Good article from Delta Waterfowl

The Vanishing Hunter, Part I

Hunting Participation Continues Long-Term Retreat

Hunter numbers are the lowest they've been since Nixon's first term. Waterfowl hunting has fallen 27 percent since 2001, putting conservation funding at risk. Can the declines be reversed? A look beyond the numbers.

By Dan Nelson
Editor

Outdoor stories rarely make national news, but this one wouldn't go away. The headlines said it all—Fewer Americans Hunting and Fishing...Waterfowl Hunters a Vanishing Breed...The Elusive Hunter.

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation confirmed the gloomy headlines: Hunter numbers slumped to 12.5 million, the lowest they've been since 1970; waterfowling took the biggest hit, falling 27 percent since 2001, and even fishermen were jumping ship with a surprising 12 percent drop from the previous survey.

If there was a silver lining in the press coverage, it was this: For perhaps the first time ever, the mainstream media—including the "liberal press" sportsmen love to vilify—acknowledged hunters as an irreplaceable force for conservation.

"The great irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them," wrote Robert M. Poole in a National Geographic article titled Hunters—For Love of the Land. "The nation's 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management."

Writers across the country echoed Poole's sentiments, recognizing hunters' support of conservation through their purchase of licenses and stamps, the excise taxes they pay on equipment, and their membership in non-profit organizations. Some pointed out hunting's role in keeping wildlife populations in check.

That the media and general public are finally giving consumptive users their just due is little consolation, however, given the survey's findings, which suggest the stream of conservation dollars will slow to a trickle unless wildlife interests can find a way to shore up participation.If the goal is clearly defined, consensus about how to achieve it—or even what caused the decline in the first place—remains elusive. One thing is certain: The downturn in hunting participation is far too complex an issue to be explained in eight-second sound bites and too critically important to be addressed with superficial fixes.

The job begins by looking beyond the headlines and examining the demographic and social factors that contributed to the decline. One of the best sources for that information is a largely overlooked 40-page addendum to the national survey called Fish and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005 written by Jerry Leonard, an economist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Leonard's work examines trends in the two factors that determine hunting participation—recruitment of new hunters and retention of existing hunters.

Demographics

The Boomer Bubble

Often lost in the hand-wringing over outdoor participation is the impact of baby boomers, those 44- to 62-year-olds who for decades have constituted the bulk of the hunting and angling population.

The birth rate nearly doubled after World War II and remained robust through the 1964 when the last of the 80 million boomers were born. One wag called it, "the biggest, boomiest boom ever known in history", and by the time it ended, 4 out of 10 Americans were under the age of 20.

To understand the effect baby boomers had on the population, picture a rattlesnake swallowing a rabbit. That rattler was long and lean before it ate the rabbit and will be long and lean after the rabbit is digested, but for now there's a noticeable bulge passing through its body.

The hunting population swelled in much the same way as the boomer babies came of age. Socio-economic conditions were more conducive to outdoor activities in the 1960s and ‘70s than they are today, and the largest age group the country had ever known embraced hunting at an unprecedented rate.

By 1980, the first year the entire generation shows up in the survey, 10 million of the country's 17 million hunters—fully 58 percent—were boomers. They continued to comprise around 55 percent of the hunting population in the 1991 and 2001 surveys.

In Wall Street parlance, the boomer generation was a bubble, and bubbles invariably burst. Boomers aren't babies anymore, and many have already phased out of hunting, but the worst of the correction is yet to come. Leonard's retention curve shows the drop-out rate accelerates after age 45, which means more boomers—who even today make up 44 percent of the hunting population—will soon be hanging up their guns for good.

Unless...

Baby boomers are healthier and wealthier than previous generations, and Leonard says it's possible the sixty-is-the-new-forty mentality could warp his retention curve. "There certainly is the potential for them to remain active well beyond the age where they once would have stopped," he says.

Still, it's inevitable all the boomers will eventually quit hunting. "The retention curve always starts at 100 percent and always goes to zero," Leonard notes.

Just as their retirement will put a strain on social security, the baby boom generation's departure will mean fewer hunters to support conservation.

Some pundits correctly argue that if boomers are passing through the hourglass, we have no choice but to increase the replacement rate. Given the dramatic social and demographic changes the country has undergone the last 40 years, refilling the hourglass will be easier said than done. One of the most important of those changes, some experts say, is urbanization.

Down on the Farm

Back in 1918, when "How you gonna keep ‘em, down on the farm?" was a popular song, half the country was rural. Today, 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in big cities, and this shift is a major reason hunting participation is dwindling.

