. Instead of a fishing trip I probably would have planned a western hunting trip 10 or 20 years ago. Can't draw tags that i want now.

 

[Jimmy]

Everyone likes to bad mouth NR's but very little is said about the insta bros who apply for elk, deer & bear tags in 6 different states just to crank out more content

I have a lot more to say about those types.... but it's also complicated.

The very groups and individuals that provided 'content' that helped me learn about hunting and encouraged me to go for it, I now view with a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth. 10 years later and they're still grabbing tags and shooting big game all over. Is that fair of me? Should I expect them to evolve? Would it be the same if they filmed little Timmy getting his first buck instead of themself getting their 150th buck? Why do they need so many tags? But hunting is incredible and I wish I hunted more. How do I feel about hunters shooting so many animals they cant even eat all the meat? I don't know, I could go in circles with this topic

 

[wapitibob]

I have no issue with new hunters. The "we don't need more hunters" mantra is interesting considering those saying it most likely added to the problem by bringing their own kids into the fold. White noise for the most part. I like to hunt, so I apply where I can draw. That strategy seems to work better for me than complaining I can't draw a 20 point unit when I only have 5 points. I also don't hunt unlimited OTC areas out of state, so where I draw tags, there aren't any more hunters now than in the past unless the Dept added tags.

 

[Macintosh]

@goathunter the points are that:
1) National trend in both population and hunting participation is different from the trend in the western states in question
2) the resident trend in the west is making a big change, even at low participation rates it is causing significant growth in demand by residents
3) even though the NR trend is significantly less--flat or significantly down depending on the period you look at--there are still a massively larger number of those people, so I dont see the NR demand decreasing.

The takeawy is that the national trend does have implications in the west, even if the decreases arent seen there (they arent for the most part).

Here's a map showing population change 2000-2020 which helps to make these points--note the entire intermountain west is a growth area.



And, here's an article perhaps driving home the difference between the national participation trends in hunting, versus those in "the west": https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45667.html

If you scroll down about halfway you'll see table A2, which is the number of hunting licenses sold per state each year from 2015 thru 2019--these are the numbers used to allocate pittman robertson funding to the states. This is easy to copy paste into excel if anyone wants to push and pull the data around.

Looking at the "western states" as I defined them (Ca, Co, Or, Id, Mt, Ut, Az, Wa, Wy, Ak, Nm, Nv):

In 2015,

• All the western states combined accounted for only 15.6% of the hunting licenses sold in the US
• The top 10 states (TX, PA, MI, TN, WI, MN, NC, NY, AL and MO) are all in the east or midwest (sorry, TX), and account for almost 47% of the total licenses sold in the US.
• The bottom 10 states (NM, NJ, VT, NV, NH, MA, CT, DE, HI, RI) collectively only account for 3.4% of the total

Looking at the CHANGE during the period from 2015 thru 2019,

• the western states combined increased license sales by 12.8% (CA -1.5%, CO 6.3%, Or 27%, Id 14%, MT -1%, UT 17.7%, AZ 55%, WA -.8%, WY -1.1%, AK 16%, NM 9.8%, NV 6.4%). Unlike other areas this was a steady increase each year.
• The remainder of states combined grew by only 3.2%
• the top 10 states only grew by 0.1%
• the bottom 10 states were flat, although they did grow about 1% in the middle of the period

 

[JFK]

@goathunter the points are that:
1) National trend in both population and hunting participation is different from the trend in the western states in question
2) the resident trend in the west is making a big change, even at low participation rates it is causing significant growth in demand by residents
3) even though the NR trend is significantly less--flat or significantly down depending on the period you look at--there are still a massively larger number of those people, so I dont see the NR demand decreasing.

The takeawy is that the national trend does have implications in the west, even if the decreases arent seen there (they arent for the most part).

Here's a map showing population change 2000-2020 which helps to make these points--note the entire intermountain west is a growth area.
View attachment 827954


And, here's an article perhaps driving home the difference between the national participation trends in hunting, versus those in "the west": https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45667.html

If you scroll down about halfway you'll see table A2, which is the number of hunting licenses sold per state each year from 2015 thru 2019--these are the numbers used to allocate pittman robertson funding to the states. This is easy to copy paste into excel if anyone wants to push and pull the data around.

Looking at the "western states" as I defined them (Ca, Co, Or, Id, Mt, Ut, Az, Wa, Wy, Ak, Nm, Nv):

In 2015,

• All the western states combined accounted for only 15.6% of the hunting licenses sold in the US
• The top 10 states (TX, PA, MI, TN, WI, MN, NC, NY, AL and MO) are all in the east or midwest (sorry, TX), and account for almost 47% of the total licenses sold in the US.
• The bottom 10 states (NM, NJ, VT, NV, NH, MA, CT, DE, HI, RI) collectively only account for 3.4% of the total

Looking at the CHANGE during the period from 2015 thru 2019,

• the western states combined increased license sales by 12.8% (CA -1.5%, CO 6.3%, Or 27%, Id 14%, MT -1%, UT 17.7%, AZ 55%, WA -.8%, WY -1.1%, AK 16%, NM 9.8%, NV 6.4%). Unlike other areas this was a steady increase each year.
• The remainder of states combined grew by only 3.2%
• the top 10 states only grew by 0.1%
• the bottom 10 states were flat, although they did grow about 1% in the middle of the period

Pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for putting that together.