Hunters on the decline

This is a two-part series about the future of hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing.

A few days after the opening weekend of elk season, I was in a chair facing a Fish and Wildlife enforcement officer. He had worked the opener and also the deer opener a few weeks earlier.

This officer made a comment about the number of hunters being down and the future of hunting may be in doubt. The opening weekend of the deer season in the area above Spokane had fewer hunters, as reported to me by a Fish and Wildlife biologist.

He said there may be two reasons for the fewer number; the new mandatory 4-point rule for bucks and the hike in license fees.

There are not many hunters who are happy with the 4-point minimum rule. I'm sure many people stayed away from the area for this reason. They have adapted to the 3-point minimum rule over the past several years, but now they are thinking finding a legal buck is near impossible.

I haven't heard many people who are disgruntled with the license fee hikes. We have been lucky to avoid fee increases in past years, so these were expected. A downward trend in hunter numbers is also predictable during difficult economic times, as we have been experiencing lately.

In 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. It was full of lots of numbers as expected. However, the numbers provide a snapshot of what's going on in these segments of the outdoor recreation world.

According to the survey, in 2006, 12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals in the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22.9 billion.

The survey also revealed big game hunting was the most popular type of hunting. An estimated 10.7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, 164 million days. Big game related-expenditures on trips and equipment totaled $11.8 billion. In addition, there were 4.8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2.4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. Migratory bird hunters numbered 2.3 million. They spent 20.0 million days hunting birds such as waterfowl and dove. Migratory bird-related trip and equipment expenditures totaled $1.3 billion. About 1.1 million hunters sought other animals, such as raccoons and groundhogs, on 15 million days, and their expenditures on trips and equipment were $208 million."

Yes, these are a lot of numbers to digest, but just consider the money spent on hunting; $22.9 billion total in one year. Hunting is big business.

Breaking down the money figures is also interesting. Of the total $22.9 billion $6.7 billion went to trip-related expenses, $2.8 billion on food and lodging. Money spent on transportation was $2.7 billion and $1.2 went toward guide fees, land use fees and equipment rental.

So, the next time out-of-town hunters are spotted at a restaurant or service station, welcome them to the Columbia Basin.

The survey puts the national hunting participation rate at 5 percent. By sex, 91 percent of hunters are male and 9 percent are female. This survey is five years old, so I can't help but believe the percentage of female hunters have increased.

The survey indicated the number of hunters declined 10 percent from 1996 through 2006, but the money spent on hunting was down 14 percent. Breaking down these numbers a bit is the fact from 2001 to 2006 they dropped by only 4 percent, which the survey considers to be not significant. Hunters experienced an increase of big game hunting days of 7 percent during the same period.

In a National Shooting Sports Foundation paper titled "The Future of Hunting and Shooting Sports," three major factors are recognized as influencing the number of hunter in the field: The number of houses per square mile, the distribution of federal hunting land in a state and the percentage of available hunting lands leased in a state.

Three other tendencies are noted that affect the number of hunters: Increased urban development, the aging population and the declining percentage of the population, which is white.

It's difficult to imagine in the Columbia Basin, but it's also recognized fewer people are growing up in families that contain hunters or in families that are friendly to the hunting culture.

What do the figures mean? The survey is five years old, so is the trend continuing? The initial field reports about a lack of hunters this year indicate it may be true.

Next week: The future of fishing and wildlife viewing.