"Urbanization is the driving force behind the decline in hunter numbers," says Mark Damian Duda of Responsive Management, a research firm specializing in outdoor recreation. "Study after study shows that urbanization is ‘the' factor, and all other things are subsets."

The survey confirms that urban areas account for 77 percent of the 16 and older population but only 45 percent of all hunters.

Says Leonard: "There's no doubt the bulk of the decline from 1990 to 2005 takes place in urban areas." Leonard's analysis shows the decline in the hunting initiation rate was five times higher in urban areas and the decline in the retention rate among urban hunters is twice what it is in rural areas.

Two of the most rural of the nine geographic regions had the highest initiation rates—16 percent in the East South Central and 15 percent in the West North Central. The worst initiation rates were in the New England (3 percent) and Pacific (4 percent) regions.

"The West North Central has historically had the highest percent of individuals 16 years of age or older who participate in hunting," wrote Leonard of the WNC. "Given their recruitment has not declined at as great a rate as other regions, this trend will likely continue."

Urbanites have much lower recruitment and retention rates than rural folks, but there's a catch. Leonard found that initiation and retention rates in the suburbs of big cities changed only slightly from 1995 to 2005. "The most urban of the urban residents is where we're seeing the biggest declines," he says. Outside the central city, hunting seems to be holding its own.

If urbanization is the driving force behind declining hunter numbers, why are initiation and recruitment rates fairly stable in the suburbs and exurbs? To find the answer, Leonard peeled away more layers of the demographic onion.

Money Matters

High recruitment and retention rates of hunters tend to be associated with higher income levels, Leonard learned. The 1995-to-2005 decline in the hunting initiation rate was dramatic for children living in households with incomes of under $40,000, but there was virtually no change in households with $40,000 to $99,999 incomes.

The retention rate shows basically the same sensitivity to income levels, dropping three to five times faster in households with lower incomes than in those with incomes more than $40,000.

Leonard says that since 1995, the decline in children being exposed to hunting has been the largest in lower-income households. "What the chart shows is that the cost of hunting has likely been an issue," he says. "It could imply that hunting is too expensive, but it also likely indicates there is a time-cost issue involved. Taking leisure time is likely more costly to low-income families now than it was in 1995—they don't have the leisure time they once did."

Sex, Race and Ethnicity

The national survey shows hunting is predominantly a white male activity. Ninety-one percent of all hunters are men, 96 percent are white, 2 percent are black and 2 percent are "all others". Three percent are Hispanic and 97 percent are non-Hispanic.

In 2005, the hunting initiation rate for children in non-Hispanic homes was three times greater than in Hispanic homes. The initiation rate was five times higher in white households than in non-white households.

Ten percent of all men 16 and older hunted in 2005, while 1 percent of the female population hunted. The number of men who hunt has declined by 12.7 percent since the 1991 survey, but the number of women is up by 8.5 percent.

Age Factors

Wildlife experts often assume an early introduction to hunting is almost mandatory in the development of a lifelong hunter, but Leonard's work found a loophole in that unwritten law. A surprisingly high 30 percent of first-time hunters are older than 21, which suggests twentysomethings are a good recruitment target.

"More people are going to college than in 1991," Leonard explains, "and through their early 20s they're busy getting started in their careers, so they're too busy to go hunting. We see them come back into hunting late in their 20s."

The retention rate for hunters over the age of 30 is relatively unchanged from 1990 to 2005.

The Small Game Effect

One of the more fascinating findings of Leonard's work shows a positive correlation between small-game hunting and youth initiation.

"I wanted to see if we could discern any differences in youth participation and this one jumped off the page," says Leonard.

The numbers show that male parents who hunt squirrel and grouse are significantly more likely to have children who also hunt. Those who hunted turkeys and doves are also significantly more likely to have children who hunt, while rabbits, ducks and pheasants have a positive but not significant impact.

"It makes sense," Leonard says. "If you're going to initiate a youngster into hunting, small game has its advantages." Experts like small game as introductory species because they provide lots of action, are less competitive and don't require a great deal of equipment or a high degree of skill.

A notable exception was quail, which actually showed an inverse relationship to hunter initiation. "One explanation might be that quail hunting often occurs in a club setting…where one is likely to go hunting with several friends," speculates Leonard.

The cause-and-effect of small game's impact on hunting participation is unclear. "Is it the fact that they (parents who hunt small game) live in rural areas, or the fact that they hunt squirrels?" Leonard asked.

The precipitous drop in small-game hunting just since 1991 doesn't bode well for the future of hunting. Participation in squirrel hunting fell 48 percent, rabbit hunting was off 52 percent, grouse declined 42 percent and doves were off by 33 percent.

