As you undoubtedly know, less people hunt. Hunting is an important source of funds for wildlife agencies, and in certain situations it is a tool to study or manage wildlife. The cultural, traditional historical, and recreational aspects of hunting have depreciated, however some people are troubled that it is fading away. Others are not, but that is another story.
Wildlife Agencies were the first to recognize this trend, even before hunting-related industries, and have led the charge to “conserve” hunters. Hunting Industries as well as organizations have since joined in.
Wildlife Agencies, just like industries, attempt to “study” the behavior of hunters. However, their perspectives differ, thus, so does the information they seek and tools used in seeking. Agencies will contract “social scientists” to gather data from hunters and interpret the results and form conclusions from such. Besides, “conclusions” and “management implications”; these studies give rise to new theories, some that agree with the status quo and others that are novel.
The original strategies focused on our youth. However, since then others have suggested teaching adults how to hunt, and letting those adults mentor their children. Another concept new on the scene is the theory of “social habitat for hunters”. Social habitat has several contexts and new contexts should be explored. One defeatist social scientist, clearly opposed to hunting, postulated that prime social habitat for hunters include manufacturing jobs and extraction industry (gas, oil, coal, etc.) jobs. She is not totally wrong with that suggestion. The popular notion is that hunting is a family activity. Indeed, in the past, it was very common for father and sons to hunt rabbits and pheasant together. However, the scenario of the Robert Diniro film ‘The Deer Hunter” was at least as common, if not more common. In case you never saw the movie (or chose to forget it) it was set in the Pennsylvania steel mill industry, and themed after a group of Russian-Americans who worked in the same steel plant and lived in the same run-down section of a city. The film was not about deer hunting, but it demonstrated that these guys were connected through hunting, work, residence, and ethnic heritage.
The NY DEC apparently has made at least one attempt to create social habitat for hunters (SHH). There was a youth pheasant hunt held inside the regular pheasant season at Stewards State Forest that was combined with a “Hunter Appreciation Day”. Private clubs provide SHH, but do so in an exclusionary manner, and direct how, when, and what species is hunted, determined by elders at the club. Commercial hunting preserves also provide SHH, but again there are drawbacks. Hunts are expensive and canned. Some cater to a wealthy class and the social environment reflects that demograph. The old-style hunting dog field trials and the proliferation of the newer dog clubs has grown, but without any contribution to actual hunting.
Another way agencies study the behavior of hunters is to monitor online hunting forums and social media. We have done the same. Our preliminary findings show categories of hunters that are established and looking for people to hunt with and other hunters that are not established and looking for someone to take them. Sometimes established waterfowl hunters will solicit an invitation when hunting conditions are not favorable near them. Many contemporary waterfowl hunters are young, in their twenties and thirties, and frequently hunt in large groups. This apparently is the cultural trend for waterfowl hunters. These young men are not with their fathers and brothers, and not always with co-workers. Often it is friends of friends and online acquaintances. This is fine, except when they return separately to hunt the same spot, with different friends.
Other unestablished hunters do not ask to tag along, but rather ask for specific or general locations to hunt. This creates a difficult dilemma – announcing online or privately through email to a stranger can lead to “hot-spotting” or “spot burning”. There is a difference between telling someone they can find pheasant at very popular release sites (e.g. Stewards State Forest in NY or Colliers Mills in NJ); and announcing an online duck hunting site “Pool 99 is Loaded”…. It is not much better to direct hunters to some of the smaller pheasant release sites – as the number of birds stocked is related to the number of hunters the state observes using the area. There is a difference between a site that is stocked 3 times a week and another that is stocked that many times the entire season, with less birds per release to boot.
So how do we assist unestablished hunters? Perhaps, the quota areas are best. If these sites are too far for an individual, or he is dissatisfied, he can eventually learn about new hunting opportunities, but in the interim, access a decent (if not superior) place to hunt. Sometimes hunters can pre-register, or win a lottery. Other times he must stand in what hunters call the “sweat line”. In the sweat line a lot of friends are made and info about other hunting opportunities is discussed. It is disappointing not to get in when you thought you would be hunting, but these “sweat lines” are prime social habitat for hunters. In NY there are quota hunts on some National Wildlife Refuges and state/county parks, and there is a least one Coop.
