Let’s say…

[Ucsdryder]

You are missing the point.

Overall, hunter numbers are WAY DOWN.

In 1980 there were 16.9 million licensed hunters in the US out of population of 226 million. That’s 7.5% of the total population.

Today there are 15.9 million licensed hunters out of 331 million. That’s 4.8% of US population.

That’s a drastic decease. Both in overall numbers and percentage of the population.

What we are seeing is a shift. More people are hunting in western states. Baby boomers got money to spend. People in their 30s got money to spend and ain’t waiting until they retire.

So, by the numbers, overall, total number of hunters has DECREASED in the US since the 1980s. That was the peak. There are 1 million fewer licensed hunters today than there were 40 years ago.

Yes you’re right. The problem is we’re too far behind. That was my original point. We are a tiny segment of the population. Doubling the number of hunters will have ZERO impact on the ballot box. The only thing that does it decrease everyone’s opportunity. That’s my whole point.

 

[Yoder]

Yes you’re right. The problem is we’re too far behind. That was my original point. We are a tiny segment of the population. Doubling the number of hunters will have ZERO impact on the ballot box. The only thing that does it decrease everyone’s opportunity. That’s my whole point.

We need to be loud, proud and completely obnoxious. It doesn't take that many people to make huge changes in society. You western guys need to relax. 75% of hunters will be too old to hunt out there in a few years anyway. Your kids will have it all to themselves.

 

[Ucsdryder]

We need to be loud, proud and completely obnoxious. It doesn't take that many people to make huge changes in society. You western guys need to relax. 75% of hunters will be too old to hunt out there in a few years anyway. Your kids will have it all to themselves.

Great point! The effing leaf lickers and tree huggers get shit down because they’re won’t stfu.

I don’t think that’s a western issue. The amount of 20-30 something year olds in the back country of Colorado is amazing. Way more than the 60+ crowd.

 

[Ralphie]

And after a year of telling everyone else to burn points this same accountant withdraws from the Wyoming draw. Huh.

And now the accountant and his ever gaiter wearing friend are looking for the last remnant of elk hunting opportunity to spread all over the world.

The big crusade now is opening access to state lands. Which I fully agree with. But I have a question. How many more elk will that put on the ground? How many more actual elk tags will there be because state lands in all 50 states are now accessible?

 

[LongWayAround]

I am largely of the opinion that there likely has been a decrease in the number of total hunting licenses sold.

Personally, I don't know anyone who buys a license in case they want to go hunting. This is where I believe the majority of the decrease has come from. In the past, it was much more likely that people who didn't really hunt would still buy a license because they might do an opening day drive or shoot a couple pheasants in the ditch. Hunters now are either in or out, not halfway. As applications and regulations have become more complex, those occasional hunters have declined.

I am also distrustful of the supposed counts of license sales. There's no way that someone is accurately counting all of the nuanced licenses from 50 states. What are they counting? General hunting licenses- small game etc? Turkeys, deer, elk? Some states don't require a general/small game hunting license for a big game tag. Colorado lets you apply if you buy a turkey tag. If I buy a small game/turkey/2 elk/bear/and deer, I would show up in six license counts for total sales. Do they account for that? If I hunt four states in a year, I am still only one hunter but I bought several licenses.

Expendable income and reduced access opportunity have combined to create the supply and demand issues that we are currently experiencing. The lowering of the bar with how-to videos and constant drum beating is a major contributor as well.

We have all been sold a lie about hunter numbers. The answer isn't more hunters, it's more access.

 

[william schmaltz]

Doubling the number of hunters will have ZERO impact on the ballot box. The only thing that does it decrease everyone’s opportunity. That’s my whole point.

I think there's a strong argument that this is blatantly false, or at the very least shortsighted. It's not nearly this simple. We get to hunt because something like +80% of the nonhunting public views what we do as favorable and allows us to. People that were on the fence about hunting and started b/c of a youtube video or podcast already were voting on our side; but they were not advocating. So it's not a 1:1 transaction as implied - not even close. I think I see this more than most because I work in a very liberal industry and most of my interactions are with liberal-leaning folks. Even in AK, I can't think of another person on my office floor that really hunts. Everyone in the office knows when I leave for a hunt and through stories, pictures, and shared food; they hear all about it when I get back. Whenever we have a potluck, they get to hear the stories again as they eat the animals. I'm confident that when a hunting issue comes up, they will have our back because they've been exposed to the truth about hunting and the bounty has been shared with them numerous times. I've been really looking forward to results rolling out from the Wild Harvest Initiative. I think some front end results showed that the average hunter shares their meat with 10 or more people. That's significant in the fight to keep our hunting rights. Losing 10% of hunters would be about 1.5 million people. That's potentially 15 million less people that will experience eating wild game and get to hear our stories in a way that isn't destroyed by the media. Hardly insignificant.