Since 1955, total small game participation has dropped by half.

Family Affair
Leonard's analysis shows children are far more likely to hunt if one or both of their parents hunt. In households where the male parent hunted just 1 to 3 days, sons were nine times more likely to hunt than in households where the male parent doesn't hunt.

"The percentage of sons and daughters who hunt increases dramatically with the avidity of the parent," Leonard says. "If the female parent hunts just one day, the odds of having children who hunt skyrocket." Indeed, in households where the female parent hunts 1 to 9 days, a whopping 63.3 percent of sons and 34.6 percent of daughters hunted.

Wrote Leonard: "If retention of parents in fishing and hunting can be improved, it is likely that initiation of children can also be improved."

If keeping parents involved in hunting is part of the solution, keeping the family unit together has to be a sidebar issue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of women over the age of 15 who were married slipped from 67 in 1950 to 55 by 2000.

Other Factors

Availability

Most professional wildlife managers say the two factors that determine hunting participation are availability of game and access to places to hunt. The growth of big-game hunting since 1955 provides a stunning example of how availability of game influences hunter numbers.

Pundits who've been obsessing over the steep decline in hunter participation might be surprised to learn there are 2.5 times more big-game hunters in the U.S. today than there were in 1955. Despite the negative influences, the number of big-game hunters increased from 4.4 million in 1955 to 10.7 million in 2005.

The explosion of baby boomers undoubtedly explains much of the increase, but few would deny hunter participation has tracked the dramatic growth of the whitetail deer population and the remarkable expansion of turkey hunting, which is up more than 50 percent just since '91.

Conversely, the 2001-to-2006 drop in migratory bird hunting could no doubt be traced to a dramatic post-‘90s dip in the mallard population.

But what about species like pheasants, geese, mourning doves, rabbits and squirrels, which across their range exist in excellent numbers but aren't being hunted as heavily as they once were?

Access

If every potential hunter had access to at least one good place to hunt, what would be the impact on participation?

"Access is the No. 1 problem facing hunting," says Dr. Craig Miller of the University of Georgia. Dr. Miller's comment might appear inconsistent with the claim that urbanization is the biggest problem facing hunting, but it's often difficult to decouple the two.

Of the many factors that influence access, urbanization ranks near the top. What baby boomers hasn't seen the deer woods or duck ponds he once hunted turned into shopping malls, housing developments or golf courses? The intrusion of cities on once-wild places puts quality hunting grounds out of reach of many urbanites, especially those with limited time and money.

Commercial hunting has become increasingly common, making hunting cost-prohibitive for lower-income families. Every acre of land that's purchased or leased by guides and outfitters is one less acre available to the average hunter.
Pay-as-you-go hunting, where landowners charge a daily fee, also restricts access.

In 1963, South Dakota had 146,000 resident pheasant hunters and about 60,000 non-residents. In recent years, South Dakota has had more non-residents than residents, and experts like outdoor broadcaster Tony Dean of Pierre say fee hunting is the main reason. "Almost all hunting is privatized," says Dean. "Kids can't afford that, nor can most adults."

Worse yet, adults who can afford it often can't afford to bring their children along.

In some heavily populated states, there is so little land available to the public that waterfowl hunters have to stand in "sweat lines" hoping to be drawn for a spot in a duck blind.

Many states and a few individuals have worked to increase the amount of land available for public use. Congress even got into the act with its "Open Fields" initiative, a program that, if approved, would compensate landowners for providing hunting opportunities.

While some of these efforts have been quite successful, in most cases there are still too many hunters competing for too few places to hunt.

The Antis

As much as most hunters like to blame the anti-hunting and animal-rights crowds for declining hunting participation—and as much as the antis would be happy to accept the credit—there's scant evidence they had much to do with it.

Leonard's analysis showed that children of parents who hunt are very likely to hunt themselves, and it's highly unlikely the animal-rightists can influence a different outcome.

Because of their extreme views on animal-based medical research, meat-eating, zoos, livestock and even pet ownership, the animal rightists have limited credibility with the general public. A survey conducted by Responsive Management confirmed that 84 percent of men and 72 percent of women in the United States still approve of hunting.

That's a remarkable approval rating considering the antis have been around since Theodore Roosevelt was hunting's most passionate and articulate spokesman.

Hunters could learn from Roosevelt, who put the antis in their place when he wrote, "In a civilized…country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting…are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping…wild creatures from total extermination.

More than a century later, the media came to the same conclusion when reporting on declining hunter numbers.

