doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Not hunting anymore you say?

The biggest decline of hunting is in New England, Rocky Mountains and the Pacific States, as per the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
How come?

States with the most resident participants.
Texas
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Missouri

Instate birdwatchers
California!

State with the most armchair gun-pros
??????????

yOu tell us.

How come? JoE, I would check for states with the highest influx "carpetbaggers" from the Blue States.

It's certainly on the decline in Georgia. Every season fewer hunting licenses are sold, and the average age of the Georgia hunter increases (50 plus at the moment). I personally attribute this decline to the fact that hunting opportunities nowadays are so hard to come by. Only the most successful individuals who can afford land tracts, or those who have inherited a tract, or who have owned a large tract for a number of years have access to a place to hunt without leasing (most folks are a little shy of our public hunting areas). Every year land leases become more expensive because the amount of land that can be leased has decreased. Small game hunting always driven license sales in Georgia; and, with small game populations on the decline and few places to go, the younger crowd can easily find more exciting and less expensive things to do with their time. But if things don't change, fewer hunters equals fewer voters favorable to the rights and needs of hunters and wildlife. I often wonder if the likes of PETA will soon realize the majority of their objectives just thru attrition. In many ways I'm glad that I am unable to know the future; I've too many worries already.

The planet earth is going downhill, so enjoy the chase while you still can. Glad I was not born yesterday.

I believe topgun is absolutely correct.

"y0u tell us." Well j0e, I can tell you that Tennessee leads the nation in 'possum consumption.
Have you had yours today?

The areas where there was the largest decline in hunting have turned very liberal in their thinking and ways....I wasn't shocked mates!

Even Asgard fell. One of these days, one of these no downside metroethicists will get tired of watercress or soylent green and begin to sharpen a pointed stick in the fire if she can remember how to build one. I believe in responsibility to and for animals including, of course, myself.

jack

Have you been spending a lot of time with Crossedchisles? You're becoming increasingly difficult to understand.

I would venture to say that the downhill slippery slope began with the "New Deal" when liberties were traded for jobs, support for family and the like. Monies from the Northern populated part of the US were given in exchange for natural resources in other parts, creating jobs and the like. A chemical plant or nuclear plant entity would purchase a large tract of rural farming land and the urban sprawl would begin. When one can't pay the mortgage, or much less the taxes, on a tract of land via farming, the tract becomes residential or commerical from which subdivision and business spring up supporting the plants. The other side of the coin is management entities who consolidate large tracts of land and lease the hunting rights or sell the tract for a substantial profit to other entities. It's more about profit than the sport of hunting or the chase of the quarry. Now, heirs upon receiving property, don't even let the ink dry on the instrument before they are asking what do I have and how much can I sell it for. The same applies to guns and the like. There isn't a connection to the past, or they do not desire one. Last is the care of the elderly: much of what they acquired thru life was exchanged for payment of their care. And once again management entities can purchase the land from nursing homes or thru auctions and the vicious cycle continues. There appears to be a problem when at auction, the Nature Conservancy(which has a $ limit) is continually outbid by the private sector.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

And where did you get those stats ?

From a guy who installs ice boxes on people's front porch.

That's not what you said in your previOus post.

Unfortunately, your observations are likely to be deadly accurate.

But, if we'll all try to:

1. take a kid (or two) hunting whenever possible
2. support, or at the very least, not openly criticize, all legal forms of hunting, regardless of whether such form actually appeals to you or not
3. join and support as many conservation based hunting organizations as possible
4. conduct ourselves like gentlemen when going to, in, or returning from, the field

we might have a small chance of changing the outcome.

Like all things, there is a cycle. I like to believe we happen to in the down sequence. I think the economy is also a factor, most of the middle class are squeezing the last bit just to get by now days, hunting might not be in the top of agenda at the moment. However, I’ve noticed lots of people are buying birddogs in the recent years and most of them are first time hunting dog owners.

Nobody but noooo body can spell like XChisles!

jack

I know, I know j0j0, but he's seen alot of ice boxes with 'possums - nite crawlers and beer in 'em too.

Lowell....next time you go Possum hunting please don't strap them on the hood.

Lowell Glenthorne

Sober up or grow up which ever you need to do. Your post are getting worse than looking and listening to Hillary. And that take a lot to say that.

Ouch ol'chap!