So, there is a group of unpaid volunteers that comprise of the NY Fish and Wildlife Management Boards. One of their tasks is to create these coops – hit these folks up. Also communicate with DEC staff about this topic. Studies have shown that people hunt every year when they do not have to drive more than 18 miles. Those that must drive more than 18 miles tend to hunt every other year. Surely this is also a factor in the attritional loss of hunters. States should NOT impose quotas on existing free-roam properties that are lightly used and therefore not needed; that is NOT what we are suggesting. What we are suggesting, is that the state acquires or arranges new access with quota programs. But these properties need to attract game, not just hunters. They should offer resources for game, or resources should be created (for example create a wetland or a dove field). Properties not suitable for water management should be managed as pheasant release sites.
All of the actions to regenerate hunting the past decade or so have failed. It is time to get real and develop game-rich properties. Stop pretending that pheasant stocking and the opportunity to hunt doves is insignificant. Recognize the existing, built in, “social habitat for hunters”.
But, all of the above does not address: “Why not go at it alone”?
The recent consensus is that hunting is a social activity. But is it? Indeed, the social, family, and camaraderie aspects are most or all for many hunters. But can agencies and organizations restore family life or match-make friends? To others, hunting is a lonely activity, and among that school of thought there are some that prefer it as a solitary activity. A child old enough to hunt or other person might convert such a loner, but maybe we have neglected pointing out that there are also virtues to hunting alone. By eliminating one reason often given for not hunting or quitting (“no one to hunt with”) there is a greater chance of retaining or recruiting hunters. The concept of hunting alone being desirable for some people should be raised. And it could be raised without dismissing the opposite viewpoint.
Many people absolutely thrive on self-learning. Sometimes these people will hunt with others for a short time, and then desire independence (which sometimes creates conflict when the new hunter returns to a hunting spot someone showed him). Others, want no guidance, even from the start. This is not uncommon and has been witnessed a number of times. It is time to revisit if the overbearing crowding, and cuddling is universally appreciated, we are sure it is not. This practice has to be evaluated on a case by case, person by person basis; and the individual should be treated accordingly. The assumption that every novice is interested in a new social life or camaraderie through hunting, is just that, an assumption. Hunting is on life support and we cannot afford to negligently let any potential recruits to slip through the cracks. The theory of Stages of Hunter Development supports this argument. Not every hunter passes through every stage nor in the same order. The assumption that hunters are similar in attitude or motivations is faulty logic and needs to be dismissed.
If anything substantial exists that promotes solitary hunting and/or points to it as an option, we have not seen it. Solitary hunting should be “included as an option” so to speak; and it would be wise to invest some time into developing a narrative on this topic; especially in light of the increasing emphasis on the social aspect relating to hunting.
Wildlife Agencies were the first to recognize this trend, even before hunting-related industries, and have led the charge to “conserve” hunters. Hunting Industries as well as organizations have since joined in.
Wildlife Agencies, just like industries, attempt to “study” the behavior of hunters. However, their perspectives differ, thus, so does the information they seek and tools used in seeking. Agencies will contract “social scientists” to gather data from hunters and interpret the results and form conclusions from such. Besides, “conclusions” and “management implications”; these studies give rise to new theories, some that agree with the status quo and others that are novel.
The original strategies focused on our youth. However, since then others have suggested teaching adults how to hunt, and letting those adults mentor their children. Another concept new on the scene is the theory of “social habitat for hunters”. Social habitat has several contexts and new contexts should be explored. One defeatist social scientist, clearly opposed to hunting, postulated that prime social habitat for hunters include manufacturing jobs and extraction industry (gas, oil, coal, etc.) jobs. She is not totally wrong with that suggestion. The popular notion is that hunting is a family activity. Indeed, in the past, it was very common for father and sons to hunt rabbits and pheasant together. However, the scenario of the Robert Diniro film ‘The Deer Hunter” was at least as common, if not more common. In case you never saw the movie (or chose to forget it) it was set in the Pennsylvania steel mill industry, and themed after a group of Russian-Americans who worked in the same steel plant and lived in the same run-down section of a city. The film was not about deer hunting, but it demonstrated that these guys were connected through hunting, work, residence, and ethnic heritage.
The NY DEC apparently has made at least one attempt to create social habitat for hunters (SHH). There was a youth pheasant hunt held inside the regular pheasant season at Stewards State Forest that was combined with a “Hunter Appreciation Day”. Private clubs provide SHH, but do so in an exclusionary manner, and direct how, when, and what species is hunted, determined by elders at the club. Commercial hunting preserves also provide SHH, but again there are drawbacks. Hunts are expensive and canned. Some cater to a wealthy class and the social environment reflects that demograph. The old-style hunting dog field trials and the proliferation of the newer dog clubs has grown, but without any contribution to actual hunting.
