Although I think most would agree there can be many sub-classes, for simplicity sake lets stick with a more broad generalization of the below 3:

1. The Elite Hunter - Comes from Wealth, either earned or Inherited. Upper Echelon class guys who enjoy the best of the best of the pursuit, be it upland hunting, deer, elk, sheep, likely to include international pursuits and hard to achieve species Slams. Choose the best of the best of equipment, from rifles, clothing, etc. Typically members of SCI, DSC, etc.... will be members of many conservation organizations. Typically Well Educated. Vast amounts of experience hunting a wide variety of game. Think Donald Trump Jr., J. Alaine Smith, Jim Shockey, Craig Boddington etc. They use their funding and influence to further hunting & conservation practices domestically and internationally.

2. The Trending Hunter - Financially stable, typically upper middle to upper class, typically white collar guys with discretionary income dedicated to hunting/fishing. Small to Mid-Size Business owners, Doctors, High level managers, etc. Enjoy quality pursuits of their favorite quarry. Large number of African hunters, as well as backcountry and western hunters in this group, will lease quality property at premium prices, will put in for draw tags in multiple states, purchases name brand quality equipment ( KUIU, Firstlite, Yeti,etc,). Knowledgeable hunters, Stay in the know about conservation issues, public land issues ( when pertinent to their hunting style ) game population trends, etc. and is concerned about game management. Typically members of more local type conservation organizations like QDMA, Ducks Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation etc. Donates money and time to conservation practices. Think a Steve Rinella, Randy Newburg, Remi Warren, Fred Bear, Jack O'Connor type of guy, where hunting and outdoor pursuits are a big part of their persona.

3. The "Joe Hunter" hunter - Can range the whole spectrum of economic levels. Experience and passion for outdoor pursuits range can vary widely as well. Stick to local game and opportunities available, rarely if ever travel far to pursue game. Largest number of whitetail deer only hunters in this group. Time spent hunting can range from just a few days a year to every weekend during season. Knowledge can vary from very little, largely anecdotal to vast amounts. Large number of this group is concerned with "getting their money's worth" and less about wildlife sustainability and habitat improvement, either thru ignorance/uneducation or selfishness. Typically not members of any conservation group, and may not follow management practices other than guidelines set by local government. This group also has a large segment that thinks being a hunter makes the "tough " or somehow more masculine. This group of hunters has in their ranks guys like Ted Nugent and Pigman.


If you were to pull a person off the street, and ask him to describe a typical American Hunter, what group would you think their description would most reflect?


Due to the Covid - 19 shuttering a lot of people at home, I'm starting to read more on social media hunting groups and on different forums, and I'm starting to see some concerning comments from hunters concerning non hunters ( not anti-hunting per se ) thoughts and opinions. I'm seeing a lot of brash and abrasive language and although I don't feel like we as hunters need to sugar coat what we do ( like replace the word Kill with Harvest for instance, or apologize for Trophy Hunting) there certainly isn't an effort to win hearts and minds. I've seen good opportunities to educate non-hunters in an articulate manner whizzed away by our brethren who choose to be confrontational rather than educational ( cause everyone is a tough guy over the internet ) and it is, quite frankly, sad to see that most of these brash and abrasive individuals would fall into the 3rd group. I think if you were to ask the average non-hunting American to describe a hunter, at best you would get a Elmer Fudd type description, more than likely you would get a beer drinking, loud, boorish redneck described rather than a sharped dressed, well spoken individual.

Why does it matter? Because as land changes hands, people get elected, etc....there are going to continue to be more and more non-hunters in positions that will in part dictate the actions of hunters, and we need to be represented in a positive manner.

social media has a far worse impact on hunting than flannel jacket wearing joe that shoots a forked horn four point opening morning has ever had. I think you are correct in what the average person that has never left the concrete would've thought not long ago. but, these people
"educate" themselves with social media, not hands on experience. I feel that a few recent social media hits have made more people than before think that hunting is "trophy" hunting for the "elites"

In the UK and Europe I would agree with your last sentence. I’m not sure about here at home.