We here on this BBS tend to focus more on bird/fowl hunting because that's what double guns were made to do. In Alabama, there are more deer and turkey hunters than ever. When I was in high school in the early 80s, most of the deer hunters were just us country boys, and even few of them were dedicated enough to become successful turkey hunters. Nowadays, it seems like the woods are full of city folks hunting both deer and turkeys. I used to have lots of places to hunt turkeys on land leased by deer clubs (even though I wasn't a member) because no one in the club hunted turkeys. That is not the case anymore. Mossy Oak and Browning logos are seen on the rear window of nearly every pickup truck and SUV around here. I think companies like those have marketed their products so successfully that a lot of the kids want to become hunters just so they can legitimately say they use the product, which justifies them placing the fashionable sticker on the back windshield! I cringe at the thought of being in the woods with folks like that, but I do recognize that they will vote on my side of the issue when it comes up, and am thankful for that.

I hope the good doctor from Kentucky can lighten up a little. You know.......reading Lowell Glenthorne is like doing the Ozark version of Sodoku. If you ever solve the puzzle and figure out the riddle, a great, warm feeling of total satisfaction will wash over you as a reward.

For three generations we have had liberals, anti-hunters and anti -gun people slowly educating our kids that guns are evil and hunting is no longer needed and cruel. It is a wonder that any kids these days want to hunt. For 40 years, going on 50 years the schools have been slowly working to educate our kids that hunting and shooting are throwbacks to days before civilazation came to the US. Frontiersmen and settlers hunted for food. We hunt to be rednecks and to be cruel to animals is the constant message.

Then you add the urban sprawl and many places which use to be easy to hunt have been built up. Like many here I can show you many places which use to hold a covey of quail which now have a house built up on it. Whole farms are now hundreds of houses. Or large scale farming and large scale chicken raising take entire farms out of game production. One farm, across from my fathers farm, now has 18 or 19 chicken houses on it and they raise just under 750,000 at a time. That is one farm which use to have three coveys of quail which can never be hunted again.

On top of that people are afraid of letting you hunt for fear that you will get hurt and sue them. Peopel are sue crazy. You have to feel for people who have freinds who have hunted on their farms for years and are told that they can not any longer because the farm owner is afraid that if the hunter gets hurt or hurts someone else that they will get sued.

I have boys I grew up with, who have hunted on my land for 30 years and I tell them to go ahead but I do not give them written permision. My lawyer says that way I might have a leg to stand on if I get sued since they did not have written permsion like the Game laws require. Several have been stoped, but the Gmae wardens know me and have accepted either my word on the phone or the hunters word that they had permission. Failing that I will give them written permision for any court that wants it, to get them off.

There was a case a few years ago where one hunter was walking in the woods, tripped over a fallen wire fenece and shot his buddy in the leg. The land owner got sued and lost because he did not warn them of the fence. The fact the he did not know about the long ago abandoned fence was no defense. I have land that I have walked a hundred times and am sure has many things, hazards maybe, that I have never spotted.

Many farmers lease their lands to deer hunters to get someone else to manage and monitor the hunting. It is far easier to say sorry you can not go hunting because those deer hunters have it all tied up than say no to a long time friend. Most of us are not real good at saying no. Makes us feel like we are not being nice. But if you have 90% of you retirement tied up in land and do not want to take a chance you just have to say no. I do not blame the farmer.

The AP story from last week did note that several Game departments are getting a financial squeeze because they are funded from ever decreasing hunting lisc. sales. truth is most states are more worried aobut decreased incoming money than the loss of hunters, habitat or loss of hunting in general. Maybe it is time for the tree huggers to have to buy a tree hugging lisc..

In Kalifornia there are three issues that I think are contributing to the decline:
1. The general anti-gun attitude and the difficulty and hassle of buying anything gun-related. Yes, you can still get just about anyuthing you really need, but the gun shops and general sporting goods stores that carry what we need are becoming scarce. There is a 10-day wait for long guns, and you are required to buy a gun lock or prove that you own a gun safe. FFL transfer fees generally run $85 to $125 in the L.A. area. etc., etc., etc.....
2. Rampant development of previously huntable land. The Coachella Valley was/is prime habitat for doves, quail, cottontails, but is now virtually all housing developments and golf courses, with even open desert being annexed by various cities. My favorite close (50 miles) dove/cottontail spot in Chino was annexed by the City of Chino four years ago, but with no signs or public notice. A group I know was dove hunting there and the police SWAT team showed up with full auto weapons and body armor, and had the hunters face down in the dirt while they sorted things out. Not pleasant.
3. Corporate farming has taken over the family operations in the southern half of the state, and that means all the brush (spelled "habitat") gets cleared and all the trees get cut to maximize crop yields, and then they post the ag areas "no hunting." So now we go to Arizona. That adds a couple hundred miles and a couple hundred dollars to each weekend excursion, and that adds up over the course of a season.

