Interesting, but not unexpected. The hunter culture is dying-out every generation that passes.

Access to hunting opportunities are declining. Cost is another factor. (I could hunt deer, bear, and turkey in New Mexico for a total of $7.50 back in the day and required no guide/outfitter assistance.)

Mentoring young hunters is also on the decline. If you grow up a non-hunter why/how are you going to mentor your kid to be a hunter.

Because of mass-shootings, I think people are more afraid of guns and people that own and use them.

The average male Texan that walks into my office cannot tell the difference between a moose and that bull elk I have mounted on the wall. It's sad to see, but that's "progress". I'm glad I grew-up in the era that I did.

Is it they can’t see the difference, or they don’t know what is what?

One is blindness. The other is an example of the crappy job public education is doing.

Kids know more about dinosaur species than our own fauna.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The other is an example of the crappy job public education is doing.

Kids know more about dinosaur species than our own fauna.

I agree that schools don’t spend much time on our flora and fauna, but I have to point out that we don’t cover the animals of the Jurassic period very well either.

But those 7 rear olds walking around with an encyclopedic understanding of dinosaurs are usually self taught through books, toys and educational shows.

I have a nephew who could stump a paleontologist. My daughter babysits and sees the same thing with some of the boys. They are enthralled with dinosaurs.

I was fascinated with dinosaurs when I was in grade school. I still remember some of the books the library had. Then, they thought dinosaurs had two brains the size of walnuts. One for the front half, and one for the tail.
According to Kabob, scientists are seldom wrong, they just add info to whats there.

Did any else look at the article? The charts and graphs don’t really show what the article seems to suggest.

The decile seems well established.

Shrinking Hunter demo will see politicians logically push fur non-consumptive activities to fund our public land.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20...ays-for-conservation

Survey only 5 percent of 16 year olds and lifecycle hunting.

The graph seems to tack with the narrative explanation of the graphic to me. Approval is 77 percent down from 2021. The big hit is the disapproval rate up 17 percent from 12 percent in 2021.

This disapproval rate is lower than 1995, but is on the decline (rise in disapproval) since 2011:

12, 13, 14, 13, 12 only to jump/spike back to 17 percent disapproval.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The decile seems well established.

Shrinking Hunter demo will see politicians logically push fur non-consumptive activities to fund our public land.

I agree with your assessment of the data. I just didn’t find it shocking, with the exception of the sudden rise in disapproval. I would be interested to know what is behind that and will it be backed up with similar disapproval the next theme the survey is done.

And forgive me for questioning the data, but how in the world is there a spike in disapproval in the most recent survey, but there was no spike in disapproval around the Cecil the Loin debacle. Ho is that possible?


But I want to address your two points that I quoted.

First, the narrative of the decline is well established, but certain forms of hunting(big game) seem to be in the increase, while others are dying out(small game). I’m not sure what to make of that, but I don’t think that it is a good sign.

You and I have discussed the political ramifications of the shrinking hunter demographic, so I do understand your concern. I used to half the same view, but places like NZ seem to debunk this as they have 1/3 the hunter population, per capita, yet their hunting rights are no more in danger than our(from my limited understanding).

I would have to know how NZ public land is paid for/funded. We see in NZ the mass culling is species which, I believe, is made possible by the lack of hunters as voting block.

To my mind, hunting rights and firearm ownership go hand in hand. We have seen the lack of hunters/firearm owners in NZ has allowed heavy regulation.

It is the decline in support that I too find most shocking, and caught my attention.

I not sure big game hunting is increasing. I agree based on my observations small game is in decline. I do very little small game hunting. I hunted a lot of small fame as a child bc no big game hunting (deer and up) was available. Rabbit hunting use. I know rabbit used to big the number one pursed upland species.

Bob White, wild, seem to be on the edge.


Look at the March of leases/leasing to have access to hunting here in the United States.