People from the suburbs and cities are who control the tide in this country. That's an unfortunate reality. So I guess if you see it as some guy in Wyoming or from rural East Coast now gets into hunting or decides to start applying in other states, sure we lose opportunity and likely don't gain much politically as they and everyone around them are likely on our side already. But for every city person that's going back to their office building or neighborhood BBQs with a phone full of pictures and plate of summer sausage to tell their peers about their hunting trip, we are talking 5-10+ new people who are now on our team and will likely never apply for a tag. I like to rag on citidiots as much as they next guy, but we need them out there and then going back to their micro chambers to tell our stories and share our message IMO. ESPECIALLY if there's now a call to stop sharing our stories online. It's unfortunate but true. "Quod me nutrit me destruit" as they say.

That's separate from the argument that what is being shared online is mostly harmful. I would be fine with social media banning hunting content as it would likely benefit hunting more than harm it. I also don't think the hand holding with all the "how to" is necessary either. The person referred to in the OP has destroyed one of my formerly quiet hunting spots with one of his videos and I'm still extremely salty about it! So I understand the frustration from first hand experience. Same with watching places like Kodiak and Western AK turn into a complete zoo b/c of social media and watching some tags here go from 50% draw odds 7 years ago to less than 5% now. I don't know if there are more overall hunters that are flooding the west, it's just social media telling more hunters that have never left their comfort zone that they can do it. This site is extremely guilty when it comes to that.

 

[ddd-shooter]

You are missing the point.

Overall, hunter numbers are WAY DOWN.

In 1980 there were 16.9 million licensed hunters in the US out of population of 226 million. That’s 7.5% of the total population.

Today there are 15.9 million licensed hunters out of 331 million. That’s 4.8% of US population.

That’s a drastic decease. Both in overall numbers and percentage of the population.

What we are seeing is a shift. More people are hunting in western states. Baby boomers got money to spend. People in their 30s got money to spend and ain’t waiting until they retire.

So, by the numbers, overall, total number of hunters has DECREASED in the US since the 1980s. That was the peak. There are 1 million fewer licensed hunters today than there were 40 years ago.

1 million in 43 years? How much huntable land have we lost in that same 43 years?

 

[displacedtexan]

You guys don’t understand math.

The number of hunters will always increase as the population increases. The overall percentage of the population of hunters may decrease, but, unless the percentage of hunters decreases at greater rate than the percentage increase in population, then the number will still go up. The population is not going to stop increasing. So you essentially are hoping to have exponential DECREASE in hunters.

I didn’t draw any tags this year. It’s sucks. But, guess what?? I’m still going elk hunting. And not OTC. Stop your whining and find a way to go hunt.

The math says otherwise.

Hunter numbers had been decreasing.

And the number is figured from tag sales... So how many people are now buying tags in multiple states?

 

[TXCO]

The math says otherwise.

Hunter numbers had been decreasing.

And the number is figured from tag sales... So how many people are now buying tags in multiple states?

Tag sales or total tags available to sell? Id be curious to see the total tags issued (non unlimited otc) over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TXCO]

I think a big part of the discussion is what happens to federal lands? The vast majority of voters in the US population dont use public lands the way hunters do. If the country continues to struggle with budgets, will the public vote to sell the land or turn it to local governments? What will the voting population think of public land hunting?

Ill give CPW credit for their hug a hunter and hug fisher campaign from a few years ago. I thought it was great for the city folks getting a free ride on the public land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billy Goat]

What about hunter success?


Maybe we should lobby to make rangefinders illegal. Reduce hunter success means they can issue more tags right?

 

[MuleyFever]

Peoples ability to travel and afford hunting multiple states, thats how. Not to mention how easy information is to find anymore on different states to hunt. There wasn't google in the 80's, that info came in the mail or sporting good stores in your home state.

Dont forget tag reductions across the western states.

 

[displacedtexan]

Tag sales or total tags available to sell? Id be curious to see the total tags issued (non unlimited otc) over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

License sales.

 

[displacedtexan]

I think a big part of the discussion is what happens to federal lands? The vast majority of voters in the US population dont use public lands the way hunters do. If the country continues to struggle with budgets, will the public vote to sell the land or turn it to local governments? What will the voting population think of public land hunting?

Ill give CPW credit for their hug a hunter and hug fisher campaign from a few years ago. I thought it was great for the city folks getting a free ride on the public land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The party generally viewed as supporting hunters is also the one generally against public lands.

84 million people a year hike on NF trails.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Of those 15 million hunters, I bet 33% are idiots that make poor decisions, post grip and grins, are disrespectful, and give hunters a bad name. May not be 33%, but its more than it should be…

 

[displacedtexan]

Of those 15 million hunters, I bet 33% are idiots that make poor decisions, post grip and grins, are disrespectful, and give hunters a bad name. May not be 33%, but its more than it should be…

I want to tell you that you're wrong.

But you're not.

At any rate, it's way too many.

