How Many Hunters Are There, Really?
There are three times more hunters in the US than commonly published. Nearly 45 million people in the US have hunted and form part of its support. The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) issued a press release in July that quotes the experts. The National Wild Turkey Federation is an appropriate sports- menís conservation organization to call these facts to attention. The number of wild turkey hunters in the US has doubled from 1.3 million to 2.6 million since the NWTF was founded in 1973. We repeat the NWTF points here, the quoted experts and add some need-to-know analysis from our own files.
The NWTF press release states that "[m]any people believe that reporting there are 13 million hunters in this country is at least misleading and, at worst, a gross underestimation of their actual numbers." "That number only represents how many people over the age of 16 hunted during a one year periodÖ. It does not include hunters under the age of 16, nor nor does it take into account those people who consider themselves hunters but for whatever reason, didnít hunt in 2001."
The release quotes Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director of Responsive Management, that "[a]ccording to our research, about 28 million Americans consider themselves hunters, even though they donít hunt every year and some havenít gone for several years." (Emphasis ours.) The NWTF press release also quotes Rob Southwick, president of Southwick Associates that "[t]he National Survey shows there are 43.7 million people in the United States who have hunted in any previous year. That number is three times more than the number of people reported as having hunted in 2001. Thatís significant." The NWTF release adds that researchers have "found that many people subscribe to the idea that once a hunter, always a hunter."
Now for our thoughts. The Survey everyone is citing is the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation completed once every five years by the US Census Bureau. First, the 13 million figure can indeed be misleading. When the 1.74 million hunters in the six- to 15-year-old age class are added, the number of hunters is 14.7 million. It is also wholly incorrect to compute hunters in 2001 as a percentage of the US population, as the antis do, unless the six- to 15-year-old age group of hunters is included. One fifth of the total US population was in the six- to 15-year-old age class at the time of the survey. Certainly, hunters in that age class should be considered as well. That age group is particularly important because of the lifetime impression hunting can make on children that naturally yearn to hunt and experience the greater outdoors. The same is true for the 13.145 million six- to 15-year-olds who fished that year. They remember.
The National Survey does conclude that 43,745,000 persons in the US hunted in 2000 or before. That does not include those who hunted in 2001 for the first time. It only includes those who hunted in 2000 or before. If the previous yearís number of first-time hunters was used as an estimate of the number of new hunters in 2001, that adds an additional 1.24 million hunters. When totaled, it raises the number of people who reportedly have hunted by the early Fall of 2001 to 44,985,000. We round off that to 45 million, which it misses by only 15,000.
We must also add that the terrorism of September 11, 2001, did not affect the results of the survey, according to the surveyors. Nevertheless, much of the Survey was conducted in October, the next month. Many hunters we know cancelled hunts and booking agents were complaining. The survey of 2006 should tell.
Readers may recall that Conservation Force and Dallas Safari Club contracted with Mark Damian Duda of Responsive Management and published a brochure on the significant growth of big game hunting in America. It is still true. Though the 2001 National Survey showed no growth in big game hunting, virtually all other activities declined. Big game hunting continues to stand out for that. 91 percent of all hunters hunted big game. It is the most popular kind of hunting, and it has had the highest growth rate of any popular outdoor activity for more than half a century. One survey showing no growth does not change the long-term trend.
The anti-hunters raved when the 2001 National Survey was published, but there was little for them to rave about. They like to compare Americaís hunting and fishing to wildlife watching. We do not agree that wildlife watching activities are opposite and opposing poles, as the anti profess. Nor do we agree that hunting and fishing are declining in comparison to wildlife watching. They absolutely are not!
The activities are not opposites. Hunters and anglers pay the largest share of wildlife conservation, which is far more than all others combined. Moreover, hunters and anglers are more likely to be "wildlife watchers" than others in the general public. 62 percent of hunters and 58 percent of anglers participated in wildlife watching in 2001. In fact, 33 percent of wildlife watchers also reported hunting and/or fishing during the year.