I live right on the edge of suburbia/rural Texas and I see the social media battles in my own neighborhood....but opportunity to Be articulate and educate turns into snarky comments from hunters and only further negative views from non hunters.

And I agree that social media is the devil

Yes and no. A little bad goes a very long ways on social media, with that said I think hunting is way more appealing due to social media and is turning out to be a huge recruitment tool.

How many hunters 10 years ago could speak intelligently about Pittman Roberson Act or LWCF? Social Media has educated many on where the funding for wildlife comes from. Shows like Meat eater are breaking down the blood thirst horn hunting images and replacing them with a image of sustainable stewardship and wholesome consumption.

Even then industry giants have a transform their media campaigns to follow the Meateater Clams leads.

I can tell you from a backcountry perspective in last 2 years I’ve seen more people hunting backcountry(4-10miles) back more then I have in 30 plus years. Why? Industry has prompted the hard fought self procured image and in the general public eye it’s actually a good image

I agree with that....lots more folks in the back country now....can't say I enjoy that part much. I believe in part, we have better and lighter gear available to us. You can overnight in comfort now with what you can carry on a pack that used to require a team of mules. I think its also more hip, trendy and en vogue to bowhunt in the backcountry. A lot of the people doing it I believe are posers and they will peter out after the Cameron Haynes/Remi Warren following fad has fizzled out.

However I will say the above mentioned guys are great spokespeople for the hunting industry, a great counter balance to the Ted Nugents and PigMen we had to tolerate for so many years.

I thought maybe it’s a fad, but the guys I met that far back you could tell they where loving every moment of it. More power too them

the mapping systems like ONX have also opened up a lot of previously thought unreachable country.

Its a double edge sword.....I like people utilizing whats ours but also hate crowds. I hunt a wilderness area on occasion that I never used to see guys in. This past year I saw numerous headlamps coming off the mountain at dark.

I did hunt one wilderness unit a few years ago that was a pain to drive too, and had a real narrow trail head and not a car parked there......hiked in a few miles and loved it but hunting that particular place was gonna be a bear if you shot something and had to pack it out

Guess I am Joe Hunter. My camo is 17 years old. I love my Elite friend hunters but they grew up that way. You won't ever see them on social media or brag though. I enjoy their world adventures around the campfire. One hunt would pay for my lease fees for 20 years. Funny you mention Trump Jr though. My hunting partner on lease went with him years ago. He said his $5K English bird hunt ended up being $15k. About broke him back in the day. His good friend was friends with him and invited him. Still enjoys our simple camp and ways with the kids.

Three classes of hunters...

TxTrophy, I think you tried to put too much into this one. Im wanting to respond but don't know where to start. If your main goal was to talk about what nonhunters think about hunters, theres surely a better way to preface it. Your 3 categories have so much info its too much and is distracting. Its human nature to try and figure out which group youre in and lose sight of your point. My large group of hunting lease members and friends don't fall into any of the 3 categories. Me and a few of my friends fall into #2 except we hunt mostly all in Texas so that knocks us outa #2. I think a monstrous % of Texas hunters do not hunt out of State. Most of us would fall into #3 except for all the negative stuff you put in there.
I like you and what youre trying to get across so don't take me wrong. I just think you could of generalized much more with something like the following 3 categories. #1 is fancy pants hunters(perceived) that are likely ego driven but actually do a lot for the sport and conservation. #3 is the other extreme and they are mostly poor, ignorant, selfish rednecks that mostly just want a safe place to get drunk and exude testosterone. That would leave #2 with a huge variation of everything in between(which I think most hunters belong.) I also concur with you that there are many sub-classes within the groups.
The problem you are trying to address is that the nonhunting public doesn't know anything about the huge portion of #2(my version) and way too much about the two extremes. Good luck with the thread. I think it will die due to a confused topic or last forever since its liable to shoot off into all kinds of tangents.

