Found this on another site, thought it might give folks something to think about.


Wildlife conservation crisis looms as hunter population shrinks.

By Bob Frye
TRIBUNE-REVIEW OUTDOORS EDITOR
Sunday, November 9, 2008


Farmland habitat, healthy forests and certain species of wildlife aren't all that are disappearing from the landscape. Hunters are becoming rare, too.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were 18 million hunters ages 16 and older in America in the early 1980s. There are about 12.5 million now, the fewest since 1970.

That could lead to a conservation crisis of national proportions. The "North American Model" of wildlife conservation says wildlife belongs to the public. But it relies on a small minority of that public -- namely, sportsmen -- to fund its care.


In Pennsylvania, for example, the Game Commission gets almost all of its money by selling hunting and fishing licenses. It gets no tax money from the state's general fund. The situation is much the same in every state.

So who would pay for conservation if America winds up with half as many hunters as three decades ago?

One answer might be the "superhunter." Delta Waterfowl, an international group of duck and goose hunters, believes the hunters of tomorrow will have to pay more for licenses, while turning into more active advocates for their sport.

"If we're going to maintain the things we need in hunting, which is conservation funding and a voice in the public, that's where the superhunter comes in," said Dan Nelson, editor of Delta Waterfowl's magazine. "We're going to have to get more out of them than we've gotten from the hunters of the past."

Recruiting enough hunters to replace those who leave would stave off money problems. Wildlife agencies across the country have created youth-only seasons, developed mentoring programs, and teamed with sportsmen's organizations to run classes aimed at introducing children and women to the outdoors.

No one knows yet whether any of those programs are balancing out hunting's losses. But Mark Damian Duda, president of Responsive Management, a Virginia-based outdoor recreation survey firm that will study the issue over the next two years, has doubts.

"The problem with these programs now, and there are a lot of good ones, is that percentage-wise, it's a tiny amount of people they're reaching. They're probably a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done," he said.

Recruitment programs are up against some large-scale, hard-to-tackle issues, too. A study of hunter recruitment and retention done for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by economist Jerry Leonard found that urbanization -- which keeps people from connecting to nature -- is a serious impediment. Lack of access to huntable land and lack of time are others.

Economics factor in, too. Retention rates among hunters earning more than $40,000 remained stable between 1990 and 2005, but dropped by as much as 7 percent among those earning less.

Sportsmen typically turn to agencies such as the Game Commission to solve those problems, said Jody Enck, who studies hunters as a research associate in the human dimensions unit of Cornell University's Department of Natural Resources. But that's not realistic, he said.

Hunters need to help themselves by getting involved in protecting open space and recruiting newcomers, he said. They need to build alliances with nonhunters who, of necessity, might be asked to help pay for wildlife conservation.

"I think the North American model is going to have to evolve," Enck said. "But the way they want to do it makes it doomed. That will change it completely, and it won't be to their liking."

Nelson agreed. "It's not enough any more to just wait for the ducks to show up and complain if you don't have anywhere to hunt. Hunters have to get involved. They have to get involved up to their ears."

A lot of this is because it ain't the same world anymore that we grew up in. Back in those days it was okay to have a gun and it was still acceptible to hunt.

Now after decades of pretty much anti-hunting propaganda in the schools and urbanization we are seeing the results. City kids have guns alright, but no nothing about the woods. Even their parents, out children don't know as much as they should as mentioned in the other thread about hunters vs shooters.

This ties in with the debate we've had here many times about the expense of hunting just here in Texas. Prices keep going up and up and until it becomes necessary to subsistence hunt most people, nowadays, view hunting as a recreational activity in the same league as boating, or bowling, or whatever.

People on this forum do what they can to expose their kids to it, but many of us live in the sticks to begin with and it is still acceptible. The question becomes how do we get into the big cities and counter the propaganda in a way that reaches enough people to make a difference?

From behind this keyboard, it seems as our numbers get smaller the price will keep going up and more and more will drop out. JMO