But that is not all. Wildlife watching has never been what it is held out to be in popularity, growth or revenue. The number of wildlife watchers declined in every survey before 2001. In 2001, its growth was not enough to offset its decline over the decade. "Participation in wildlife watching (observing, feeding and photographing wildlife) decreased from 76.1 million in 1991 to 62.9 million in 1996 (17 plercent), but it increased to 66.1 million from 1996 to 2001 (5 percent)," according to the survey.
That is a 10 million decrease over the decade! That was preceded by a similar decrease in participants in both five-year surveys the decade before. Nothing has fared worse than wildlife watching in the past two decades, since 1980. Before 1980, wildlife watching was not surveyed. Overall "the number of wildlife-watching participants who took trips away from home to observe, feed or photograph wildlife decreased 19 percent from 1980 to 2001. The number of people who fed wildlife around their home decreased by 18 percent." (2001 National Survey Summary of Findings) Wildlife observing and photographing decreased by five percent in 1996 and 13 percent in 2001. The component of wildlife watching that increased in 1996 was residential wildlife watching, while feeding wildlife and visiting parks maintained their 1996 participation levels. Watching wildlife at oneís residence is the "preeminent type of wildlife watching," but does little to support Americaís wildlife conservation system.
The longer trends of hunting and fishing should also not be ignored. From 1955 to 2001, hunting (all kinds) increased 31 percent and big game hunting more than tripled. Angling increased by 130 percent during the same period.
Sportsmen and sportswomen also remain the paradigm because they pay the bills. The perception that wildlife watching is ushering in a new conservation era has proven dead wrong for two decades. Even the Teaming With Wildlife campaign of our state agencies would have placed the greatest burden on sportsmen and sportswomen. Some agencies have lost sight of the fact that they are wildlife agencies, not tourist bureaus. They are spending sportsmenís dollars to lure general tourist into the states. Those general tourists contribute little to wildlife conservation and add to management costs. Those added costs are political as well as financial. Their prejudices, biases, and urban beliefs pose problems.
From 1996 to 2001 nonresidential wildlife photography declined 22 percent, nonresidential observing of wildlife declined 12 percent and nonresidential wildlife feeding declined 29 percent. The declines over the full decade from 1991 to 2001 were 30, 34 and 47 percent, respectively. Even visiting public parks and areas in oneís own state of residence was down 29 percent from 1991 to 2001.
Still another comparison is insightful. The antis and doomsayers would have you believe that hunting recruitment is too low and that hunters are aging and dieing off. When the survey results were first announced, Heidi Prescott, the National Director of the Fund for Animals, commented in a press release, "The End of Hunting is in Sight." She said that "[t]hese are long-term trends, not just a blip in the numbers, and weíre delighted to see that more and more people are trading their guns for camerasÖ. The end of hunting is no more than a generation away."
The truth is that wildlife watching is far worse off. There are a lower percentage of young wildlife watchers than hunters. Only 13 percent of wildlife watchers are in the 25 to 34 age group while 19 percent of hunters and anglers are in that class.
Wildlife watchers are older. 19 percent of wildlife watchers are 65 years of age, or older, while only seven percent of hunters and eight percent of anglers are in that class. Adding the three age groups (45-54, 55-64 and 65 and over) is really revealing. More than half of wildlife watchers (57 percent) are in the 45 and above age classes. Only 40 percent of hunters and 42 percent of anglers were forty-five and over in 2001. What is even more remarkable is how much older wildlife watchers would be if 62 percent of hunters and 58 percent of anglers were not wildlife watchers, thus lowering the age percentages because of their inclusion. The younger hunters among wildlife watchers make the watchers appear more youthful than they would otherwise be.
That having been said, the antis want to eliminate wildlife watching too. They want to eliminate all dominion and interference with wildlife and animal life. They want to close zoos, circuses, parks and access to land. Their strategy is to divide to vanquish. Perhaps hunters are actually fortunate that wildlife watchers enjoy wildlife too.
Take solace in the fact that there are 45 million people in the US who have hunted and 111 million people who have fished as anglers, which is 115 million when those who fished for the first time in 2001 are included. Nevertheless, hunters and anglers are minorities. No one and no organization will ever change our minority status, yet we are not alone. Minorities are the norm for nearly every activity. We are a big one.