Another way agencies study the behavior of hunters is to monitor online hunting forums and social media. We have done the same. Our preliminary findings show categories of hunters that are established and looking for people to hunt with and other hunters that are not established and looking for someone to take them. Sometimes established waterfowl hunters will solicit an invitation when hunting conditions are not favorable near them. Many contemporary waterfowl hunters are young, in their twenties and thirties, and frequently hunt in large groups. This apparently is the cultural trend for waterfowl hunters. These young men are not with their fathers and brothers, and not always with co-workers. Often it is friends of friends and online acquaintances. This is fine, except when they return separately to hunt the same spot, with different friends.
Other unestablished hunters do not ask to tag along, but rather ask for specific or general locations to hunt. This creates a difficult dilemma – announcing online or privately through email to a stranger can lead to “hot-spotting” or “spot burning”. There is a difference between telling someone they can find pheasant at very popular release sites (e.g. Stewards State Forest in NY or Colliers Mills in NJ); and announcing an online duck hunting site “Pool 99 is Loaded”…. It is not much better to direct hunters to some of the smaller pheasant release sites – as the number of birds stocked is related to the number of hunters the state observes using the area. There is a difference between a site that is stocked 3 times a week and another that is stocked that many times the entire season, with less birds per release to boot.
So how do we assist unestablished hunters? Perhaps, the quota areas are best. If these sites are too far for an individual, or he is dissatisfied, he can eventually learn about new hunting opportunities, but in the interim, access a decent (if not superior) place to hunt. Sometimes hunters can pre-register, or win a lottery. Other times he must stand in what hunters call the “sweat line”. In the sweat line a lot of friends are made and info about other hunting opportunities is discussed. It is disappointing not to get in when you thought you would be hunting, but these “sweat lines” are prime social habitat for hunters. In NY there are quota hunts on some National Wildlife Refuges and state/county parks, and there is a least one Coop.
So, there is a group of unpaid volunteers that comprise of the NY Fish and Wildlife Management Boards. One of their tasks is to create these coops – hit these folks up. Also communicate with DEC staff about this topic. Studies have shown that people hunt every year when they do not have to drive more than 18 miles. Those that must drive more than 18 miles tend to hunt every other year. Surely this is also a factor in the attritional loss of hunters. States should NOT impose quotas on existing free-roam properties that are lightly used and therefore not needed; that is NOT what we are suggesting. What we are suggesting, is that the state acquires or arranges new access with quota programs. But these properties need to attract game, not just hunters. They should offer resources for game, or resources should be created (for example create a wetland or a dove field). Properties not suitable for water management should be managed as pheasant release sites.
All of the actions to regenerate hunting the past decade or so have failed. It is time to get real and develop game-rich properties. Stop pretending that pheasant stocking and the opportunity to hunt doves is insignificant. Recognize the existing, built in, “social habitat for hunters”.
But, all of the above does not address: “Why not go at it alone”?
The recent consensus is that hunting is a social activity. But is it? Indeed, the social, family, and camaraderie aspects are most or all for many hunters. But can agencies and organizations restore family life or match-make friends? To others, hunting is a lonely activity, and among that school of thought there are some that prefer it as a solitary activity. A child old enough to hunt or other person might convert such a loner, but maybe we have neglected pointing out that there are also virtues to hunting alone. By eliminating one reason often given for not hunting or quitting (“no one to hunt with”) there is a greater chance of retaining or recruiting hunters. The concept of hunting alone being desirable for some people should be raised. And it could be raised without dismissing the opposite viewpoint.
Many people absolutely thrive on self-learning. Sometimes these people will hunt with others for a short time, and then desire independence (which sometimes creates conflict when the new hunter returns to a hunting spot someone showed him). Others, want no guidance, even from the start. This is not uncommon and has been witnessed a number of times. It is time to revisit if the overbearing crowding, and cuddling is universally appreciated, we are sure it is not. This practice has to be evaluated on a case by case, person by person basis; and the individual should be treated accordingly. The assumption that every novice is interested in a new social life or camaraderie through hunting, is just that, an assumption. Hunting is on life support and we cannot afford to negligently let any potential recruits to slip through the cracks. The theory of Stages of Hunter Development supports this argument. Not every hunter passes through every stage nor in the same order. The assumption that hunters are similar in attitude or motivations is faulty logic and needs to be dismissed.
If anything substantial exists that promotes solitary hunting and/or points to it as an option, we have not seen it. Solitary hunting should be “included as an option” so to speak; and it would be wise to invest some time into developing a narrative on this topic; especially in light of the increasing emphasis on the social aspect relating to hunting.