Bowhunter numbers

[Doc]

I posted this on another bowhunting forum and got some interesting responses, so I thought I would give the realtree members a crack at this one too.

This is a topic that many will consider to border on heresy, but here goes anyway.

There seems to be absolutely no argument among hunters as to the need to keep our numbers at a high level. The political benefits are obvious. But, I am curious about another aspect of that subject. Supposing we were able to magically increase our numbers by a factor of five (that's just an arbitrary number)? Would we all really be happy about that? I think those that own private property would like that because they would not really be effected. They could continue the call for greater hunter numbers and still continue to refuse admittance to their property and not really be impacted by hordes of new hunters. I also think that those who lease hunting property would also be similarly un-effected. Hunting clubs that own or lease hunting land probably are quite comfortable with calling for more hunters to be added to our ranks, because they too control the population on the lands that they own or lease. But how about those that hunt on wide open private land or worse yet, public land? What would it be like have your scouting ruined by having that level of pressure? Would the quality of your bowhunt still be as satisfying as it is now, as you watched other hunters marching back and forth past your stand, or found another bowhunter sitting a short distance away? When we say that we want to grow our numbers, do we really mean it? Or do we really mean, let's grow our numbers but I really don't want to see anymore hunters in my area? How committed are we really to this principle that hunter numbers should be increased by any means and at any cost?

I have gotten real curious about this question in recent years as I encounter more and more actual competition for hunting space. It seems to me that others have been thinking about this also as more and more hunters have started to buy and close off their land to other hunters. I have also noticed that most leases or hunting clubs have settled in on a finite number of hunters per acre, so they too recognize that there are limits as to how many hunters can comfortably fit on a section of hunting land. And yet, even with all this denying of access and competition for hunting space, we all, to a man, continue to say that the shrinking hunter numbers is a travesty and that all kinds of activities and measures should take place to reverse that trend.

So the question is, we all mouth the words, but do we really mean it? Of course the other question is, how do we balance this need for more hunting representatives with the reality of shrinking hunting areas? That half of the question can't be ignored either.

Doc

[Rayzorp]

Re: Bowhunter numbers

I feel, again my opinion, grain of salt etc etc,,, , if the the number of hunters did for some reason jump almost geometrically, tension among hunters would grow, especially those who hunt on public land. (Like me) There is only so much space. Then there are those tree-stand stealing, spot swiping, walk by you singing and spitting, hunters that add even more tension to the pot. I say stronger rules and penalties toward those who violate hunting ethics may control the growth. How do we enforce these rules, is another question,,

We can only hope for the best,,

[ZooBear]

Re: Bowhunter numbers

If we had that many more hunters in the woods, wouldnt we also have the votes to open more public lands?

Im afraid if we keep losing hunters there will be no more hunting at all.

I would rather be crowded and hunting than home alone.

[Doc]

Re: Bowhunter numbers

So, I did a bit of scrounging around in my old Bowhunter magazines just to see if there are any alarming trends. Here's what I found for NY:

1983.....95,000 bowhunters

1984.....102,409

1985.....110,000

1986.....107,000

1987.....105,000

1988.....110,000

1989.....missing - probably loaned out the issue never got it back

1990.....156,273

1991.....157,211

1992.....171647

1993.....177635

I let my subscription lapse for a few years until 2003

2003.....167,000

2004.....198,118

From what I can see, there is no downward trend. If I had a few free weeks, I could do the same thing for all the other states, but I probably wont. At least, I would ask that you don't hold your breath.

I did notice that in 1986 and 1987 and 2003, the numbers did go down, but came right back stronger than ever, so that just shows that short term trends can be quite deceptive. To my recollection, there was nothing unusual in those two years. The only possibility that I can think of, and I am really GUESSING at this, is that perhaps that was the time when mandatory bowhunter education came into play here in NY. I am absolutely NOT sure of that, but that is a possibility.

At any rate, as you can see, the numbers go up and the numbers go down, but the general longterm trend is up and probably signals that at least here in NY bowhunting is as strong or stronger than ever. This generally is political "good news". However since current numbers are over 198,000, and they started out in 1983 at 95,000, and considering that they aren't really making any more land, the density of bowhunters has also increased. Add to this the fact that hunting habitat and access is, and has been, rapidly declining, you can see where this can lead in the very near future. This high hunter density may be a self correcting problem as more and more bowhunters begin to get disgusted with falling all over each other, these rosey numbers may indeed begin to decline, and it may not just be a gentle downswing. Ha!..... it's just like deer over-populating their habitat. At some point the herd size plummets in a precipitous, uncontrolled, fashion. The one big feature of bowhunting is the quiet quality of the hunt. I believe that is what keeps bowhunting high on the popularity list with hunters. When that starts to suffer in a significant way, who knows what the results may be.

It's a tough double-pronged problem that has no reasonable solution that I can see. More hunter numbers are needed for political security, but adding more hunters may be the catalyst that causes further sizeable and irreversible declines. Perhaps that is what is happening in some states already.

Doc

[elkoholic]

Re: Bowhunter numbers

Many of the current crop of archery hunters have come into the fold in an effort to gain more hunting opportunities. In some instances (most states) hunters are allowed additional animals if they hunt both the archery and rifle/shotgun/muzzleloader seasons. In some instances, archery hunters are allowed to hunt during the rut. Eventually archery hunters will encounter the same overcrowding, lack of accessible hunting land and over-priced hunting equipment (has already happened) that has been plaguing gun hunters for years. The really unfortunate part of the story is the ever increasing percentage of slob hunters. If we could only get rid of the slob hunters, then we would have more and better hunting opportunities without the bad publicity. My other thought is the monetary greed of outfitters (not all) and large property owners who have tied up millions of acres of land (granted, the owners have property rights) and only the wealthy are able to afford to hunt these properties. That may well have more of an affect than the increasing numbers of hunters. Eventually, overcrowding will be the end of us all, for there is only so much space on this earth.

[Doc]

Re: Bowhunter numbers

I wish I could find the bowhunter numbers from back when I started bowhunting in the mid-60's. I'll bet the number was ridiculously tiny.

One thing about that column of numbers that I posted looks a bit suspicious to me. The 2003 number looks way too low. I re-checked that number, and I didn't make any typos, but I think somebody did. First of all it is less than the 1993 total, which isn't totally unbelievable, but when you compare the 2003 number to the 2004, you find an 18.6% increase. That I just don't believe. I think somebody at Bowhunter (or their source) flubbed things up on that one.

At any rate, the numbers do show the upward trend, so perhaps some will see my point about eventual overcrowding. Those numbers along with the fact that more and more land is being taken out of hunting production, kind of shows what I have been observing. If bowhunter numbers leveled off and stayed static from now on, my feelings probably wouldn't be hurt a whole lot.

I know.....that sounds real selfish and self-serving, but I believe that the future health of bowhunting depends heavily on preserving the high quality of the hunt when bowhunting. If we ever lose that, I believe we will see bowhunting fade permanently into the sunset.

Doc