Lots of good details of the reasons for decline. But I think everyone of them are directly attributable to one thing; TOO MANY PEOPLE! That causes a lot of things to occur, including huge increases in urban and suburban population. These urban and suburban people then are influenced by those things many of your have mentioned in addition to the loss of hunting grounds.

I'm sorry to say, I see no realistic solution on the horizon to stem the decline of hunting in much of the US.

bOb thats called laughing so hard you wet yer pants.

...and here, KYJon says he doesn't read me!
Well ol'boy - seems you've found a space in my twaddle to bare your soul.
You owe me!

One of the main problems in Wisconsin is the lack of places to hunt. Nature Conservecy was mentioned earlier as having a dollar amount to bid and being outbid. I was a supporter of them for years, but alas no more. Here they Have bought acres of land with Stewardship (tax) funds and closed them to hunting or want to charge you a fee for a permit to hunt, and this is on lands they bought with my tax dollars. State has to be more active in obtaining and maintaining public lands for hunting.

Popplecop:

You've raised my eyebrows regarding the Nature Conservancy. I'm going to check and see if they restrict hunting on their properties in Alabama, with the exception of a tract purchased to protect an endangered species.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

The USFWS collects a lot of data from the states and from surveys. One of the things they attempt to do, is place a dollar amount on hunting and fishing. They issue these reports every 5 years.

Here are some links:

2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation State overview
http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/State_overview01.pdf

PRELIMINARY STATE DATA FROM 2006 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FISHING, HUNTING AND WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION SURVEY AVAILABLE
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/WO27.htm

2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation State overview
http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006_state.pdf

These reports are your tax dollars at work.

Pete

I believe Chuck came closest to it, but stopped a little short.

It's a loss of cultural identity = tradition. With the growing and merging world population it's inevitable and irreversible. Cultures only survive in isolation and ours is well on it's way to disappearing. We annihilated a bunch of cultures in a couple of centuries past; ours will be absorbed and diluted beyond recognition in a few decades hence.

National Geographic discovers an isolated tribe of naked hunter gatherers....the next generation is seen wearing Nikes and drinking Pepsi.... the third generation has forgotten how to hunt for grubs in rotten logs.

His brother stays and works the farm, but John Boy marries Tiffany from the city and moves to the burbs. Tiffany doesn't like guns the two of them raise the kids on video games, etc, etc.

Subsitence hunting became unnecessary and was replaced by market hunting which became unsustainable/unjustifiable and was succeeded by sport hunting which is becoming unfathomable and will become reprehensible and soon extinct.

In the meantime, we killers of animals like to point fingers at our brethren, saying MY way of killing is OK, YOUR way of killing is unethical......when in fact, shooting a pheasant is no more "justifiable" than killing a whale.

Funny, but, in my humble experience, the complaint about lack of land on which to pursue game is not the problem at all, at least not here. Minnesota has such an abundance of WMAs (they add more every year) state forests, tax forfeited lands, school trust lands and what have you, that land isn't the issue.
But, one fact is, and it is ugly. Single parent families are the norm here, and the truth is simply that single parent family is a nice, politically correct way to say kids being raised by a single woman. My Mom and Dad are still married, but, my Mom never hunted, and had it not been for my Dad, I wouldn't have, either.
I don't know what the percentage of single moms that try to get their kids out hunting is, but, my money says that it is less than one percentage point of the total. I know Dads that have sold hunting and fishing gear to make ends meet after a divorce. So goes another opportunity.
I know kids that hunt today. Their mothers had nothing to do with it. I haven't the slightest idea how to change that fact.
Best,
Ted

Cultural change, land use change, poitical change, demographic shifts, the dilution of 18th Century values about citizenship, or the general decline of personal liberty in exchange for economic or social securities or religo-political-fanatic causes, are all quick glosses on the subject.