CO basically put all its SW OTC Archery Elk hunts into draw because of Texans In our defense most that country use to be part of Texas

My not answer the question, but in the 16 or so years we did some guiding, we had over 150 hunters through our camps. I would say most of them would fit in category 2 and 3 in your scenario, but we did have our share of "elite" hunters. There were good guys and not so good guys in every batch. I did learn that a guy's financial situation had zero to do with his hunting ability. There were wealthy guys who hunted, and some real hunters who happened to have lots of money. There's a big difference. I had little use and patience for the lardass lawyer types that thought their schitttt was ice cream and there wasn't enough spoons to go around.

I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of TV hunting show host likely couldn't hunt their way out of of a wet paper bag if you put them on public land, or even private ground somewhere and told them "good luck, figure it out yourself'. I think the average non hunter doesn't have the first clue about forming an opinion on what a real hunter is. How could they?

I was going to respond to this, but I’m too new here to raise a ruckus and freerange and JG have already said much of what I would’ve said. Don’t you think that the OP comes off as somewhat elitist? Surely you do not believe that the balance in one’s checking account makes them a better hunter. I guess given the choices you gave me, I am a #3, but rest assured Ted Nugent and Pigman will be having dinner at your house long before they eat at mine.

I did put a lot into it into a condensed version to save space.

It wasn’t meant to be an absolute either.


The only reason I brought up socioeconomic classes at all, was because in Europe hunting is viewed as a sport for the elite, and when I think of European hunting, I think of some dudes dressed in tweeds carrying side by side guns that cost as much as my truck. Also, I had to draw a line somewhere....the Shah of Iran was in a different hunting class than Elmer Keith was. I didn’t intend to or did I imply that financial status was a measurement of a hunter.

I didn’t exclusively say that group 2 hunted out of state, although a large % of them do. It’s not an exclusive to the group however. I know group 2 guys that only hunt in one county and never leave it.

I guess the point to my question, or the question to my point, are we as a whole being portrayed in an accurate light?

I agree wholly that the general public doesent largely know about group 2 ( probably the majority of hunters today ) and puts their perspective on either 1 or 3

keep getten told :

Colt keeps posting without offering anything. I guess hes just fishing for some drama. Don't worry, im working on a long post for later today. Stay tuned...
I guess im looking for any excuse to post somewhere besides Off Topic.

Why this statement isn't included in all three categories is beyond me.

I didn't think it needed to be because its not an absolute to every group.

EFF...

I happened across one of the so-called deer hunting shows the other night and realized you might just as well replace the word "deer with "livestock" into just about every sentence. Texas has become a place where hunting can be described as feed, grow, kill, repeat.

I get the same feeling. The feeling that Txtrophy and Bobo look down on us beer swilling, deer shooting rednecks.

Not saying it's happening here, but so what if someone looks down on you? So what? Stay comfortable and let that be their attitude. Remember, what you think of me is none of my business.

Onward & ever forward,

Hud

It is not an absolute, period, but it occurs in all of them.

I hesitate to post this in case it messes up the OPs thread but the best threads often shoot off like a scattergun. I appreciate TxTro efforts in compiling his 3 categories but I kept disagreeing with them so much I had a hard time commenting. So ive made up my own version of 3 categories. My goal is the same as the OPs in that I want to challenge yall to consider how we are perceived by nonhunters. Keep in mind these are the categories that I feel nonhunters would likely perceive hunters if they had the awareness. In my view its like Goldilocks, its either Too Hot, Too Cold or Just Right. I start with the two extremes that are probably not a good look to nonhunters and hopefully even combined they are not nearly the majority. The last group is a much better look and hopefully where most hunters fall. Its difficult to “name” these categories so don’t read too much into that but instead go by the descriptions.

