Support For Hunting on the Decline…..Why? What Can We Do?

[BTaylor]

Another thing I always notice is that in these columns from DEC, DNR, F&G, state level agencies they always discuss and bring up and highlight the game law violators they arrest. But these agencies never highlight good things they see hunters doing….. you never see an overt agency position on this.

No discussion or media blitz on all of the conservation efforts hunters are financing every single day via Pittman Robertson Funding…… the only thing you see these agencies keying on is polluters and game law violators. Nothing ever positive or proactive and let’s face it, our funds pay these organizations a lot of money.

Sure, NWTF, RMEF, DU/PU/ etc. all showcase in their publications and communication materials thier conservation efforts….but you never see the actual state agencies doing much of this at all. Nor do you see federal level BLM or USFW doing it either. They all remain a “level above” the hunter and fisherman instead of showing and highlighting the many partnership efforts over the decades in the name of conservation.

That perception has to be remodeled. Most non hunters don’t belong to the non profits I listed so they have no idea what hunters are doing for wildlife each and every day.

Outstanding point and one I feel we should all talk to our respective agencies about. I certainly intend too. I will have to say though that our G&F agency does do a pretty good job of highlighting cooperative efforts with NGO's in the bi-monthly magazine.

 

[Swamp Fox__On The Run]

I would be curious to see what the support % was for 2019.

There's a decent chance the 2021 was an up year given the surge in new hunters that occurred due to COVID. So part of the decline from '21 to '24 could just be the short lived portion of the addition gained due to COVID. The massive swell in hunting during those years was guaranteed to drop to some extent, so the most telling factor would be if we are currently a net positive or negative compared to pre-COVID.

2024 approval numbers are the lowest since 2011, I believe.

From OL (one of their several articles on this):

For more than two decades, respondents to the survey have been asked whether they agreed that others can hunt in accordance with regulations. The idea for the question is to get a feeling for indirect support, even if respondents themselves don’t hunt.

This year, 86 percent of respondents strongly or moderately agreed that it’s okay for other people to hunt. That’s a significant decline from 2011 and 2019, when 95 percent and 92 percent, respectively, of Americans said it’s okay for other people to hunt. It’s a question that may have implications for ballot initiatives or other electoral attempts to regulate hunting or wildlife management.

[...]

The groups least likely to agree that it’s okay for other people to hunt: Hispanics, Blacks, Americans from 18 to 34 years old, and urban females from the West Coast.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting... shows that,lowest approval rating since 2015.


https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/survey-public-approval-hunting/#:~:text=A new survey of national,trend first registered in 2022.

 

[SILhunter]

I would say access to land is one of the main reasons, once dad looses his spot he's not taking his kids anywhere and it's hard to get a kid to go through the grind of hunting public and not seeing much. Most people live in the city or subdivisions where they have no where to shoot a bow more less a gun, so now they have to find a range just to practice. Everyone's kid is the next NFL, NBA, MLB superstar so they have them in club sports year round so now the dad and the kid are out of hunting, mom would get ticked off if they miss 1 of 200 games they got lol. Kids would rather do their gaming than be cold in a tree somewhere. I see it in our area when the older guys quit hunting no one takes their place and deer camps get smaller and smaller then disappear.

 

[GCTerpfan]

I think there are three separate issues that are getting conflated in this thread.

- Conservation issues - Will we or future generations have land and access to hunt in the future?
- Recruiting future hunters - Will there be people who want to hunt in the future?
- Public opinion of hunting - What do non-hunters think of our lifestyle?

While these issues are related they are not necessarily the same. Conservation issues and the recruitment of hunters are important and have a big impact on the future of hunting but, the article the OP is discussing is whether the (mostly) non-hunting public thinks favorably of hunting. IMO this is the most immediate threat to hunting. While the other two issues will decide if our kids and grandkids have an opportunity to hunt, how the non-hunting public views hunting has the ability to decide if the people typing in this thread will continue to have the ability to hunt. If the current rate of decline of 5% every 3-4 years continues, in approximately 8 years the split will be 50/50. When 50% of the public doesn't approve of hunting you will start to see ballot initiatives in some states to ban hunting altogether.

