Are hunter numbers down?

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Was curious because I was wondering about the big jump in NR hunters. I was thinking it may have to do with elk b tag sales or NRs snapping up leftover deer b tags, or a combo of both?

The distinction USFWS makes between resident and nonresident is for "licenses, tags, permits, and stamps" which I'm assuming is the aggregate of all items an individual might purchase. Makes for a useful distinction on cost, but not for discerning the actual number of hunters.



They could do a better job of labeling their figures.

 

[Pagosa]

In one district in southeast Montana there was a 30% increase in applicants in 2023, over a 1,000 additional people applied for an average limited unit in an area that gets overran with other hunters. I would say it’s a regional effect. We need more public access in the east and Midwest where game numbers are the highest. It’s not going to happen though.

 

[atlas]

@Big Fin

I apologize for posting his place. I wouldn’t be happy if someone put my address on here.

Honestly, I do not think that because you have a ranch, that you should be obligated to have anyone on. BMAs can be shit shows. No matter what reimbursement you get, there will be times when letting someone on your property is a total inconvenience. Whether one lets someone on has nothing to do with how I view them as a person. That wasn’t the point I was making but I wasn’t making a very good point. You’re correct in calling it a cheap shot.

I appreciate your forum and all the discussions that go on here. I try to not be too much of a trouble maker.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Yeah, you’re unbanned! I like your contributions. The ban hammer might as well be the sword of Damocles with my post history

 

[SAJ-99]

In one district in southeast Montana there was a 30% increase in applicants in 2023, over a 1,000 additional people applied for an average limited unit in an area that gets overran with other hunters. I would say it’s a regional effect. We need more public access land in the east and Midwest where game numbers are the highest. It’s not going to happen though.

FIFY. Hard to get around this. Here are the totals from 1995. Sorry it is two pieces and I don;t know why ME is highlighted. These numbers are not even hunt able land. Increasing public access in Iowa or IL isn't going to do much. It is a private-land game there, but agree that increasing game numbers would still help.

 

[Nick87]

These numbers are not even hunt able land. Increasing public access in Iowa or IL

I wish we had an access program for private. But I don't see it happening.

 

[Nick87]

I wish we had an access program for private. But I don't see it happening.

Well actually we do but it doesn't offer whole lot.

 

[Nick87]

It is a private-land game there,

Everyone always seems to forget about the Shawnee. Myself included sometimes.

 

[lastlight]

No, I doubt Matt read that, but if he did he ignored it. It wouldn't fit his narrative then.

It was noticed and not ignored. The only narrative out there is hunter numbers are way down, this narrative comes from people who stand to profit off there being more hunters. I am only asking a question on where else this would come from. The sooner we get better survey data the better, but on a nation wide scale this is about all we have to go off of right now. My arguement has always been we need current hunters to get off the couch and fight for access and habitat rather than just recruiting endless amounts of hunters who contriubte to over crowding and loss of opportunity. Matt also started Hunters for Access, you should read up on that and the work being done so people like you can have a place to hunt.

Point is, these USFWS surveys have never told us how many unique hunters bought licenses. As some pointed out, a lot of people duplicate, triplicate, or in my situation, would be counted 7 times if it was just licenses sold.

And, if we only look at it on a nation-wide basis, it ignores that some states might be feeling more crowded due to that state having an increase while nationally there was a decrease. I got the Montana numbers between resident and non-resident. Pretty interesting. Resident license sales dropped some, in total, decreasing some areas and slightly increasing in other license types. During a period when resident population grew 11.8%.

View attachment 314776

A hunter is a resident in only one state, so looking at the resident license sales in every state would get rid of the duplicity of counting people like me multiple times. I know Mark Dudda of Responsive Management has done a ton of surveys on this and he has spoke to the growing trend of hunters buying licenses in multiple states and how that requires more analysis to understand the true numbers.

I would encourage people who want to debate this topic to get the resident v. non-resident license sales, by state. Yes, it would be a bit of work. But, if either side wants to make a claim of increase/decrease and do so with knowingly incomplete or incorrect data, they are likely doing so to arrive at a number that supports their own narrative. And having it by state of residency, as shown above, is likely more beneficial.

Fair points, I mentioned in the OP that reasons such as this are why its hard to actually know how many there are. Which begs the question, why does the industry push for more hunters and at what population % is enough, if any?

@atlas

Nor am I gonna put up with the HQ attacks on all the other conservation volunteers made when Matt starts his conspiracy theories about how NGOs are just a front for the hunting industry and media people. That's a kick in the crotch to every person who volunteers for these groups or works for these groups at wages far below what they could make in private industry.

The NGOs are important in more than a few ways. I won't speak for Matt but I think the point of his opinion is missed here. Its not a conspiracy, NGO's absolutley sell products. Ive bought plenty of them

Pay attention to the growth of Hunters for Access in the future. People doing the same line of work without the grip n grins and sponsorships. It is possible, just not as profitable.