Will the Downward Trend in the Economy Impact Hunting?
Yeah, the title sucks. Sorry…
But here’s the deal. In comments to my recent post about Washington state’s position on lead ammo, the conversation diverged into some speculation by Holly (the NorCal Cazadora) about whether more people would start hunting as a result of the economic downturn. She wrote:
Another blogger out there just asked recently if others are seeing evidence that the poor economy is driving licenses and hunting UP because of people’s desire to fill their freezers.
Michael Riddle, from NativeHunt, replied that he doubted that a person could, legally, subsist on wild game. I would disagree with that from a theoretical perspective… but only at that academic level. It would be quite possible, especially if you factor in wild hogs (year-round, no limit, etc.) to gather enough game, fish, and fowl. The catch is, it would cost a small fortune and require a huge investment in time and effort.
Which brings his final point to light:
The drop in hunter numbers only coincides with correlating numbers of people simply tightening up their belts during a rough economic turmoil and they have cut out extraneous activities.
When the economy picks up we will see those numbers pick up and increase alongside of our paycheck increases.
I agree with Michael that the reality is that the economic situation is much more likely to drive people away from hunting than into it. It’s not a necessity for anyone in this country, and if things really get tight, most folks aren’t going to spend the money for a 5% chance at killing a deer (much less two deer), or drop $20 a pop for a tag, then spend $400 or more to go shoot a hog on private land (forget about public land hunting.. the cost to success ratio is ridiculously low there).
Point being, hunting for meat is not an economical alternative to buying it from the store… at least not if you’re doing it legally. Sure, there may be the exception here and there, but generally speaking, it doesn’t make any sense
What you will likely see, if things get really-really bad, is a slight uptick in poaching, just like they saw during the depression.
Keep in mind that, historically, the most significant upswing in recreational, sport hunting didn’t take place until the country was in an economical upswing, following WWII. There were a ton of factors at work, but not the least was that people had spare money and spare time.
The current economic trend is certainly ugly, but we’re still a very prosperous society. The bloat of the hunting and shooting sports industry is a testament to the fact that hunters still have plenty of spare money to spend on our sport… and apparently plenty of spare time to use all those new gadgets and gizmos. All this is good and fine now, but it sets the stage for a devastating collapse of the industry if Americans really have to start tightening their belts.
The prosperity and growth of the “industry” concerns me as well because of the upsurge in “pay-to-play” hunting opportunities. As guides and outfitters lease more property, and property owners recognize the financial incentive to charge tresspass fees, the opportunities for “free” hunting appear to be fading away. This may be simple perception versus reality, but that perception already has had a negative impact on the number of hunters. As folks find it harder to justify the cost of a hunt, that impact will worsen. The idea of hunting as a “rich man’s sport” may very well become the dominant reality.
As a whole, the hunting community is already hemorraghing members at a critical rate due to other factors besides the economy. A significant and prolonged economic downturn may very well be the telling blow to our sport, relegating us once and for all to fringe status… an unlikely coalition of the very wealthy and the hardcore.
I’ll still be there, one way or the other…
This is interesting Phillip.
I don’t think that the economy will drive more people to hunting either. I think, if anything, it will definitely drive them away.
I hate the idea of hunting becoming a “rich man’s sport”, but the reality is, that it is already heading that way anyway, economy or no. With leasing and such, hunting is becoming a pretty expensive hobby.
The one thing I do see increasing is the need for all of us successful hunters to donate our unneeded venison to the local food bank. I think in these times more people are going to be in need of some extra meat.
At least that is one positive thing that can come from it; hunter’s willingness to help those less privileged.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I dunno - an elk is awful big, and my wife and I ate on my last elk for more than two years. Granted, we didn’t eat it every day, but the price per pound of meat is still fairly reasonable if you happen to nail a bull. If you’re able to get one on the first trip out, well, you just made a steal! 160 pounds of meat - 80 dollars for a tank of gas, and that sounds just about like 50 cents per pound. Anyways, I think hunting is good supplemental meals - I think it just means that much less meat from the grocer you have to buy.
But, I reckon if that’s the only reason to hunt, like you say, it’s not a very good reason. It won’t be the cheapest meat, for sure, but it sure is an extra perk for those of us who are going to go hunting anyways.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I agree it’d be hard to live entirely off of hunting, but if you own a gun, and you live in the country where deer walk across your property, a license and a tag is a very small price to pay for a LOT of meat in the freezer.
That said, I agree - we’re more likely to see an uptick in poaching.
Hank and I eat almost nothing but wild game, but we spend a lot on it - I’m sure more than we’d spend at the store. We think it’s worth it for the quality of food and the experience. But it ain’t subsistence hunting.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Holly, I’m in the same boat. I’d say that easily 80% of my red meat intake is from wild game. The rest, with the exception of an occasional beef steak, is dinners out. This year may become an exception if I don’t get off my butt and go kill another deer or two. I finally finished up my 2006 elk meat and there’s an empty spot in my freezer.
Even so, if I did the math for what I’ve spent to put that meat in my freezer… well, I made the mistake of doing that once several years ago. Suffice it to say that I just don’t want to think about it again. It shouldn’t be about the money anyway, and for some of us, we’d do it any cost. Just thankful that I can afford it.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I’m especially concerned about the lack of free hunting opportunities. I know that in Montana they have a program between the state and some land owners, to try to keep some private property open, and I know that California has something, too (although they seem to be working with people who also charge for hunting experiences, like Tejon). But, my concern is for more than just the American-ness of free hunting, it’s also about the future of hunting and conservation. With fewer places to hunt, fewer kids have opportunities. This is wrong.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
The question was whether or not the downward economic trend would impact hunting. The answer is yes, IMHO. Personally, I have canceled my annual whitetail deer hunt to Maine. I have the money to go but I think as uncertain as things are, I had better save my money.