However, humans vastly overpopulate, wear things out, overuse them, neglect stewardship in exchange for quick fixes and so...I suspect that the next REALLY good hunting is awaiting somewhere out in the solar system, provided we don't get hunted here.;~`)

In the meantime I'll take a good laugh when the opportunity presents, and hunt with my dogs till the paramedics haul my wornout carcass from a canoe or blind or tree stump or a swale of grass on a sunny hillside with a view.

Wish I had a fix or cure for the ills of us sportsman and society in general, but don't feel like founding another danged religion or fostering a POS cluster of politicians in an attempt to remedy the future.

Que sera, sera...

That's an interesting observation, Ted. Never thought of it that way. Married couples are in the minority in Canada, according to Statistics Canada 2006 census data, and there are more childless couples than ones with youngsters.

Forty-four per cent of young adults aged 20 to 29 are still living in the comfortable parental home. The kids won't leave, then they won't get married, and the in-laws are moving in in droves. Not my family profile, thank Zeus.

The American Spirit is, and always has been - own and you shall be free.
Bitching is so European, wouldn't you say.
Land is out there, be it a small woodlot, or vast acreage.
If you are worried about the future of hunting - get your cash out.
If not, you'll be at the mercy of whatever comes along.
Make your own rules for a change.

Lowell, I am lucky and blessed to have been able to do just what you've suggested and normally hunt on my own dirt. However, growing up I hunted almost anywhere I wanted around here, traveling by bicycle with a .22 or a shotgun or a Brit .303 jungle carbine across the handle bars. That is what is not possible anymore.

Was I more free then or now? I think then. And I don't know how to go back...Geo

Universities have a significant impact.

My three kids all starting shooting early in life. In their teens, they hunted and worked rifle matches at our club, scoring and changing targets. Growing up, they ate wild game on our dinner table.

All three went to large midwestern state universities, and got degrees in engineering or finance. At college, they were all turned into lefties and liberals. While not anti-gun (at least around me) none of them want any of the guns I have offered to them, they don't shoot anymore, and never hunt. To humor me, they will sometime accompany me to the skeet range, and shoot a round or so - but minimal interest.

Two of them extensively hike, camp, canoe, etc. but without any firearms.

They are still very good people, and I'm proud of their many accomplishments -- but no more hunting!

JERRY

I have to disagree about land. Yes, land is still out there that has habitat. The difficulty is for a urban/suburban dweller to find either public land to hunt or getting permission to hunt the every increasing private lands. How many landowners do you suppose will allow a person they've never seen before to hunt their land? As a kid in MT, it was a very high percentage chance that if you knocked on a rancher's door, you'd get access to hunt. Today, it's much different IMO.

Jerry, generally speaking, I think our younger generation is comprised of better people, lefties, liberals or conservatives.

It's true that more young adults than in our time are more interested in recreational pursuits other than hunting.

I don't think we've set good examples. Many of my friends simply gave up because they no longer felt safe in the woods---and for good reasons.

Our lives are not the worse for it. Our sons and daughters made their choices without allowing us to do their thinking for them.

I think they made good choices. It's pretty near over, Jerry. We saw the best of it.

I used to walk down to the Andover (CT) Elementary School with a .22-250 around 7AM, before buses arrived in the AM. I'd lay down on the playground steps and shoot woodchucks while the principal watched. I'd also walk up and down the road, sometimes carrying chucks (trophies) home from local hayfields. Bringing my Dad's A5 to school on the bus, I'd later go home with a friend on a different bus for after-school grousing. This was completely normal. The A5 stayed in the principal's office, of course, during school hours.

I sometimes imagine the repercussions should some kid try to pull that off in that locale today.

I was more free then, too. And I don't see a way back, either. I've moved my family to the outer edges of the empire, as determined by economic feasibility for my occupation. I can't see where I can go when this area is eventually ruined and wussified.

Sam

Wow! That caught my attention! Can you provide more details? I have not been aware of any Nature Conservancy purchases which subsequently required a fee for hunting!

I find access here to be pretty good... See next post.

Being from a State on this list, I can generally believe that access is a key (also culture, youth participation, and CERTAINLY, too many people). Here, in Wisconsin, about 1/6 of the land is in public ownership and something more than a third more than that in private ownership with public access. While this is not evenly distributed across the state, there is lot's of public access for hunting.