If we take an international look, the unacceptable view of Elephant and lion hunting contributing to import bans had a terrible affect on TZ snd the Selous as reported here outfitters turning in leases wo those bookings.

I don't know about other countries but Americans by and large are now primarily urban/suburbanites. They have ZERO connection to the land or interest in it. For them it is video games and other instant gratification with no physical effort and no desire to get dirty or bloody.

Giving youth special hunting seasons isn't working either. Hunting should be a family activity but as we know it also requires work. Game is often not easy to secure and bag.

MOST Americans, of recent times, are such instant gratification addicts that they cannot appreciate the land, wildlife nor the determination and diligence it takes to be outdoors men and women. It's not supposed to be easy and yeah, it is a lot of work. Some people get it and those I am glad to see but most do not.

Everyone bitches that there are few options other than 'crowded' public land. Well, nothing is free and easy yet such is expected. Hunting is not a trip to the meat cooler at a supermarket with big antlers stuck to the package. That is why a lot of opportunities seem non-existent.

Attitude is everything!

The major problem with special youth seasons growing or increasing hunting participation is, by and large, no new blood is getting introduced.

Those kids are largely the children, nephews/nieces, neighbors, or grandchildren of hunters.

If the family does not hunt, then the youth is not taking advantage of the youth season.

We are just washing and rehashing the same people with no net growth.

I also, with no real evidence, believe a lot of adults are doing the shooting during youth season.

In KY we have no age requirement. I support that. However, I have to coco my head at the very small children taking deer and turkey being listed on social media during “youth weekends” By very young, I mean 4-6 year olds.

We have had the argument/debate in the need to grow, recruited new hunters. The overcrowding, tag draw issue on public land being a major factor cited in disfavor.

However, here is the major factor against that argument. It is that sharp increase in disapproval. That disapproval increase has to have a causal nexus to the lack of new, non hunting household, hunters. When enough people disapprove of the activity domestic and international regulation stands to increase.

I don’t Californians, by and large, have higher approval of hunting. We see the regulations, expense, and lack of hunting in California. California does not allow Mt. Lion hunting. The push to ban hunting bear w hounds. Yet, hound hunting bears is very much a catch and release proposition allowing a detailed examination of the near. California has banned bear hunting w hounds for a good while now. I think the first No hound season was 2013.

This, I submit disapproval and lack of participation has had a negative impact here in the US.

Also look at what disapproval of trapping. It is higher than hunting. That matches the legislative attacks on trapping.

IME there has been a shift in overall attitude of game wardens over the last 50-60 years, and don't let me get started on the USFWS.

Cecil the lion was bad publicity and helped fuel anti-hunting. What impact do you think the widely publicized killing of 78 whales in front of tourists is going to have? Maybe the same bad publicity that came from the baby seals debacle.

No one touched on my question regarding the lack spike in disapproval around the killing of Cecil the lion in 2015 -according to their data.

It makes me question their data. Maybe their polling is not reliable.

I just remember Cecil generating an outcry that should have shown up in their data.

I will underscore the dangers of this rise in disapproval:

Maine near hunting w hounds vote was defeated by 23,256 votes. The vote was held on 2014. The 2013 disapproval rating was 12 percent.

A spike of 5 percent disapproval can not bode well for the next vote to come.

California had a bill in 2021 to ban black bear hunting in California entirely.

Again, I do not see how these trends continuing can not have a negative impact on hunting, or conservation through hunting.

LHeym,

I agree with your that a sudden jump from 12% to 17% on disapproval is alarming.

The question that I am asking is why didn’t their numbers show a similar spike following Cecil in 2015.

And what could be the cause of this sudden spike now? Was there something in the news this past year that I missed?

I used to take my shotgun to school, and leave it with a box of ammo behind the class door.

Compare that to metal detectors at school, and one gets punished if he even mentions gun!

Socially, we have gone backwards.