We will never recruit enough people into the fold to have a meaningful impact to this number. The best we can do is change the image the non-hunting public has of us. We need non-hunters to view us as stewards of the resource and and an overall positive to the environment and health of the animals we are hunting. Unfortunately, that's not the image I see when consuming much of the hunting related media content that's out there right now.

 

[Nutterbuster]

We will never recruit enough people into the fold to have a meaningful impact to this number. The best we can do is change the image the non-hunting public has of us. We need non-hunters to view us as stewards of the resource and and an overall positive to the environment and health of the animals we are hunting. Unfortunately, that's not the image I see when consuming much of the hunting related media content that's out there right now.

Exactly. Working on conservation is (IMO) the solution to all the problems. R3, public perception, access to quality habitat...everything.

It is simply not true anymore that hunters as a group do the most good for conservation. We have PR and DJ, but the federal money now largely comes from non-hunting gun sales and non-fishing marine fuel sales. A lot of conservation is funded through energy taxes (whole nuther can of worms). And non-hunting conservation/environmental organizations dwarf hunting ones.

We're resting on our laurels, and spending more time navel-gazing at internal issues (R3, game populations, squabbles between hunting groups) than doing real conservation.

 

[GCTerpfan]

Exactly. Working on conservation is (IMO) the solution to all the problems. R3, public perception, access to quality habitat...everything.

It is simply not true anymore that hunters as a group do the most good for conservation. We have PR and DJ, but the federal money now largely comes from non-hunting gun sales and non-fishing marine fuel sales. A lot of conservation is funded through energy taxes (whole nuther can of worms). And non-hunting conservation/environmental organizations dwarf hunting ones.

We're resting on our laurels, and spending more time navel-gazing at internal issues (R3, game populations, squabbles between hunting groups) than doing real conservation.

I agree, but I also think that there are additional steps we need to take to change our image. Donating money and volunteering our time for conservation while at the same time making Youtube videos were we yell "smoked em" after bombing an arrow 60 yards and then parading a dead deer through town with the attitude of "screw them anti's" will still lose us support in the general public.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Exactly. Working on conservation is (IMO) the solution to all the problems. R3, public perception, access to quality habitat...everything.

It is simply not true anymore that hunters as a group do the most good for conservation. We have PR and DJ, but the federal money now largely comes from non-hunting gun sales and non-fishing marine fuel sales. A lot of conservation is funded through energy taxes (whole nuther can of worms). And non-hunting conservation/environmental organizations dwarf hunting ones.

We're resting on our laurels, and spending more time navel-gazing at internal issues (R3, game populations, squabbles between hunting groups) than doing real conservation.

What is real conservation though? I have stopped using that term altogether and despise its usage. especially since most media call animal rights/environmental whacko groups conservationists.Its been altogether bastardized.

 

[Jammintree]

What is real conservation though? I have stopped using that term altogether and despise its usage. especially since most media call animal rights/environmental whacko groups conservationists.Its been altogether bastardized.

there’s a lot of stigmas floating around. I think we’d be wise to start acknowledging and referring to hunters as: conservationists, environmentalists and naturalists. In my opinion most of us are.

 

[Jammintree]

I agree, but I also think that there are additional steps we need to take to change our image. Donating money and volunteering our time for conservation while at the same time making Youtube videos were we yell "smoked em" after bombing an arrow 60 yards and then parading a dead deer through town with the attitude of "screw them anti's" will still lose us support in the general public.

Content creators could do us a world of good to stop saying “I just smoked him” and “I just crushed him” and start editing the videos so that that they open with the footage of the hunter weeping over the deer and saying “thank you so much” and “I’m so grateful”.

 

[Nutterbuster]

What is real conservation though? I have stopped using that term altogether and despise its usage. especially since most media call animal rights/environmental whacko groups conservationists.Its been altogether bastardized.

Is managing rows of loblolly and letting hunters lease it for deer or turkey "conservation?"

What about giving feral hogs protections as a "game animal" instead of a nuisance one?

Planting and flooding Japanese Millet for waterfowl impoundments?

I know I take unpopular positions here. But I feel like it's a better tactic to talk to peers about our in-group's problems than to aim at the "antis". It's not as easy, and it doesn't feel as good. But the cleaner our act is, and the further into the curve we can build influence and common ground, the easier it is to point out inconsistencies in their beliefs.