I am now in the plans of finding better opportunities locally to put meat on the table.
I think what is being somewhat missed in this discussion is that there are millions of hunters who have opportunities right out their back door to hunt and have to spend very little to get meat. I grew up one of those people and I still have friends and family who live this way. I can’t emphasize enough that these people NEED that meat. I believe they will hunt more and well……I’ll leave it at that.
If you choose not to think that this “economic crisis” is serious, that’s fine and with that I would tend to agree that overall, it will have very little noticeable affect on hunting and license sales etc.
If you choose to think this is a very serious situation, that will result in the loss of millions of jobs, loss of homes, etc., I don’t think too many people will be concerned about hunting and who’s doing it and who isn’t.
I know my plans have changed and I’m not alone.
Go question! Good discussion!
September 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
First, I think Arthur made a very good point. I hope everyone who can hunt will think about donating any excess game they take to a food bank. I suspect food banks are going to need all the donations they can get this year.
Second, I’m guessing a lot of people are tightening their belts and cutting expenses right now. I know I am, and thus getting into hunting is not something I’m considering right now. It’s money I just can’t justify spending.
I do hope that hunting does not become a “rich person’s sport” but I can see how it might trend that way. It would be unfortunate if it did.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The very truth is that hunting has “Always” been a rich man’s sport!
Just take a look at 15th century England and the King’s Deer! and how anyone caught poaching would have their hands cut off!
Also, since I am talking about England did you all know that it was illegal in the 15th through 17th centuries there for any peasant to own a dog any larger than 15 lbs.
The reasoning was that a small peasant’s dog would keep the rodents and rabbits from multiplying too much. And, any dog larger than that was obviously used by it’s owner for taking down large game, ie: The Kings Deer!
We have come a long way since President Theodore Roosevelt enacted our game laws and set aside land for preserving our wild game but, the real truth here is that unless you are a “Market Hunter” and/or “Poaching” for your family’s direct food or selling the meat for money to buy food, then it cost’s quite a bit of money to “legally” hunt wild game!
In good economic times some of us are privy to the extra money we have which will allow us to spend a few days a year out in the field to enjoy the sport.
But the sad reality is that a “Lot” of individuals will “never” have the kind of disposable income that it takes to hunt and fish in our great nation or abroad and stay “Legal” doing it!
September 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Not sure where you learned to hunt and in what crowds you hang around with but I can spend a great deal of time in the woods hunting and fishing and spend practically nothing to do it.
I guess it is much of the culture we grow up in that makes us into what we think hunting and fishing is.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Oh, my Dad hunted poor as a kid during the Depression. But I’m 99 percent sure he never had a hunting license, thus proving Michael’s point about how you can’t do it legally. (Man, Dad really hated government licensing and permits.)
Tom, I think it may also be a function of where you live - the places where you can hunt for free, truly free, are definitely dwindling. I have to drive minimum 30-90 minutes to any duck or turkey hunting, and it’s often more. I’m about to drop $250 on duck hunting - reservation applications and refuge passes for the season. I have two friends who let me hunt for free on their land - one is 60 min away (and I usually come home empty-handed), the other 4 hours away. I can’t hunt on my land - I have a quarter acre in the suburbs (or rather, my bank has). The wildlife-laden river/lake region nearby is a state park - no hunting there either. There are probably places where I could hunt without paying, but I need gas to get there, and there’s less game, so I’ll need to make more trips to bring home the same food. I could move to the country (and would like to, once my house is worth enough to actually sell it), but then I’ll have to pay to commute to my job.
That’s my hunting experience!
Like Phillip, I’m afraid to add up what it costs. I know I could do it cheaper. I could probably fish with minimum gas output. But there’s no way I can hunt for free.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You and Phillip both have really nailed it and faced the reality of it all Holly!
I would like to live in a fantasy world where I could subsist solely and LEGALY upon wild game but alas, such is not the case and especially here in the lovely and totalitarian State of California.
A Place where just trying to decipher our many game laws requires a lawyers advice so that you may not inadvertantly commit a tort against these overburdening D.F.G. regulations.
I have done everything from market hunting to personal pleasure hunting and everything in between. Also hunted B.L.M., National Forests as well as private land and now own several thousand acres of my own land.
The main thing to remember is that if you are not spending your own money to feed these animals which you harvest, Someone Else Is!
It takes a lot of feed to keep a healthy animal herd and more so when someone is constantly harvesting them as their sole food source.
The availability of a natural food source (the mast crops)runs out very quickly in a certain area and then the animals move on to where the next food source is. And if you want them to stay in your area so that you can continue to harvest them you must begin to feed these animals out for them to remain healthy and disease free.
It takes money to do this and as I have stated before, If you are not feeding the animals which you are harvesting, then someone else is! Be it the farmers crops next door or the little old lady up the hill who hates to see the poor creatures go hungry!
It ain’t no free ride if you do things legal and right!
September 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Oh! and by the way,
To those who say that it is illegal to feed wild animals, the Department Of Fish And Game do it all of the time, be it high altitude Deer and Elk in winter months or the Big Horn Sheep etc. etc.
It may be illegal but most certainly the RIGHT thing to do in order to give back to the animals which we harvest when they need it the most!
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 am