In addition to public lands, much commercial/industrial forest land in the Northern part of the State receives favorable tax treatment but must permit access for hunting and fishing although vehicles can be prohibited (thankfully).

In the southern areas where pheasants dominate, private farms land is nominally leased for hunting access with some restrictions related to harvest times. All my pheasant hunting is done on such properties which tend to have less pressure than true 'public hunting grounds". Other states have similar "walk in' programs adminstered by the state.

Hunting access is not as free and easy as it was when I was a kid in the North and you just walked outside and went hunting almost anywhere, but the opportunities are still plentiful.

Public perception has certainly changed! When I was going to college here in Wisconsin, we would climb on a City bus with a shotgun, take the bus to the outskirts and then hitch-hike to a hunting ares. I hate to think of what would happen if anyone tried that NOW.

Chuck, I know why its hard to get access these days.
In returning a favor, I took a couple of guys squirrel hunting.
Well, they had such fun that the following week they decided to go without me. Not only did they not get permission to hunt my land, they got caught on my neighbor's property.
Nobody but family these days.

Wonder how far you'd get hitch hiking with a shotgun today....

Lowell is right....it's hard to gain access because of stories like he just wrote.
To hold all hunters acountable for a couple of slobs actions is not right....but that's how it goes.

Did you develop this mentality Lowell or did it just come natural to you ?

Roy;
Back in the 60s I took my J C Higgins 16ga bolt action to high school shop class to make a new stock for it...I lived in Milwaukee and took the gun on the city bus, cross town, and walked 3 more blocks to the school and stored it in my locker until shop class...when I took it to class the first thing I did was remove the action from the stock and the teacher stored it in a locked bin unless I needed it for fitting...when finished I reassembled the gun and took it home the same way....dont think it would work that way today?

Just kind of came by it j0e!
When I first bought the place I did have some problems with trespassing and poaching - but not so much lately
Atv/dirtbike riders, horseback riders and beer parties - so not just hunters.
You learn very early on to keep an eye out, and to get tough with these guys when you find them.
If not, they'll be back with their friends for more fun 'n games on your place.

I've had problems, too. About half my acreage is posted due to proximity to house and animals, and so that I have a private area to take my 11 year old. On the other areas this past year we were treated to empty beer bottles, ruts in fields running not 50 feet parallel to a perfectly good gravel road that somehow didn't suit. We had people stopping in front of the house to poach deer across the street from vehicles - my wife ran out and disrupted the activity. I have no great wish to involve law enforcement; I usually just verbally ream out a new orifice on those I find where they should not be. My wife has about had it, and is pressuring me to post everything.

Lowell has a valid point.

Sam

One of the many reasons why Texas is at the top of the list:

OUTDOORS: MIKE LEGGETT
http://www.statesman.com/
Sunday, September 02, 2007

Advocate Says Hunting Traditions are in Jeopardy - Ignorance About Landowners' Liability is Keeping Some from Opening Their Land to Others

Legal liability, dead nubbin bucks, trash on the trail, hippies dancing naked in the tank. Those are just a few of the reasons we hear, and have always heard, that private landowners are reluctant to allow more public access to hunting and wildlife-related activities on their ranches.

Liability, in fact, was the major obstacle Texas Parks and Wildlife commissioners cited recently when they discussed department plans to further develop a Web page to aid hikers, birders, hunters and others in finding outlets for their activities. Expanded public hunting is one of the major goals, commissioners said.

David Langford served for years as executive director of the Texas Wildlife Association http://www.texas-wildlife.org/
He lobbied for and helped achieve liability protection for private landowners and the state. Langford's family owns land in South Texas, so he knows the importance of hunting and of protecting landowners, and he believes that protection's already in place.

"We're supposed to be preserving hunting," Langford said by phone from his South Texas ranch. "The first step is this misconception about liability."

Langford said he was involved in helping pass legislation that capped a landowners' liability at $1 million, as long as they weren't charging more than $5,000 for a hunt.

Public hunters wouldn't be paying anywhere near that amount, Langford said, so that argument against more public access just doesn't hold up.

"It's about $400 a year for (insurance to cover a $1 million payout). If you've got 40 deer to kill, that's just $10 a deer. Everybody can afford that," he said. "There's just not knowledge about liability. There's ignorance, and that's hurting us in terms of hunting and nature tourism, too."

