Are hunter numbers declining?

[Hoytvectrix]

This has been brought up a few times in other threads and I didn't want to side-track those discussions. The debate about hunting numbers seems to be all over the place. Some seem to think the number of hunters is about to fall off a cliff and others think hunter numbers have never been higher. There are entire national initiatives about expanding hunter recruitment and there are movements like Hunt Quietly that seem to think that declining hunter numbers is just fear mongering.

I came across the USFWS website that has all of the hunting number data that is searchable by time and location (state vs. nationally).
This is the tool. If that doesn't load, I found that through this website: https://partnerwithapayer.org/funding-sources/ (You need to go down to Hunting License Data).

Here is a screenshot for national data overtime:


Interestingly, the raw numbers are lower than their peak in the 1980's, but not nearly as down as I would have expected. However, when you adjust for number of hunters overtime by the population of the country or state, it quickly becomes apparent that the percent of the population that are hunting is going down.
From the peak in 1982 when 16.75 million licenses were sold, around 7.2% of the population bought a hunting license. In 2024, there were 15.9 million licenses sold, with around 4.7% of the population that bought hunting licenses. I am not sure of how accurate the past data are, but if anything I would assume that it was likely underestimating the number of people that were actually hunting before the digital age. My dad describes the 70s of deer hunting in Missouri as the wild west and he makes it sound like there was a lot of questionable hunting methods going on and questions how many people actually bought licenses. Also worth mentioning, is that my dad said there were probably 5 quail hunters for every deer hunter in the 70s to early 80s in our area of Missouri.

A couple of things that would be important to point out:
* These numbers do not break down deer hunting licenses vs turkey or other game

* Some states have seen a substantial increase in number of licenses sold and others have seen substantial decrease. Georgia has seen a more than 150% increase and Michigan a 45% decrease from their max and mins. This could be from how licenses are reported by the state, but it might also speak to why there are wildly different answers to the question if the number of hunters is going down or not.

* Even if the number of hunters were to stay the same (whether overall or adjusted as a percent of the population), the amount of land to hunt is without question going down. I would love to find acreages of habitat that have been displaced because of human development and plot that against hunter numbers.

* Something that I have not seen written about much that I think is really important for hunter number discussions is the amount of time people are spending hunting now. I think if you asked deer hunters in the 80's and 90's, the vast majority only hunted for the opening of the main firearm season. Today, more and more people are archery hunting or using muzzleloaders in late season in addition to the main firearm season. If the license numbers were unchanged overtime but people were spending more time in the field, it would certainly seem like there were more hunters.

 

[SwampCat]

It seems to me hunter numbers may not be declining too much, but their hours of participation are declining - at least in my area. My house overlooks a huge bottomland area. Used to be it sounded like a war during early fall from squirrel hunters. Now, you might hear one hunter on a nice morning. When we used to quail hunt, we would run into several other groups of hunters during the day. I dont know anyone who still owns bird dogs. Same with rabbit dogs and coon dogs. The campground down the road would be full of campers during the first two weeks of deer season. Now the campground is half full.

 

[bwoods11]

In my area of Minnesota, there’s a deer hunter in every good piece of cover . Some areas have a hunter per 10 acres.

Pheasant hunting is maybe not quite as popular as it was ?

Duck hunting is down, due to lack of waterfowl … but I hear North Dakota is busy with hunters !

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I will read but before I do the answer is unequivocally HELL NO!!! There’s more hunters per sq/mi of undeveloped ground now than ever before. It’s a numbers game. More people, less land.
And every company and organization pumping this R3 bs should be met with the same contempt as a tobacco company telling you smoking isn’t bad. They all want more customers.

 

[bueller]

On a local level I would say numbers are way down here in the central forest region of Wisconsin. We have a ton of public land and before the herd slaughter in the early 2000's it was hard to find a spot in the lot and nearly impossible to sit without seeing orange. The hunters have left, unknown if they've continued hunting in other places. As far as stats go, I don't have much faith. Too many variables.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

The other point I never see brought it how many land was there in 1982 vs how much land is available today. I’ve seen 2000 acres a day is lost in the lower 48. So since 1982…you can do the math. And then throw on things like how restrictive access has become. People like me and most of you guys work our butts off to secure a private piece of ground for us and our families. Back in the day hunting was not as much of a passion per se. You could just go get permission From almost every landowner in town if you wanted to. So I will die on the hill that we do not have a Hunter number issue. We have too many hunters for the amount of land. And that goes for out west too. Find some general unit elk hunt and see if it’s not an absolute abortion.