An article in the media today says many people go to work scared of offending their fellow workers!

Bloody ridiculous!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I used to take my shotgun to school, and leave it with a box of ammo behind the class door.

Compare that to metal detectors at school, and one gets punished if he even mentions gun!

Socially, we have gone backwards.

100%^^^

An article in the media today says many people go to work scared of offending their fellow workers!

Bloody ridiculous!

All the above true for me as well.

from the charts provided


1: approval rating average over the life of the chart is 77% - which is EXACTLY what the 2023 rating also shows

2: disapproval rating is an average of 15.6%, with 2023's data being 17%, slight above average, but no where near the highs of 22%

to anyone that know how to read trends, it's a meh year, over the life of the survey

Like I said, 12, 13, 14, 13, 12 percent disapproval to now spike to 17 percent. That is the concerning and real trend. Ignore that at your peril.

As for the 2015/Cecil issue, that would have to be a question asked to the survey takers and methodology.

I guess it speaks to the fact African-Conservation through Sport Hunting (I will no longer use the terms Sport Hunting nor Trophy Hunting) simply does not register with the majority of survey takers in the moment. That it is so fringe among Americans (most think it is completely illegal anyway) it is not reflected.

If the question in 2015 was, “Do you approve or disapprove African Lions and Elephants should be sport hunted or permitted to be hunted?” You would see a larger disapproval metric in 2025z

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Like I said, 12, 13, 14, 13, 12 percent disapproval to now spike to 17 percent. That is the concerning and real trend. Ignore that at your peril.

LHeym,

I’m with Jeff on this one. Looking at the disapproval data, the 5% spike seems to be within a margin of error.

I say that because there are other years that should make us question the validity of their poll numbers. How did 2011 have 20% disapproval, but 2013 dropped to 12% disapproval? It just doesn’t seem possible that in a 2 year period, 40% few people disapproved of hunting.

These numbers should be fairly static I would think.

Is it possible that you are taking a statistical anomaly too seriously? And even if the numbers are correct, did you really mean to call this sudden one time spike a “trend”?

Only a matter of time till hunting/fishing is banned. In a nutshell-too many people. What does America look like with half a billion people? How bout a billion?

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Like I said, 12, 13, 14, 13, 12 percent disapproval to now spike to 17 percent. That is the concerning and real trend. Ignore that at your peril.

LHeym,

I’m with Jeff on this one. Looking at the disapproval data, the 5% spike seems to be within a margin of error.

I say that because there are other years that should make us question the validity of their poll numbers. How did 2011 have 20% disapproval, but 2013 dropped to 12% disapproval? It just doesn’t seem possible that in a 2 year period, 40% few people disapproved of hunting.

These numbers should be fairly static I would think.

Is it possible that you are taking a statistical anomaly too seriously? And even if the numbers are correct, did you really mean to call this sudden one time spike a “trend”?

I have made my argument. I appreciate the counter. I will only add, does anyone feel hunting domestic or international is more approved now than 2008?

The Outdoor Channel put a halt to elephant hunts being shown for a time. Maybe still do as I dropped them after that. We have outfitters asking AR members not to post identity them in hunt reports. I was asked not to post a hunt report.

Look at the discontinuation of “Safari Rifles and ammo” from the mid to late 2000s to know.

A setting US President called elephant hunting a “horror show.” When I was younger every wanna a be president had to go on a hunting trip. There is that photo and video of Clinton duck hunting. Sen. McCain lived in the outdoor channel with Larry Weishun. President Bush and VP Gore gave interviews to Outdoor Life.

Now, those old plays are gone from the debate.



Times they are a changing. I do not want it to be so. I do know ignoring things, putting it a desk drawer never keeps things from getting worse.

LHeym,

I’m not meaning to argue anything one way or the other, I am just pointing out things that stand out to me.

Example: the graph shows a disapproval rate of 22% in 1995, and the numbers have been consistently better since then? That has me scratching my head.

