Shawnee
member
Fewer hunters take to the woods nationwide
Loss of license revenue worries wildlife agencies
Monday, September 3, 2007 3:25 AM
By David Crary
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.
New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 or older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.
The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.
"To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."
Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome.
"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.
Compounding the problem, the number of Americans who fish also has dropped sharply -- down 15 percent, from 35.2 million in 1996 to 30 million in 2006, according to the latest version of a survey that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts every five years.
Most of the 50 state wildlife agencies rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund.
In New Hampshire, only multiple fee increases -- which produced numerous complaints -- have enabled the Fish and Game Department to keep revenues robust. Its list of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, said department spokeswoman Judy Stokes.
"We hear concerns about land access," Stokes said. "People grew up hunting -- you went out with your family, your uncle. And now you go back, and there's a shopping plaza or a housing development. Some of your favorite places just aren't available anymore."
National hunting expert Mark Damian Duda, executive director of the Virginia-based research firm Responsive Management, says America's increasingly urban and suburban culture makes it less friendly toward the pastime.
"You don't just get up and go hunting one day -- your father or father-type figure has to have hunted," Duda said. "In a rural environment, where your friends and family hunt, you feel comfortable with guns, you feel comfortable with killing an animal."
Indeed, hunting remains vibrant in many rural states -- 19 percent of residents 16 or older hunted last year in Montana and 17 percent in North Dakota, compared with 1 percent in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nationally, 5 percent of the 16-or-older population hunted in 2006, down from 7 percent in 1996.
As their ranks dwindle, hunters are far from unified. The often big-spending, wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, have different priorities from duck hunters frequenting close-to-home wetlands.
One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.
"The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous."
Political support for hunting remains strong.
Last month, President Bush ordered all federal agencies that manage public lands to look for more room for hunting.
Public support for hunting also is high, in part because huge deer populations have become a nuisance in many areas. Duda's surveys indicate less than 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting, although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals denounce it as cruel.
The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities compared with $75 billion spent by hunters and anglers.
"The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing," said Andrew Page of the society. "I suspect the day will come when a presidential candidate goes to a local humane society to adopt a homeless animal, rather than go the field and pose as hunter with a gun."
Loss of license revenue worries wildlife agencies
Monday, September 3, 2007 3:25 AM
By David Crary
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.
New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 or older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.
The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.
"To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."
Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome.
"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.
Compounding the problem, the number of Americans who fish also has dropped sharply -- down 15 percent, from 35.2 million in 1996 to 30 million in 2006, according to the latest version of a survey that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts every five years.
Most of the 50 state wildlife agencies rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund.
In New Hampshire, only multiple fee increases -- which produced numerous complaints -- have enabled the Fish and Game Department to keep revenues robust. Its list of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, said department spokeswoman Judy Stokes.
"We hear concerns about land access," Stokes said. "People grew up hunting -- you went out with your family, your uncle. And now you go back, and there's a shopping plaza or a housing development. Some of your favorite places just aren't available anymore."
National hunting expert Mark Damian Duda, executive director of the Virginia-based research firm Responsive Management, says America's increasingly urban and suburban culture makes it less friendly toward the pastime.
"You don't just get up and go hunting one day -- your father or father-type figure has to have hunted," Duda said. "In a rural environment, where your friends and family hunt, you feel comfortable with guns, you feel comfortable with killing an animal."
Indeed, hunting remains vibrant in many rural states -- 19 percent of residents 16 or older hunted last year in Montana and 17 percent in North Dakota, compared with 1 percent in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nationally, 5 percent of the 16-or-older population hunted in 2006, down from 7 percent in 1996.
As their ranks dwindle, hunters are far from unified. The often big-spending, wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, have different priorities from duck hunters frequenting close-to-home wetlands.
One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.
"The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous."
Political support for hunting remains strong.
Last month, President Bush ordered all federal agencies that manage public lands to look for more room for hunting.
Public support for hunting also is high, in part because huge deer populations have become a nuisance in many areas. Duda's surveys indicate less than 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting, although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals denounce it as cruel.
The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities compared with $75 billion spent by hunters and anglers.
"The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing," said Andrew Page of the society. "I suspect the day will come when a presidential candidate goes to a local humane society to adopt a homeless animal, rather than go the field and pose as hunter with a gun."
Last time I heard someone say that, I told them to allow hunters on their property or get in their BMW and go mow a few of them down.