@Jammintree, i think you're right that hunters need to be environmentalists, naturalists, and conservationists. I love the pic @Weldabeast shared of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt. Aldo Leupold wrote crazy stuff like "a mountain should have a right to itself," and shot birds and hooked trout.

We have to go back to being environmentalists first, because, at the risk of stating the obvious, there will be absolutely 0 hunting if the environment goes to hell. Everything else comes second. I think this should be true for everybody, hunter or not. Red or blue, black or white, rich or poor, it all goes titties-up if you can't grow food, drink the water, or breathe the air. But hunters should know better than anybody that's the case, and pay more than the occasional lip-service to conservation.

And we should quit patting ourselves on the back over PR and DJ. We should be building on that framework.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Content creators could do us a world of good to stop saying “I just smoked him” and “I just crushed him” and start editing the videos so that that they open with the footage of the hunter weeping over the deer and saying “thank you so much” and “I’m so grateful”.

I dont think anyone weeping over a deer would be that helpful.

Is managing rows of loblolly and letting hunters lease it for deer or turkey "conservation?"

What about giving feral hogs protections as a "game animal" instead of a nuisance one?

Planting and flooding Japanese Millet for waterfowl impoundments?

Not asking what is done, I'm asking what you think it is.

Conservation, at least what the term meant when I was young, was the wise use of natural resources.

We can dink around about methods all day. I am not a fan of monoculture. Some of that is forced through with invasive species like bamboo, phragmites, kudzu, etc. Lot of it we do ourselves mainly for expediency. Property line to property line crop fields, timber, etc. If a farmer could get out of the industrial mindset of farming, he could make the same amount of money on his current farm but on a fraction of it with the right planning. The big combine is just easier, and a lot of times its one farmer farming multiple properties to justify the big combine.

 

[mschultz373]

The groups least likely to agree that it’s okay for other people to hunt... urban females from the West Coast.

i am SHOOK

 

[BTaylor]

there’s a lot of stigmas floating around. I think we’d be wise to start acknowledging and referring to hunters as: conservationists, environmentalists and naturalists. In my opinion most of us are.

I would prefer the moniker and try to be a good steward.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I dont think anyone weeping over a deer would be that helpful.


Not asking what is done, I'm asking what you think it is.

Conservation, at least what the term meant when I was young, was the wise use of natural resources.

We can dink around about methods all day. I am not a fan of monoculture. Some of that is forced through with invasive species like bamboo, phragmites, kudzu, etc. Lot of it we do ourselves mainly for expediency. Property line to property line crop fields, timber, etc. If a farmer could get out of the industrial mindset of farming, he could make the same amount of money on his current farm but on a fraction of it with the right planning. The big combine is just easier, and a lot of times its one farmer farming multiple properties to justify the big combine.

I like the definition of conservation as the wise use of natural resources just fine. I support it.

I also support environmentalism and preservation(ism?)

I define environmentalism as protecting the natural world from human-caused harm. If conservation is wise use, I see environmentalism as limiting impact. Although there's usually a perceived ideological divide that breaks people into left vs right, rural vs urban camps by using these words, I think that's a convenient culture war tactic.

I define preservation as strict protection of nature from human interference, and believe that there's a time and a place for us to "butt out" of sensitive ecosystems out of respect, admiration, veneration, and love. And just good sense.

All three of those terms, in my mind, overlap. I think there's a case to be made that the earth's ecosystem has been around for much longer than we have and is complex in ways that we don't understand. The status quo changes, yes, and absolute preservation is a fool's errand. But we've demonstrated that we can rapidly and permanently alter landscapes and wipe out species, accidentally or deliberately. Once that's done, there's currently no way to undo it. The analogy I've heard is an intern given access to a company's very old data system. He has to use it to do his job, sure, but if he's smart he will be very cautious about making changes to that system, especially deleting files.

I think there are obviously times to use resources. When we do, we should do it intelligently with an eye on long termism. I think we also have to ask ourselves if everything in the natural world is best thought of in terms of a resource, especially of the consumable materials kind.

 

[GCTerpfan]

We have to go back to being environmentalists first, because, at the risk of stating the obvious, there will be absolutely 0 hunting if the environment goes to hell.

