Opinion On New Hunters

[Hnthrdr]

Less! Like 50-75% of the current levels. Here is my reasoning. Would guys be more passionate and protective if they are involved or if we get another 10 million western hunters and you get a tag 1x every 5-6 years, how hard are those guys going to fight? We will never have a ballot box majority and if we did, almost none of us here would get to hunt on a regular basis unless we were land owners with enough land for private tags… that is a fact Jack

 

[Chrisamx]

There is strength in numbers. there really haven't been increases in hunters, however, we have seen the decreases in opportunities. I'll cite the following from widlifeforall:

"In recent decades the number of hunters and anglers in the U.S. has declined both in actual numbers and as a percentage of the total U.S. population, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records of annual hunting and fishing license sales from all states (including U.S. territories and Washington, D.C.) and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Since 1960, the actual number of hunters increased until peaking at 16.7 million in 1982, after which it began to decline. The numbers started to climb again after 2010 but remain below the 1982 peak. In 2022 there were 15.9 million hunters in the U.S.

In relative numbers, the percentage of the U.S. population that hunts has been on a steady decline since at least 1960, when there were 14 million hunters, representing 7.7 percent of the total U.S. population of 180.7 million people. In 2022, hunters represented only 4.8 percent of the U.S. population. Even at the 1982 peak, hunters only represented 7.2 percent of the U.S. population."

On the other hand, hunting tags can be manipulated to maximize state revenue, which is an area that hunters should look at more closely when trying to understand losses in hunting opportunities.

 

[Rich M]

There is strength in numbers. there really haven't been increases in hunters, however, we have seen the decreases in opportunities. I'll cite the following from widlifeforall:

"In recent decades the number of hunters and anglers in the U.S. has declined both in actual numbers and as a percentage of the total U.S. population, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records of annual hunting and fishing license sales from all states (including U.S. territories and Washington, D.C.) and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Since 1960, the actual number of hunters increased until peaking at 16.7 million in 1982, after which it began to decline. The numbers started to climb again after 2010 but remain below the 1982 peak. In 2022 there were 15.9 million hunters in the U.S.

In relative numbers, the percentage of the U.S. population that hunts has been on a steady decline since at least 1960, when there were 14 million hunters, representing 7.7 percent of the total U.S. population of 180.7 million people. In 2022, hunters represented only 4.8 percent of the U.S. population. Even at the 1982 peak, hunters only represented 7.2 percent of the U.S. population."

On the other hand, hunting tags can be manipulated to maximize state revenue, which is an area that hunters should look at more closely when trying to understand losses in hunting opportunities.

You are still stuffing 10# of crap in a 5# bag.

Modern hunting pretty much sucks due to too many hunters on what little lands we can hunt.

 

[Cherokeeguide]

It’s not that we have more hunters overall, what has occurred is the reduction of the casual pastime hunter that is being replaced by the more committed hobby/lifestyle hunter.

That might be true in Pennsylvania. It isn't true in mule deer country and never has been.

You're generally not hunting mule deer country without real low-range, four-wheel drive capability and without an investment in camping / backpacking gear. The most expensive piece of equipment that a hunter in mule deer country has isn't a firearm. It is the vehicle needed to make full use of the firearm. That's nothing new. Mule deer hunting has always been like that.

My dad bought a new Ford Bronco in 1973. He checked every option box and it cost him as much as a new 454 Corvette would have. That was a lot of money to spend on a vehicle he wouldn't have bought if he didn't hunt and fish and didn't use unless his travel plans required low range, four wheel drive capability. When you're spending that kind of money on a piece of hunting equipment, which is what something like a Bronco is to a hunter in mule deer country, you tend to want to get the most use out of it that you can in order to justify the expense.

I have owned some kind of low-range, four-wheel drive vehicle since buying a new Suzuki Samurai in 1986 and I wouldn't have owned a single one of them if I didn't hunt and fish in mule deer country.

I shot my first whitetail in 2007. I loaded up my Mustang GT and drove 15 minutes on paved roads to the parking lot of a walk-in Public Hunting Area. I filled my doe tag with a fifteen yard shot. Her and I were home by lunch time. That night, I slept in my own bed at home. I got up the next morning and fille my buck tag with a 20 yard shot and I was home before lunchtime with it, too.. If I could legally shoot my pistol where I live inside of Tulsa city limits, I could skip the drive to the hunting area. I have deer in my back yard almost every morning. Last night, a half-dozen walked down the residential street, which dead-ends at a greenbelt, and leads to another greenbelt at a T-intersection on the opposite end.

I suppose anybody can take anything casually, but it seems to me that whitetail whacking lends itself to casual hunting in a way that hunting in mule deer country does not.

 

[schroej]

We don't necessarily need more hunters, but we need  better hunters. By better, I mean better ambassadors of the sport. Yes, there are a vocal group of anti-hunters out there, but we will never overpower them at the ballot box if we rely on hunters alone. Hunters will never be a huge fraction of the population again. But, the majority of people are non-hunters who simply never even think about hunting. We need  them on our side.
Like others have mentioned earlier, that means emphasizing the good elements of hunting (communion with nature, ethical harvest, full use of meat, etc.) while reducing the bad elements. There is so much distasteful and ethically questionable hunting content online, and we need less of that.

And at the risk of being "woke", we need to do better to make hunting seem less like a white boys club. Demographics are changing - that's a fact - and the more representation we have, the better. Why would a Latina woman, for example, care to vote for a pro-hunting agenda at the ballot box when she doesnt know or see anyone in the hunting community that looks like her? Ditto for any other minority group.