 

[West_Fork]

I think it is a shift in demographics. More than 40 years ago in hunters ed they warned how hunting in the future could become only available to the elite and wealthy......and here we are with $350,000 bull tags.

 

[SwampCat]

The other point I never see brought it how many land was there in 1982 vs how much land is available today. I’ve seen 2000 acres a day is lost in the lower 48. So since 1982…you can do the math. And then throw on things like how restrictive access has become. People like me and most of you guys work our butts off to secure a private piece of ground for us and our families. Back in the day hunting was not as much of a passion per se. You could just go get permission From almost every landowner in town if you wanted to. So I will die on the hill that we do not have a Hunter number issue. We have too many hunters for the amount of land. And that goes for out west too. Find some general unit elk hunt and see if it’s not an absolute abortion.

I agree - hunter access is becoming more and more a problem. Everything is posted or leased. I have a lot of neighbors who hunt their 15 acres because the timber company land that was once open hunting land has all been leased. These local folks were the first to lease, but they got priced out after 20 years. Squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunters are gone. There may be as many deer hunters, but the small game hunters are greatly diminished. Four of my five grand daughters have killed deer. None of them has killed a quail, rabbit, turkey, duck, or squirrel. Our deer woods still have a lot of hunters, but very few staying at camp a week at a time. Most are weekend warriors, now. Even though hunter effort is less, harvest holds steady as our g&f keeps allowing things to make it easier to kill deer - straight wall season, velvet archery, etc. they have a war on deer.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I don’t know if it’s a war on deer as much as I think it’s an everyone gets a trophy mentality. They are so afraid of being too restrictive they just basically allow open reign

 

[SwampCat]

I don’t know if it’s a war on deer as much as I think it’s an everyone gets a trophy mentality. They are so afraid of being too restrictive they just basically allow open reign

In the cwd areas, they greatly relax restrictions, remove apr’s, increase bag limits and season length. I think the rest of the state they are providing additional “opportunity” - to lower deer density before cwd gets there.

 

[T-Max]

Non-resident deer hunter numbers in Kansas are higher than they have ever been and getting higher. Why is that important? Because when they replace a resident hunter, we lose a hunter nationally. Kansas may still sell the same number of deer tags to the same number of hunters, but if that guy also accounts for a tag in 3 other states, he has replaced 3 hunters nationally assuming they aren’t increasing overall tags (which Kansas is definitely not). That is not sustainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SwampCat]

Non-resident deer hunter numbers in Kansas are higher than they have ever been and getting higher. Why is that important? Because when they replace a resident hunter, we lose a hunter nationally. Kansas may still sell the same number of deer tags to the same number of hunters, but if that guy also accounts for a tag in 3 other states, he has replaced 3 hunters nationally assuming they aren’t increasing overall tags (which Kansas is definitely not). That is not sustainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are non resident hunters more numerous now with a draw than before the draw. I know a number of AR hunters who lease in KS and dont get drawn to hunt their own lease. They claim that did not used to happen?

 

[T-Max]

Possible. I know if they were to buy an 80 they are guaranteed a tag. Now Kansas residents are getting evicted in a hurry. Not saying it’s wrong, but showing how hunter numbers in a state can stay steady or even increase while we continue to see a decline nationally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian662]

Non-resident deer hunter numbers in Kansas are higher than they have ever been and getting higher. Why is that important? Because when they replace a resident hunter, we lose a hunter nationally. Kansas may still sell the same number of deer tags to the same number of hunters, but if that guy also accounts for a tag in 3 other states, he has replaced 3 hunters nationally assuming they aren’t increasing overall tags (which Kansas is definitely not). That is not sustainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It all comes full circle with the other thread (on neighbors). How much should someone be allowed to own/lease/hunt before it becomes a detriment to society or most importantly, the resource (in this case, the deer herd).

The resource is the holy grail. Access to the resource has been made more difficult (expensive) in most places but it's much easier to harvest the resource with the plentiful options of weapons (see Dawgs post on everyone gets a trophy).