And the 1995 number is nearly double the disapproval ratings from 2011-2021? Again, that doesn’t match what I have seen.

As to your question comparing 2008 to now: I haven’t seen a significant difference, but I lived in Ca in 08 and I live in Rural Alaska now. I’m not sure that how it would affect the numbers, but I do know that a lot of new hunters came about during the COVID lockdowns.

The discontinuation of safari ammo/rifles was probably due to the “safari fad” dying out a bit. I know that myself and a lot of other AR members were heading over to Africa regularly between 2000 and 2010. That seems to had died off in a big way. I also noticed that safari rifles and loading compartments/ammo don’t seem to have nearly the demanded that they once had as witnessed in the AR classifieds.

Overall I do agree that hunting will continue to die out. But I think that lack of access/crowding will be the most pressing issue for the foreseeable future. Bans will come too, along the way.

Not long ago you had to come to a site like AR to see hunting photos. And since hunters/shooters were who came to AR it wasn’t a big problem. Now hunting photos are splashed all over Facebook and Twitter for all to see. That is troubling as I would think that it will cause us a lot of harm.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Only a matter of time till hunting/fishing is banned. In a nutshell-too many people. What does America look like with half a billion people? How bout a billion?

Habitat loss here, it's a drive to go where the game is. There are too many of us in too small a spot.
And the middle class, with the money to buy gear and time to hunt, isn't teaching kids to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
LHeym,

I’m not meaning to argue anything one way or the other, I am just pointing out things that stand out to me.

Example: the graph shows a disapproval rate of 22% in 1995, and the numbers have been consistently better since then? That has me scratching my head.

And the 1995 number is nearly double the disapproval ratings from 2011-2021? Again, that doesn’t match what I have seen.

As to your question comparing 2008 to now: I haven’t seen a significant difference, but I lived in Ca in 08 and I live in Rural Alaska now. I’m not sure that how it would affect the numbers, but I do know that a lot of new hunters came about during the COVID lockdowns.

The discontinuation of safari ammo/rifles was probably due to the “safari fad” dying out a bit. I know that myself and a lot of other AR members were heading over to Africa regularly between 2000 and 2010. That seems to had died off in a big way. I also noticed that safari rifles and loading compartments/ammo don’t seem to have nearly the demanded that they once had as witnessed in the AR classifieds.

Overall I do agree that hunting will continue to die out. But I think that lack of access/crowding will be the most pressing issue for the foreseeable future. Bans will come too, along the way.

Not long ago you had to come to a site like AR to see hunting photos. And since hunters/shooters were who came to AR it wasn’t a big problem. Now hunting photos are splashed all over Facebook and Twitter for all to see. That is troubling as I would think that it will cause us a lot of harm.

Argue/debate may have been too strong a word. I do not attach negative connotations to those words. It is a debate. I believe that from mid 2000s to 2012s the as the 3rd Golden Age of Safari. I remember being in college and a reputable Cape Buffalo hunt bf plane tickets was 8-10k. Now 18k is a show special.


The Fox News prime time Laura Ingram made it known they were repulsed when his Administration was lifting bans on importation.

Was there not a big push in the 90s to ban hound hunting and leopard? I believe so. I have an article I got off Jstor back in colleague about the attempts to limit black bear hunting from what I think was in the 90s in Colorado. This was before Colorado saw its population increase we see with its policies today.

I can post that if folks wish.

I think your question is deserving of debate or discussion. No, you do not need me to think so to place it on the table.

I do not want to be right about this. Do I believe I am? Yes, I do. That is not the point. The point is, if I am right we need to address it now, before it gets higher. Some will agree we have a problem of disapproval. Some will say we have no problem. Some will say we have a problem, and there is nothing to be done. One must get/enjoy what one can.

To the last, I will say that is not what hunting conservation is about. If our forebears had taken that position all would have been lost by the 1900s.