Hunting Economics
Sales Tax: Local, State (Federal tax on fuel and federal excise tax on guns and ammunition)
Recreational Man-Days
Returns
- Positive Economic Impact to rural communities and small towns > Hunting
- Positive Economic Impact to Indian Reservations > Hunting
- Negative Economic Impact to Large Cities > Sport Events: Football, baseball, etc. According to anti-hunting organizations; increased hunting opportunity and new hunting seasons pull money away from Cities that have sport stadiums; therefore, according to them, additional hunting opportunities are undesirable.
Recreational Man-Days
- New Hunting season will increase man-days even if it does not result in more sales of hunting licenses.
- More Man-Days translates into more revenue to small business in rural communities; more local sales tax revenue, more state sales tax revenue, and more federal fuel sales tax revenue.
Returns
- Recreational
- Cultural/Tradition
- Meat
- Ecological
- Economical
- Ecological and Economic Returns are not the only justifications for hunting. Hunting is primarily a cultural and social activity, not an economic one. If organizations representing hunters and wildlife agencies depend on hitching our wagons to our economic contributions alone, as is often done, we risk being trapped.
- It is time to stop the rhetorical protection of hunting. It is time to nurture and restore the spirit of its traditions and culture. We must begin to redirect our efforts to find ways to retain, restore, and enhance the cultural significance of hunting.
R3 (Recruitment, Retention, and Re-activation)
- A decline in hunter numbers is not in itself a crisis, but rather a symptom of the larger problem of retaining cultural significance. As historic connections between hunting and subsistence increasingly grow apart; shifting public opinion of hunting constitutes a grave long-term threat to hunting. Meanwhile, hunters are being defined by complacency, by lucrative industry, by media distortions, by hunting organizations and clubs, and by “enlightened self-interest” – all of which erode cultural significance. It is sloppy thinking that we as hunters can maintain traditions and cultural significance by focusing on our economic contributions or otherwise protracted debate with anti-hunters.
- In order to assure the future of hunting, we don’t need more hunters, we need better hunters.
Pheasant
- More pheasant, not less; were stocked when wild pheasant were abundant.
- If the higher volume of stocking was maintained when habitat and wild pheasant populations declined; the number of pheasant hunters would not have dropped off as precipitously.
- The effect of preseason excitement generated by the media and state wildlife agencies about hunting a particular species or hunting program makes a profound difference in hunter participation. The media is no longer a dependable dissemination about hunting opportunities for small game, and state wildlife agencies have not taken up the slack.
- Hunters are inundated with information from external sources (organizations, retailers, hunting guides, message boards and media) as well as information from state wildlife agencies. For example: “you only get one chance at a trophy; make it count with our laser sight” or whatever else they are selling.
- Although industries that serve hunting dog owners exist, big corporations cannot operate in the sale and training of hunting dogs. The focus on hunting dogs that existed in the past facilitated small, hobby businesses, but is not conducive to mass, corporate profits. Except for a few industries that produce hunting dog related products; the decline of old-school hunting tradition is conducive to the hunting industry, which is well-organized through trade organizations; that in fact publish most of the hunting magazines currently in circulation.
- State Pheasant Stocking Programs provide enormous benefits to hunters; sportsmen do not have to ask anyone permission, travel out of state, lease land, or join a club. All they need to do is have a hunting license and a pheasant permit, obey the regulations, and they can go enjoy their state’s pheasant program.
- To illustrate the benefit of state pheasant programs to the sportsmen, consider New Jersey’s program. In 2018; for $67.50; residents of New Jersey can attend a state-run hunting course; and access 24 public properties containing 3,721 field acres; on which 50,000 pheasant and 5,200 Northern bobwhite are released. Except for the second week in December, hunters can pursue these pheasant from November 10 until February 18; and Bobwhite until January 31. In addition, 880 Pheasant are stocked for dog training one month prior to hunting season on eleven of these public properties.
- Multiple factors, shape hunter satisfaction. These factors can be success related or non-success related. Hunters may formulate unrealistic expectations about pheasant hunting in terms of success and casualness. When pheasant hunting does not live up to expectations of a casual, easy hunt, newcomer hunters become rebels and express dissatisfaction to their state wildlife agency about its pheasant program.
- The potential for pen-reared pheasant to negatively impact wild pheasant or other wildlife has been the subject of numerous research studies. No research findings have proven or bolstered this concern. Furthermore, pheasant stocking has occurred for over 100 years across much of the United States without incidence.
- Nobody doubts that fish stocking is a pull-factor that attracts anglers, thereby bolstering fishing license sales, local economies, and federal DJ funding. Furthermore, nobody implicates fish stocking or new fishing opportunities in depressing attendance at sports stadiums or urban economies. Yet, this logic has actually been taken seriously when it has been applied to pheasant stocking or new opportunities to hunt mourning doves.