Langford said TWA, which touts itself as the organization speaking for thousands of landowners who control 35 million acres of Texas hunting land, has to take the initiative in trying to match public hunters, hikers and birders with willing landowners. Many of those same ranches already are dealing with an overabundance of deer, too, which means there should be some reasonable way to make an expanded public hunting and public access program work for Texas.

It would be naive, of course, to expect that all ranches in the state will ever take part in any kind of public hunting exercise. A landowner has a right to choose, and that's as it should be. But it's just as naive to believe that landowners, all Texans really, don't have a responsibility to history and to making that history available and important to future generations.

"There are people right now who were born after I went to work for TWA, and a trip to the outdoors for them is going to the zoo," Langford said. "And those people are going to vote. We need to a way to make sure they know about our hunting traditions and how important they are to all of us."

Langford said he believes that hunting itself is in danger if Texans who don't hunt aren't allowed access to the outdoors to absorb some of the hunting tradition and to pursue their own nature tourism activities.

"That tradition is in jeopardy," Langford said.

Lowell!
In reference to what you said earlier,you've GOT to be more careful when comparing to Hilary. I'll betcha anyone on this forum has better gams than " Ol'Piano Legs", and it's just not fair!!(to them).
With Utmost Sincerity
Rick

I don't see one answer to all the problems with gaining access these days. I understand the landowners being skeptical at best and flat out pissed in some cases. And, I can tell you from experience that it's darn hard to find private landowners that will allow a stranger on it these days.

Too many people IMO. With more people you have more likelyhood of encountering dweebs. Didn't happen very often when we had half the people. Less stircrazy people I suppose.

I have appreciated this thread; both the humor and the insight.
Here in Alberta we have millions of acres of Provincially owned land open to hunting - yet our hunting fraternity has shrunk in size year by year and the age of the hunters has increased year by year. Access to private land upon request is often but not always granted. We have an abundance and diversity of wildlife, liberal seasons, ready access for most and generous bag limits. The quality of hunting is 'superb'. Today our Provincial Government has announced "Provincial Hunting Day" to be celebrated annualy on September 22nd. I have not yet heard of any negative response although it is expected. I applaud our Government for taking such action. Hunting is an inherent component of my life. I would be much poorer if I was by health, circumstance or legislation deprived of participating. Promotion of the activity as healthy, wholesome and proper we will gain better public acceptance however we are ill prepared to answer the criticism of the antis who tend to be more articulate and frankly desparately committed to the cause of abolishing hunting as a recreational activity. In general we need to better prepare our response. Still this is a GOOD day in Alberta one of diamonds and not stones.

I too share the concern about drop in hunter numbers, although around here you would never know- you can stand in line for 15 minutes to buy a hunting license. But, this is Texas, and like the commercial says, we are a "whole other country"...

If the antis can turn hunting into a "rich mans sport", then we lose the end game. How to fight?

1) make sure there is access to good quality, huntable land for all who wish to participate. Either public land, or private land leased by the state. This require legislation, lobbying, letter writing.

2) raise kids who think "out door sports" when recreation opportunities do crop up. Hunting fishing shooting. This can be hard, although I must say my oldest daughter is more concerned about "gun fit" than she is "prom dress" fit. I hope to keep it that way.

3) encourage and educate kids about hunting and the outdoors- perhaps through school curricula. If they dont become huinters, at least they wont swallow hook line and sinker the anti shibboleth "hunting is bad".

A few ideas - not exhaustive.

Regards

GKT

I believe the loss of hunters (and fishermen) is a combination of all the above factors. But a factor I didn't consider is in this rather amazing USFWS demographic study of intiating kids into hunting and fishing. The study includes the reasons for dropping out of hunting/fishing after initiation.

The top reason cited for dropping out is lack of time. Anybody with kids will understand.

http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2001_recruitment.pdf
note - the above link is rather big PDF file.

Today's endless procession of organized children's activities is very different from when we grew up. How many of your kids leave the house with a baseball mitt on their bicycle hoping to find a pcikup game at the local field, and say "I'll be back before dinner". Darn few.
In this day of organized everything, we need to "organize" the hunting/shooting trips with the same fascist fervor of the Soccer Schedulers.

However, the kids are becoming armchair hunters. How many kids hunt on the internet? Play hunting games?