My neighbors have access to the resource, same as they always did. If I outwork them or hunt smarter or more efficiently, and as a result their access to the resource is diminished, who is at fault? These things are happening, feedback has been received. My hard work has been rewarded but it comes at a cost to my neighbor, the resource is finite...my feelings are conflicted. Somebody wins and somebody loses. To the victor goes the spoils, I guess.

 

[bwoods11]

I really don’t hunt public land , but I am advocate for adding more public land for hunting & recreation.

Some of it is managed very poorly, but it’s the only option for some hunters. It’s going to be more difficult to add parcels as it gets more expensive!

I’ve been involved in a few public transactions for our county, it’s very rewarding !

 

[SD51555]

I'd imagine there'd be a steady population of deer hunters if there was a steady stand of huntable ground. Four big things have ushered in the decline of deer hunting:

1. Wolves. Everywhere wolves are protected, deer hunters have largely left. Northern MN, northern WI, and the UP of MI.

2. Intensive land use. Homes, agriculture, and data centers keep eating up wild spaces.

3. Shitty monetary policy. The race is on to convert cash to assets, and the rich love land. They have no idea what they'll do with it, but they'll pay over asking, and in cash.

4. Shitty monetary policy. Those that saw the writing on the wall 20 and 40 years ago and borrowed heavily to buy land and assets have been rewarded handsomely by the collapsing dollar. It's enabled many of our olders to buy big tracts of land to get some much needed breathing room from the masses so they can have a quality hunt. It's made it possible to hunt 1 person per 40 or even more acres per person. That wealth is gonna greatly reduce the huntable acres for the rest that relied on the lie of free public land.

 

[Mortenson]

I really don’t hunt public land , but I am advocate for adding more public land for hunting & recreation.

Some of it is managed very poorly, but it’s the only option for some hunters. It’s going to be more difficult to add parcels as it gets more expensive!

I’ve been involved in a few public transactions for our county, it’s very rewarding !

In favor of it bordering your farm? Lol don't have to answer. Just a curiosity to me.

 

[SD51555]

The land problem could easily be fixed if assets were just balanced out. The government owns, and manages for wolves, 15.8 million acres in the northern forest of MN. They could return 8 million acres to private land ownership in that zone, and in exchange, take 8 million acres out of production, homes, and farming in the rest of the state and make it switchgrass.

Might I suggest walling off the twin cities from further expansion in any direction? For anyone not good with numbers, that would create 200,000 new forty acre parcels available for the people to buy, and still keep over half the woods in the firm control of tim walz and keith ellison.

That would also create 200,000 new forty acre wildlife management areas in southern and western MN.

With the stroke of a pen, I've created 400,000 new forty acre hunting opportunities, and not one acre of public ground was lost. 200,000 pioneers can go into the north woods and get busy caring for the forest and the wildlife the only way an owner can. Dig the ponds, burn the slash, plant the trees, regulate the vermin, put in the clovers and chicory.

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

It all comes full circle with the other thread (on neighbors). How much should someone be allowed to own/lease/hunt before it becomes a detriment to society or most importantly, the resource (in this case, the deer herd).

The resource is the holy grail. Access to the resource has been made more difficult (expensive) in most places but it's much easier to harvest the resource with the plentiful options of weapons (see Dawgs post on everyone gets a trophy).

My neighbors have access to the resource, same as they always did. If I outwork them or hunt smarter or more efficiently, and as a result their access to the resource is diminished, who is at fault? These things are happening, feedback has been received. My hard work has been rewarded but it comes at a cost to my neighbor, the resource is finite...my feelings are conflicted. Somebody wins and somebody loses. To the victor goes the spoils, I guess.

Your neighbors are complaining that you are drawing in more neighborhood deer?

That is pretty common in my areas as well, but some landowners choose to maximize cropland rental dollars and some choose to maximize hunting opportunities.

 

[bwoods11]

In favor of it bordering your farm? Lol don't have to answer. Just a curiosity to me.

No !
I have a 52 acre parcel that has public across the road.

The parcels we sold to Pheasants Forever …(we) meaning our real estate brokerage were very marginal wetland and scrubby willow/woods parcels in farm country . Good deer & pheasant habitat . If I remember correctly one was 400 acres and the other was 240 acres .