Hunting for a hobby....
The most common entry into hunting is thought by most people to be Family Initiation. That refers to fathers getting sons into hunting. Other modes of entry are Peer Initiation and Self-Starting. If a father (FI) or a friend or coworker (PI) or Television show (SS) is all about hunting trophy whitetail bucks, it is a good bet that the novice will follow suite, and probably not experiment with other forms of hunting.
So deer hunter begets deer hunter. That is a great way to get your attention, but has little to do with the topic of this blog. It may be relevant, but that is another story to be told; at another time....
The cumulative impact on hunter numbers; through all three modes - FI, PI, and SS; in addition to initiatives like youth seasons, lowering license fees, apprenticeships, etc.;is not large enough to offset the decline in hunters. The base of the hunting population is simply not large enough to do it as it has in the past.
There is an assumption that whatever is most profitable for the hunting industry, because existing hunters like it, it is also going to attract new hunters. Another assumption is that the values, motivations, and attitudes of existing hunters will excite non-hunters and spur them to look into hunting. You tell me, without going into a story, just yes or no, is it working?
What is the difference anyway? Hunting is a significant source of funds for wildlife agencies, but some of those funds are reinvested back into hunting programs. If hunting revenue reaches the threshold which it can no longer fund state agencies, new funding strategies will be implemented; and hunting programs will be reduced or eliminated. Drastic change is part of American society and as unsettling as it is; several generations down the line, hunting will not exist as we know it, if it exists at all.
The loss of hunting in American culture is disturbing to some; but others feel it is long overdue... Who is winning the race, the tortoise or the hare?
In reality, the Pitman-Roberson Program can be amended to continue collecting an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery gear even if hunting was completely banned thereby eliminating hunting license revenue. For every hunter, there are five gun owners that do not hunt.... And none of that money would be allocated to hunting programs, since there is no more hunting... Less would go to game species and more would go to non-game species... So, does your favorite gun manufacturer or gun rights organization really care? As hunters, we support pro-second amendment politicians, but with that we believe they also will stand up for hunting. Really? Five times the number of gun owning non-hunters, and, since guns are needed to hunt, they can stay "neutral" on hunting and get both the gun vote and the animal rights vote. Does that actually happen? It certainly does...
There is a denial that the anti-hunting movement has impacted the number of hunters. That is ridiculous. They have made hunting a dirty word. The 100 plus year war against hunting certainly has set a large number of people against hunting and thereby discouraged many people from getting into hunting.
The most common entry into hunting is thought by most people to be Family Initiation. That refers to fathers getting sons into hunting. Other modes of entry are Peer Initiation and Self-Starting. If a father (FI) or a friend or coworker (PI) or Television show (SS) is all about hunting trophy whitetail bucks, it is a good bet that the novice will follow suite, and probably not experiment with other forms of hunting.
So deer hunter begets deer hunter. That is a great way to get your attention, but has little to do with the topic of this blog. It may be relevant, but that is another story to be told; at another time....
The cumulative impact on hunter numbers; through all three modes - FI, PI, and SS; in addition to initiatives like youth seasons, lowering license fees, apprenticeships, etc.;is not large enough to offset the decline in hunters. The base of the hunting population is simply not large enough to do it as it has in the past.
There is an assumption that whatever is most profitable for the hunting industry, because existing hunters like it, it is also going to attract new hunters. Another assumption is that the values, motivations, and attitudes of existing hunters will excite non-hunters and spur them to look into hunting. You tell me, without going into a story, just yes or no, is it working?
What is the difference anyway? Hunting is a significant source of funds for wildlife agencies, but some of those funds are reinvested back into hunting programs. If hunting revenue reaches the threshold which it can no longer fund state agencies, new funding strategies will be implemented; and hunting programs will be reduced or eliminated. Drastic change is part of American society and as unsettling as it is; several generations down the line, hunting will not exist as we know it, if it exists at all.
The loss of hunting in American culture is disturbing to some; but others feel it is long overdue... Who is winning the race, the tortoise or the hare?
In reality, the Pitman-Roberson Program can be amended to continue collecting an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery gear even if hunting was completely banned thereby eliminating hunting license revenue. For every hunter, there are five gun owners that do not hunt.... And none of that money would be allocated to hunting programs, since there is no more hunting... Less would go to game species and more would go to non-game species... So, does your favorite gun manufacturer or gun rights organization really care? As hunters, we support pro-second amendment politicians, but with that we believe they also will stand up for hunting. Really? Five times the number of gun owning non-hunters, and, since guns are needed to hunt, they can stay "neutral" on hunting and get both the gun vote and the animal rights vote. Does that actually happen? It certainly does...
There is a denial that the anti-hunting movement has impacted the number of hunters. That is ridiculous. They have made hunting a dirty word. The 100 plus year war against hunting certainly has set a large number of people against hunting and thereby discouraged many people from getting into hunting.