>Too Hot- ELITIST ‘TROPHY HUNTER’ —Usually has money and influence and uses it in hunting pursuits to accomplish feats that would be difficult for an average person to achieve. They may of killed 100s if not 1000s of specimens that an average hunter would consider a Trophy. They would normally use their funding and influence to further hunting and conservation practices domestically and internationally. They would likely belong and be active in many conservation organizations that do wonders for our wildlife. Typically well educated and would be able to explain the merits of hunting in a positive way. They would personally be spending a lot of money that would directly support wildlife. Their hunting knowledge and ability may be very high but their money could also buy the experience of a guide or simply put them in a situation where actual hunting knowledge isn’t important at all.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this type hunter. However, this type hunter could often be perceived by nonhunters in a negative light and the perception of the nonhunter is the purpose of this exercise. Sadly, just having money is often perceived negatively. If someone thought the wealth was used to achieve goals that others could not, then its often human nature to assume those people were doing it to draw attention to themselves as being elite. The fact that wealth can often buy a “Trophy” will immediately cast a negative light on a Trophy endeavor.

>Too Cold—SLOB HUNTER—Usually not highly educated or at least not educated about wildlife management and wildlife sustainability. Usually lessor income level but not necessarily. Often concerned with “getting their moneys worth” and less about wildlife sustainability and habitat improvement, either through ignorance/uneducation or selfishness. Hunting knowledge can vary from very little, largely anecdotal to vast amounts. Usually wont have the patience or drive to put in the time or effort to manage and hunt superior quality animals so they kill whatever they can regardless of quality or how it impacts the future of the herd or other hunters. Typically not members of conservation organizations because they never think much beyond themselves and the short term. Usually not good members of a group type hunting situation cause they aren’t team players. They would not follow group imposed guidelines or even government laws if they think they can get away with it. A real macho, tough guy type person seems to fit in here and often hunting is an excuse to get drunk without the usual witnesses.
Not much good to be seen by a nonhunter about this group. The only exception may be a guy that’s got little education and little money but he has a good enough moral compass to keep him out of the unethical stuff that’s common with this group.

>Just Right- QUALITY/TROPHY HUNTER/MANAGER—For what its worth, I feel myself and most of my hunting friends fall into this category but I have friends in all 3 categories. This type hunter wants an entire experience that he can be proud of. Sometimes the process/expectations/memories can be as important as the end result and often more so. In order to get this type experience, it often requires average to above average income as well as above average intelligence, but not necessarily. Often times it helps to be able to work with others to achieve a difficult goal, so people skills and communications skills are helpful. These endeavors are not easy so often a large payoff is desired, so the animals pursued would be high quality at minimum and usually Trophy status would be important. These hunters would be knowledgeable and understand that Trophy animals are a product of hard work and patience over the long term that results in improved herd dynamics and habitat improvement achieved through well thought out management guidelines. This hunter would normally put so much time, effort and money into his passion that he would be thinking about more than himself and just the short term. They think of others and generations ahead while respecting the land, water and wildlife. They want to share their experience with family and friends while leaving the habitat and animals better than when they found it. This unselfishness carries over into the many conservation organizations they are likely members of and active within.
An aware nonhunter hopefully would not find too much fault with this type hunter. I feel the majority of hunters fall into this category but likely not nearly enough to satisfy the nonhunting public.

To summarize ill say that the future of hunting will depend on recruiting new hunters while insuring that nonhunters view hunting in a positive light. Neither one of those will be easy to do but I hope we all try to do our part. Keep in mind that the term “Trophy” is often going to need to be explained to the nonhunter since it usually casts a bad light. I don’t apologize for being a Trophy hunter but I try to be prepared to explain my reasons. Also, understand that anything short of hunting for survival will often be frowned upon by nonhunters so be prepared to explain your reasons for hunting. Keeping in mind there can be subcategories within all 3 groups, ask yourself where you fall and if you’re proud of it.
ps TxTrophy85, thanks for letting me sidetrack your thread as well as plagiarize some. My 2cents, well maybe a nickel.

For the record...I myself normally drink beer while shooting deer