Free: Contests & Raffles.
The number of hunters in Idaho is growing — but the number of people in Idaho is growing even faster, and hunting figures can’t keep pace with the state’s booming population growth.Even in 1982, when the number of hunters in the nation was at its peak, the number of hunters per capita in Idaho was falling. The earliest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records available online, from 1958, show 27 hunting license holders for every 100 people in Idaho. By 1982, that number was down slightly to 25 hunters for every 100 Idahoans. As hunting started to decline nationwide, Idaho slid to 20 hunters per 100 people in 2000. And last year, there were 16 hunters per 100 Idahoans — a number that’s been consistent in recent years since hitting an all-time low of 15 in 2013.
Idaho raw numbers of hunters is increasing, but per capita it is falling, same story in the rest of the west.QuoteThe number of hunters in Idaho is growing — but the number of people in Idaho is growing even faster, and hunting figures can’t keep pace with the state’s booming population growth.Even in 1982, when the number of hunters in the nation was at its peak, the number of hunters per capita in Idaho was falling. The earliest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records available online, from 1958, show 27 hunting license holders for every 100 people in Idaho. By 1982, that number was down slightly to 25 hunters for every 100 Idahoans. As hunting started to decline nationwide, Idaho slid to 20 hunters per 100 people in 2000. And last year, there were 16 hunters per 100 Idahoans — a number that’s been consistent in recent years since hitting an all-time low of 15 in 2013.I believe it's important to both have numbers and percentages. If we lose percentage of voters, stuff starts happening that we cannot stop. This is where bans on trapping, bait, etc come from, there just aren't enough people doing those things to have a voice.Long term, we need a good percentage of people hunting or it will start to go away and no state is immune.
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Quote from: Stein on March 23, 2020, 02:04:12 PMYeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.Washingtons regs really arent difficult to understand. People just dont bother reading the regs pamphlet. As for reducing otc opportunity on deer and elk, id hate to see it, but at some point something has to happen. But before getting rid of otc, getting rid of the huge number of multi season permits, and choosing a species of deer tag would help imo. Also, encouraging people to take advantage of our predator hunting opportunities, which give a guy a lot more time to hunt, not to mention benefitting our herds, should be a priority. Fall bear season is 106 days long, bag limit 2. Cougar season is 243 days long. Coyote is year round. Lots of opportunity there, and it needs to be promoted heavily. Look at how many units are still open for cats. Hasnt been a closure since early january. I really dont think anybody is hunting them. We need to figure out how to promote predator hunting, get more people taking an active interest in it. Starting april 1st ill be taking a first time hunter out for cougar. Ive told him its super low odds, but he gets that, and will be coming bear hunting in august which should give him a good chance at success for his first season hunting. Funny thing is, he hasnt even asked about deer hunting. With any luck he will turn into a predator hunting enthusiast and leave the deer alone.
Yup, elk and deer are seen as the main attraction. With recruiting new hunters, why not try to influence their perspective to see bears as the main event? Hell, its the best big game opportunity we have, and the meat is great. Cheaper tags too.
Quote from: Stein on March 23, 2020, 02:04:12 PMYeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.Personally, I'd prefer to keep OTC tags, at least for deer and elk. I'd rather hunt every year with less odds than hunt every other year with greater odds. And when you shut people out, they find other things to do. If you want less hunters, shut people out of hunting. But that doesn't do anything to help hunters politically. Just stacks the odd against us at the polls even more.There are a lot of good things about hunting besides killing an animal every year. And not being able to hunt gives you zero odds. When I was growing up, there was a member of our elk hunting camp who never killed an animal in 25 years of hunting with us. But he was a favorite in our camp. He was always there when there was work to be done on the cabin. He was always there when an animal needed packed out. (And our packs usually weren't easy where we hunted near Quinault.) He always chipped in on camp chores and was pleasant to be around. And he always got a full share of whatever meat was gotten that year. He enjoyed getting away and being part of the group. The fact that he never shot an animal didn't matter although we would have all been excited if he had ever scored. He still enjoyed getting out.Tougher odds isn't the end of the world. In the long run, working harder can make you a better hunter.
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on March 23, 2020, 03:07:59 PMQuote from: Stein on March 23, 2020, 02:04:12 PMYeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.Personally, I'd prefer to keep OTC tags, at least for deer and elk. I'd rather hunt every year with less odds than hunt every other year with greater odds. And when you shut people out, they find other things to do. If you want less hunters, shut people out of hunting. But that doesn't do anything to help hunters politically. Just stacks the odd against us at the polls even more.There are a lot of good things about hunting besides killing an animal every year. And not being able to hunt gives you zero odds. When I was growing up, there was a member of our elk hunting camp who never killed an animal in 25 years of hunting with us. But he was a favorite in our camp. He was always there when there was work to be done on the cabin. He was always there when an animal needed packed out. (And our packs usually weren't easy where we hunted near Quinault.) He always chipped in on camp chores and was pleasant to be around. And he always got a full share of whatever meat was gotten that year. He enjoyed getting away and being part of the group. The fact that he never shot an animal didn't matter although we would have all been excited if he had ever scored. He still enjoyed getting out.Tougher odds isn't the end of the world. In the long run, working harder can make you a better hunter.I 100% agree with you. Opportunity is all relative, but I believe the main attraction for younger hunters is not necessarily success, but rather the routine of annual elk/deer camp. Its not like many people start elk hunting for the 10% opportunity. If it were 5% or 3% I still think people would go to elk camp, put the time in, and try to beat the already abysmal odds. Relative to what we're used to it may seem depressing, but I'd rather have more people (voters) in the sport than opportunity and the world against us.It will/would be most difficult on the old guard. However, at a macro level I'd rather have 2 young hunters to 1 old hunter, heck I'd even take 1 young hunter vs 1 old hunter. I'm not suggesting I don't want old hunters, but the value of a young hunter cannot be understated. If odds drop to keep tradition alive and old hunters aren't willing to adapt with the rest, then I'll take the trade. To me the tradition is what I hope gets passed down, not the success rate. Oh, and I love hunting bears, even in WA.
I 100% agree with you. Opportunity is all relative, but I believe the main attraction for younger hunters is not necessarily success, but rather the routine of annual elk/deer camp. Its not like many people start elk hunting for the 10% opportunity. If it were 5% or 3% I still think people would go to elk camp, put the time in, and try to beat the already abysmal odds. Relative to what we're used to it may seem depressing, but I'd rather have more people (voters) in the sport than opportunity and the world against us.It will/would be most difficult on the old guard. However, at a macro level I'd rather have 2 young hunters to 1 old hunter, heck I'd even take 1 young hunter vs 1 old hunter. I'm not suggesting I don't want old hunters, but the value of a young hunter cannot be understated. If odds drop to keep tradition alive and old hunters aren't willing to adapt with the rest, then I'll take the trade. To me the tradition is what I hope gets passed down, not the success rate. Oh, and I love hunting bears, even in WA.
