Hunter numbers and management funding

[LCH]

What the statistics show is that folks aren't buying a license. Does it mean hunter participation is down? I don't think it does. Landowners(regardless of acreage) don't have to buy a license to hunt their own land. With the ever increasing leasing cost, folks have decided just to kill a deer or two off of their land and not worry about buying a license. Residents over 65 don't have to buy a license, either. Over the timeframe listed in the article, the baby boomer generation has gotten older. What does this mean? Perhaps, they have purchased their own land and/or fell they into the 65 and older category of not needing a license.

Another thing that happened during that time is the increase in license costs. I know, I know, a resident license doesn't cost much, but some folks balked at it and still are. How many folks quit buying licenses because of that?

Also, when asked, the State doesn't seem to know if lifetime licenses holders are included in the current licenses numbers or just the year that they're bought.

Another tidbit, the article makes it seem like the deer are almost overpopulated now compared to years ago. Quite the contrary, depending on your location. With the State going to 2 does a day from October 15 to February 10, in most places, it put a hurting on the population. There again, depending on your location, you may or may not agree with that.

How much have these things factored into the decrease in license sales? The reality is that nobody knows for sure. However, I think that just looking at it on the surface of just the numbers of licenses sold and saying there's a decrease in hunting is foolish.

I think this is a very good post, and many aspects of it would apply here in Indiana as well.

 

[vanish]

What the statistics show is that folks aren't buying a license. ... However, I think that just looking at it on the surface of just the numbers of licenses sold and saying there's a decrease in hunting is foolish.

Thanks for filling me in on the whole story. I could definitely see those regulations skewing the numbers greatly. When it comes to Alabama statistics, I'll put my foot in my mouth.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

From Outdoor Life Earlier this year. Alabama is an outlier in hunting participation drops.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/why-we-are-losing-hunters-and-how-to-fix-it#page-6

The issues with hunter participation are fairly straight forward. Our population is increasingly urban and access has eroded pretty heavily in the more densely populated parts of the country.

 

[farmerboy1381]

Just from my personal experience in PA there are less hunters, but the ones that are left hunt harder. In my dads day everybody was on a farm or knew a farmer. First day of rifle was a huge social occasion. Today everybody I know hunts archery and very few people would let enough people on there land to do drives and hang out. I have actually seen an increase in use on the public lands I hunt because I think people are hunting more species and more days. However I worry about public perception as less households get the taste of wild game and hunting gets viewed more as a sport and less of a past time l. Maybe PA is an outlier, I was hunting another state for whitetails last year and a warden checked me coming out an hour and a half after dark. After explaining where I walked out from he just shook his head and said “ all you PA boys are nuts! I have never seen anybody hunt as hard as the boys with PA plates!” No offense to anybody from other states ��