I agree with Mr. Tag. The hunting minority is also the ageing baby boomers. We need to recruit our kids into hunting, fishing, and trapping. Trade in the kid's I-pod and video games for a shotgun and fishing rod, and get them off the couch and outside instead of heading for a life of obesity, diabetes, and an early death. No one can effectively speak for conservation and traditions from their armchair.

Opportunity is also key to the future of hunting. Lots of people don't hunt anymore because it is getting harder to get access. A lot of this is due to changing attitudes about hunting, landowner liability, and bad behavior by a few hunters who ruin it for eveyone else. We as hunters, need to be courteous to landowners (even if you are a local and never felt you had to ask, ask the landowners anyways). We also need to be organized and join a local fish and game club or national organization.

Lastly, your state fish and game departments and federal agencies are experiencing a lot of turnover in the ranks as the older biologists are retiring. In many instances, those positions are being cut due to losses in license sales or are being filled by conservation biologists, not fish and game biologists. What's the difference? Conservation biologists care more about ecological issues and less about land management and wildlife habitat that help support our fish and game populations. Their philosophy is more in line with The Nature Conservancy rather than habitat management. Where is this coming from? The Nature Conservancy for sure, but it's also coming from our state universities and colleges who are abandoning fish and wildlife curriculum and starting up degree programs in conservation biology. These programs are attractive to students who have never hunted or fished in their lives,and may even have a philosophical or ethical problem with these activities. Wanna rub some salt in that wound? As more and more positions in state and federal management agencies are filled with these people, guess who is paying for their salaries? You. That's right - your license dollars, duck stamp, and habitat stamp dollars are paying the salaries for people who have no intention of managing habitat. Therefore, get more involved with these agencies and demand some accountability on habitat management programs. It's your money.

My wife and I run a B&B for bird hunters here in NW Kansas. There are thousands of acres to hunt on at no fee, but we still see a decline in hunters. I have had cancellations for this season, reason given, Cost of getting here. With fuel prices so high and going higher, a lot of folks either cant afford it,or just balk at feeding the bloated oil company profits. I feel fortunate that I can walk out the door, and hunt quail pheasants and prairie chickens. huntersbb.com

I wouldn't worry too much, as hunting and collecting tends to be a older chaps chase. In my teens I shot/hunted, then came college, marriage, jobs, children and a whole host of other things.
No time then, nor money for the finer pursuits - until now!

Lowell
Same lifestyle, except I did't amass enuf $$$ to buy to buy the farm (so to speak), so I retired to far northern Wi where there is plenty of land to hunt. Only problem being, it is too rugged for my worn out body. Not like the more pastoral areas I hunted as a child.
Mike B.

It looks like a wave of anti-hunting propaganda (AHP for short) has a delayed effect, hitting hardest about 20 years since it was launched. Yet, after a while, it stops being "news", and is bring gradually dropped.

As it happens, however, a curious counter-effect takes place. Before AHP, hunting was percieved by the public as norm, during AHP non-hunting is perceived as something new and juicing, a sort of revolutionary thinking, a fashion, attractive for the newness sake alone.

After AHP, when passions have settled, non-hunting is the norm in the general public's eye. This, however, makes hunting attractive again, hunting means defying the norm, just as non-hunting used to be. As a result, there are grounds for another rise in interest towards hunting.

I say "grounds" because I believe a surge to hunt is a genetic thing, it might be enhanced or suppressed by social/cultural beliefs (myths perhaps is a better word), but initially you either have it or haven't. And if it's inside, it will find its way out, sooner or later.

Here's an example. When I was starting to hunt, about 1990, I didn't know anyone my age that hunted. Even kids from families with longtime hunting traditions were mostly interested in the miraculous new entertainments like VCRs. This possibly resulted from the AHP wave, which started in the early 70s, and was possibly worse tan in the rest of the world, because it was the governments's policy, and with zero free press the pro-hunting groups hadn't a chance to voice their opinion.

At that time it looked like hunting would be dead in a decade or so. But the decade passed, and we witnessed a resurgence of interest towards hunting. Each year more and more kids and middle-aged guys are saying "I'm not sure I'm gonna like hunting, but I sure wanna try!". At least, that's what I see. And, anti-hunting bits have long since made the national news. But a very positive coverage of President Putin's hunting trip just did.

I hope that the ill-structered and incoherent text above will serve as proof that hunting will come pon top again, some day.