Perhaps Jim Posewitz of Orion—The Hunter's Institute summed it up best when he wrote in Pheasants Forever magazine, "The animal rights and anti-hunting campaigns occupy more of our time and attention than they deserve. While they raise a lot of money and live well, they have not done much serious damage. They are a parasite and we are their host. They are an irritation, but are not likely to kill us—they and their business model require us."

In the next issue, Posewitz examines the North American conservation model and its impact on hunting participation.

Most duck hunters think of Canada as a waterfowling mecca. Canada has plenty of birds, liberal limits and almost unlimited places to hunt. And best of all, Canadian ducks aren't as "educated" as they'll be when they arrive further south.

One thing Canada doesn't have is a lot of duck hunters—at least, not nearly as many as it once did. Between 1978 and 2006, 72 percent of Canada's waterfowl hunters mysteriously disappeared. In 1978, the Canadian Wildlife Service reported 505,681 waterfowl permits were sold; in 2003 that numbers had fallen to just 141,652.

While no one seems to know why the big drop occurred, it's no secret when it happened: Most of the collapse took place in the decade of the 1980s. Fifty-one percent of Manitoba's hunters disappeared between 1980 and 1989, Alberta lost 56 percent and a whopping 58 percent of Saskatchewan's hunters vanished into thin air.

Rounding up the usual suspects doesn't shed much light on the strange case of Canada's missing duck hunters. Access and availability certainly aren't a problem north of the border. Canada has a baby boom generation like the U.S., but Canada's drop in waterfowl hunters occurred when the boomers were in their prime.

Urbanization is a problem in Canada, but no more so than the U.S.

So what happened? The Canadian Wildlife Service doesn't conduct a national survey like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, making it difficult to even speculate on what happened.

The Canadian mallard breeding population hit record lows in 1984, 1985 and again in 1989, resulting in reduced bag limits some say discouraged waterfowl hunters. Apparently many of the Canadians who dropped out when the mallard bag limit was reduced to two birds never came back.

Perhaps the answer will be revealed when we examine the social and cultural aspects of hunting in part three of our series on declining hunter numbers.

Good article what I read of it, I'll read the whole thing when I get home from work. Yes the amount of hunters is on the decline, just as the amount of people living in Rural America is on the decline. I was just recently that the percentage of people living in cities overtook people living in rural areas.

Plus like it or not a lot of areas just are not open to hunting like they once were. Hunting leases and cost of tags have all went up and with the economy heading south it will be harder to keep hunters hunting. I will continue to hunt for as long as I can or afford to hunt, and I'll try to introduce as many people as I can to hunting and shooting sports.

quote:

Commercial hunting has become increasingly common, making hunting cost-prohibitive for lower-income families. Every acre of land that's purchased or leased by guides and outfitters is one less acre available to the average hunter.

I think this has got to be one of the biggest reasons.

This will be the first year in about fifteen years that I have not had a duck lease. My marsh pond on the upper Texas coast finally increased to $7,500.00 per year, screw that!

The reason for the increase is due to outfitters. An outfitter can pay $7,500.00 for the same pond and make plenty of money off of it. In that area a guided hunt is $225.00 per man per day. In just 9 days an outfitter can guide nine, four man parties and recoup his lease costs.

With less outfitters there would be more hunters.

My asbestos is ready let 'er rip.

JTEX, I lived in Humble for a year (it was all I could stand) and I couldn't find an acre of land to hunt squirrels on much less a duck.

Farmers and ranchers have had a long hard row to hoe and in many cases are getting well at last from leasing for hunting. But the movement is as you point out, to outfitting. Those who lease property and then run hunts to those who have the money to spend. Then again these outfitters have to make a living too.

For around $48 hunters can buy a public lands permit and hunt various public properties and private properties lease by TPW for public use. It's hunting, not great hunting, but hunting none-the-less.

It ain't ever going to be like it was again but it can still be good.

Alan

All of my friends that hunt are talking about less people hunting now than in the past. I know that you see less hunters in the airports in the fall than in years past. Around here, game lands are going fast. This can not be a good trend.

quote:

Then again these outfitters have to make a living too.

Alan, while I understand what you say, I do not believe anyone should make a living off of natural resources whithout "just" compensation to the owners of said resources.

There are many ways to make a living in our great country, consumptive exploitation of our hunting heritage, in my opinion should not be one of them. Outfitters being allowed to price the average person out of the ability to pursue their hunting heritaqe is wrong in more ways than I can count.

But what they will end up doing is eliminating the next generation of hunters by pricing them out of the experience, then who is gonna pay for their services. It's just more of the same, I don't care about the future I'm gonna get mine, mentallity at work.