While I agree with this I think a more accurate statement is we need to go back to being environmentalists first, because if we don't public opinion will take away hunting long before the environment goes to hell, and then we need to continue being environmentalists to make sure the environment doesn't go to hell.

 

[Slabzilla73]

It started when familys drifted apart, due to work, spouse etc. No more family Sunday dinners like when I was growing up. Less family time in the woods. I see in my area a small drop due to parents having their own hobbies. But their kids are out hunting with their friends familys so that squashes that. So Im just gonna outright blame satellite parents & video games. Just my opinion.

 

[Jammintree]

If food prices continue to rise, the rubric through which we are having this conversation will be entirely reconfigured.

 

[Nutterbuster]

While I agree with this I think a more accurate statement is we need to go back to being environmentalists first, because if we don't public opinion will take away hunting long before the environment goes to hell, and then we need to continue being environmentalists to make sure the environment doesn't go to hell.

Thought on this for a moment.

I think I agree. I am a lifelong hunter, who makes his living "in the industry," and who has historically made major life choices (wife, home purchase) with hunting firmly in mind.

I have taken big steps back from some aspects of hunting because of things I see in the group. I am sick-to-death of the type of hunter who wants to blare music in his squatted truck while somehow "owning the libs" by dumping gut piles under bridges, romanticizing poaching, embracing gratuitous violence in the sport, and other such nonsense. That's compounded by the lack of respect I have for people who talk big talk about "we dare defend our rights" and "don't tread on me," while simultaneously taking up for corporate polluters and other bad actors.

Especially since welcoming a daughter into the world, I've grown much more sensitive to stuff like that. I don't want my daughter growing up and bringing some little punk who leaves his duck hulls or bow-shot gar at the ramp.

What has kept me "in the fold" are serious conversations with guys like my boss, who loves burning his longleaf more than shooting a deer. If I couldn't find sportsmen who took environmental and conservation work seriously, and who had a little class and sense, I'd probably be looking at transitioning into the "non-consumptive" side of things in search of likeminded people.

If I feel that way as one of the converted, it's safe to say that it's a substantial negative impact on the neutral or near-neutral.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

I also support environmentalism and preservation(ism?)

Preservation and conservation are mutually exclusive terms. You can't even really live, if you were actually a preservationist.

Keeping certain areas as reserves is a viable part of a conservation strategy. Most of the land in the East are de facto reserves. I call properties that lease out for deer reserves because only the leases can kill anything and if it's not a dirty point buck, the leasees dont kill anything.

Old growth forest is a great example of preservation terrible. Old growths end up being monocultures for the most part. No wildlife really loves there other than squirrels, song birds and deer. Once succession stops so does biological diversity.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Preservation and conservation are mutually exclusive terms. You can't even really live, if you were actually a preservationist.

I think you're positing that you have to be all-or-nothing ideologically here. I would argue, as I have, that preservation is sometimes right for some properties. Obviously, we have to impact our environment. But I would say that it's reasonable to designate some percentage (amount negotiable) as off-limits to most of 1 species' activities to try and ensure the continuance of others.

Keeping certain areas as reserves is a viable part of a conservation strategy. Most of the land in the East are de facto reserves. I call properties that lease out for deer reserves because only the leases can kill anything and if it's not a dirty point buck, the leasees dont kill anything.

Hunting leases are great, but by and large a far cry from federal preserves and wilderness areas. You only consider deer in your statements, which are a game animal (consumable resource with agreed upon monetary value) and not others. This is the crux of my issue with saying I'm a conservationist and not those other things.

Old growth forest is a great example of preservation terrible. Old growths end up being monocultures for the most part. No wildlife really loves there other than squirrels, song birds and deer. Once succession stops so does biological diversity.

This is incorrect. Large old growth forests are diverse ecosystems. But you andI havent ever seen that. We've shifted our baseline so that "old growth" means "just past pioneer stage." This line of thinking, that we "have to" cut timber for the good of the forest, is very convenient to timber companies and a half truth at best. I'm not against thinning and burning, and efforts to eliminate forest fires (largely to save human property) were/are misguided. But that doesn't mean that all forests must be logged for their own good.