 

[MuleyFever]

It sucks but hunting is in a very sensitive place. We need as many advocates for hunting as we can get. That may not just be in the form of more hunters. As hunters we can influence non-hunters. So as much as some like to take the "screw anti-hunters ill post what I want" approach, and then post tasteless photos, it will hurt hunting.

There are a few ways to influence the path of hunting. We can make the lifestyle known to those around us. This can help by showing our circle that hunters are not blood thirsty idiots. When a person can associate a friend as a hunter they are more likely to think hunting as ok.

We can also add hunters. While this reduces the opportunity for hunters individually at any given time it may increase the opportunity over time. If we add hunters we add to the effect that hunters can have in the way mentioned above.

With that comes limited opportunity leading to less interest. This, in my opinion, becomes a big issue. If today's youth can only hunt every few years its less likely that they will take up the passion of hunting and fight for its future. While this is more of a western issue it will have consequences. Although it is also an eastern issue when you look at access to hunting land. I know I moved west almost purely due to limited access to hunting land in the Midwest.

The fact is that hunting uses a limited resource and that will lead to reduced opportunities. Throw in habitat loss and other factors and hunters face an uphill battle. We will have to accept less opportunity as individuals to prolong opportunity into the future.

 

[realunlucky]

It sucks but hunting is in a very sensitive place. We need as many advocates for hunting as we can get. That may not just be in the form of more hunters. As hunters we can influence non-hunters. So as much as some like to take the "screw anti-hunters ill post what I want" approach, and then post tasteless photos, it will hurt hunting.

There are a few ways to influence the path of hunting. We can make the lifestyle known to those around us. This can help by showing our circle that hunters are not blood thirsty idiots. When a person can associate a friend as a hunter they are more likely to think hunting as ok.

We can also add hunters. While this reduces the opportunity for hunters individually at any given time it may increase the opportunity over time. If we add hunters we add to the effect that hunters can have in the way mentioned above.

With that comes limited opportunity leading to less interest. This, in my opinion, becomes a big issue. If today's youth can only hunt every few years its less likely that they will take up the passion of hunting and fight for its future. While this is more of a western issue it will have consequences. Although it is also an eastern issue when you look at access to hunting land. I know I moved west almost purely due to limited access to hunting land in the Midwest.

The fact is that hunting uses a limited resource and that will lead to reduced opportunities. Throw in habitat loss and other factors and hunters face an uphill battle. We will have to accept less opportunity as individuals to prolong opportunity into the future.

I put in for 8 states, devote three weeks of solid vacation to hunting?

Even I've started to wonder when the investment won't be worth the return.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[timekiller13]

The state of western hunting and the increased demand out west is a microscopic view.

The overall trend shows that hunter numbers are down and continue to decline. There are slight increases here and there, but, overall, hunters are becoming a smaller percentage of the population. And that’s not good.

Hunting in the eastern US is totally different now than it was even only 25 yrs ago when I first started hunting. Access to private land has declined rapidly due to development. What private land there is left available to hunt is quickly leased for high prices. Traditionally, eastern states don’t have as much public land available to hunt. NC has 2 million acres. While that seems like a ton, that pales in comparison to the 10s of millions of acres available in western states.

When I first started hunting in the late 1990s, public land was PACKED in NC. Opening day you could see 40-50 trucks parked at an access point on public that was less than 5,000 acres. I remember one morning walking into the woods with a line of hunters in front and behind me all heading up the mountain.

Now, I hardly see anyone. Same places I used to see 40 or 50 people I see 1 or 2. Deer hunting in the east has changed a lot because it’s a tradition of hanging out at lease/club house with your buddies, with some hunting thrown in. Those large leases and private tracts are fading away. The hunting clubs are dying off. I know a lot of younger hunters (20-35) who have told me they would rather spend a few thousand a year hunting deer/elk out west than spend a few thousand on a small land lease close to home. And these young people have money. My circle of people all are financially very well off. And they’ve seen their parents “wait until they retire” to do things and then their parents get sick or die and can’t enjoy life, so they enjoy it now before they retire.

I’m the same way. My mom and dad put off doing things all their life. Dad got cancer at 53 and mom got cancer at 55. That opened their eyes. They both retired early after that and now travel all they want. I’m 38 and I travel, I do multiple hunts per year, I buy what I want. I’m not waiting until I retire, I’m doing it all now.

 

[Northpark]

I put in for 8 states, devote three weeks of solid vacation to hunting?

Even I've started to wonder when the investment won't be worth the return.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I used to do that. Now I don’t. The investment wasn’t worth it for me. I have kids and the time away hunting hurt. The money hurt and the hunts became harder and harder to draw and the tags I got I started to get real crowded. Basically when it stopped being fun or accessible I stopped applying. I still apply in my home state and still hunt plenty. I also take all that money I was spending on app fees and save it for family hunting or fishing trips to do things like shoot hogs or go on a day of saltwater fishing. Just my take on the situation.