Ecologist John Laundre, the co-author of the landmark LANDSCAPE OF FEAR PREDATOR AND PREY PARADIGM is back with us today opining on the need for all of us----- bird and animal watchers, hikers, photographers, campers,,,,,,as well as hunters----to have an equal say on how Wildlife in the USA is managed..........Enjoy the read!

John Laundré

Born and raised in the Midwest Professor John Laundré received bachelors and masters degrees, and PhD from Idaho State. He has worked for over 30 years in large mammal predator-prey ecology in the western U.S. and northern Mexico, with experience in the ecology of cougars, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, deer, elk, bison, and bighorn sheep. His 17yr study of cougar ecology and behavior is one of the longest running to-date. John is the originator of the critical concept of “the landscape of fear” of between predators and prey.

With more than 15 published scientific articles, he is also the author of ‘Phantoms of the Prairie: The Return of Cougars to the Midwest’ of the phenomenon of cougars moving back into the Great Plains. He is assistant professor at Western Oregon University, and current board member of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation. John continues to be very active on all things cougar.

Another Hunter myth: Americans are losing touch with nature

Hunters are worried. They are wringing their hands. They predicting dire things for wildlife in the United States. All this concern comes from the most recent national survey of outdoor activity of Americans by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In this 2016 report, the item that has hunters concerned is the continue decline in the number of us the age 16 years and older that hunt.  After a brief respite in the previous 2011 report, showing hunter numbers increasing, the 2016 report reinforces the continual decline in hunters over the last 20 years.  Starting in 1996, this once every 5-year survey has shown the percent of us that hunt dropping from 7% to a current 4.5%.

An important thing to note in this decline is that it is not because hunters’ numbers are growing slower that the total number of us but it is an actual numerical decline. In 1996, 13.9 million of us hunted. That is now down to only 11.4 million, or 2.5 million fewer of us hunt. That is an 18.4% decline since 1996. Most significantly, there are increasingly fewer young people becoming hunters. Over the 20 years, hunters between 16 and 24 years old declined from 2.1 to 1.2 million, a 42.9% drop. They went from 15% to 11% of all hunters. They also represent a smaller percentage of the total number of their age class in the general population, dropping from 7.5% to 3.3%. Lastly, the hunting population is aging rapidly. In 1996 only 38% of hunters were older than 45 years. That now has risen to 60%. That is what has the hunters worried. Based on these numbers, hunters are sounding the obvious alarm that fewer of us are going out to try and kill animals.

Why are they worried? First there is the obvious financial concerns. Hunters point out, ad nauseum, to the billions of dollars ($26.2 in 2016) they spend in support of wildlife through hunting them. This ranges from guns and clothes to licenses, of which the latter is the primarily support of their hunting agencies. Their math is simple, fewer hunters, fewer dollars in support of wildlife. What will happen to those poor animals if there are fewer people spending money trying to kill them?

However, more importantly, besides there being less support for the hunting indu$try, they rollout the time worn myth that hunters know best about wildlife. This myth is based on the idea that because they, rather than the other, now, 95.5% of us, supposedly spend more time “out there” allegedly observing, learning about wildlife, they are more knowledgeable about how nature works. Isn’t this why they control the management of wildlife in America through their hunting agencies? Isn’t that why they enact laws stating that hunting should be the principle if not the only, way wildlife, at least some of it, should be managed? Their logic is simple, fewer hunters, fewer knowledgeable people being concerned with wildlife. What will happen to the poor animals if there are fewer people knowledgeable about how to kill them?

What they are inferring with this myth is that fewer hunters mean Americans are losing touch with the natural world. We are becoming more urbanized, less sensitive, less knowledgeable of nature. A knowledge, they seem to contend, is only obtainable through hunting. Because of this, they lament, with this decline in hunters, who is going to show the concern over the management of wildlife, over their survival?

But are we? Does the loss of hunters mean we are becoming less sensitive, less concerned about wildlife? Are we losing the knowledge necessary to “manage” wildlife?

Unfortunately, hunters and the rest of us who listen to them, fail to look at the other statistics presented in these periodic surveys of outdoor activity. There is another section in these reports covering what is called “wildlife watching”. It seems that there indeed are people out there that actually go to watch wildlife without the intention of killing them! How many of them are there? Do they support wildlife with their spending? Do they learn about wildlife? Could they be knowledgeable enough to have a say in how wildlife is managed? Should they have a say?

The answer to the first questions is: there are a lot more wildlife watchers than hunters! The 2016 survey reports that 86.0 million of us watch wildlife.  This represents 33.7% of the U.S. population 16 years and older and is 7.5 times more than there are hunters! This includes young people. In 2016, there were 7.1 million wildlife watchers between 16 and 24 years old. That is 5.6 times more young people watching wildlife than hunting them! 

Also, looking at the trends in wildlife watching, the number of participants is not decreasing but increasing! In 1996, there were 62.9 million wildlife watchers. This means there are now 23.1 million more of them in 2016.  This is a 36.9% growth, which is faster than the overall population growth of 26.4%. As for the 16 to 24-year old wildlife watchers, their numbers have increased by 49.4% over the last 20 years. This is compared to a 34.1% increase of this age group for the general public.  

Overall, wildlife watchers are increasing in number, especially in adding young individuals. So, yes, it is a myth that there are fewer Americans interested in wildlife, there are more! It is just that they are more interested in observing them through binoculars rather than through a rifle scope.

Do they support wildlife with their spending? Again, here is an often-ignored comparison when hunters brag about their financial contributions to wildlife. In 2016, wildlife watchers spend $75.9 billion in pursuit of their activities, which is 2.6 times more than they spent in 1996. It is also almost three times more than spent by hunters. This money goes directly toward supporting parks and wildlife areas thru fees. It goes to local, state, and federal agencies dedicated to protecting wildlife through taxes generated. So, I wouldn’t be too concerned that fewer hunters are paying to kill wildlife as they are amply being replaced by those willing to pay to watch them…alive.

Are they spending enough time to learn something about them? Again, in 2016, wildlife watchers spent an average 16 days in the field, exactly the same amount of time as hunters. They observe wildlife. They take notes. They exchange information. They take tours where guides instruct them on all aspects of not only the animals they are watching, but on the communities, the ecosystems in which they live. So, I wouldn’t be too concerned that there are fewer hunters going afield to learn how to kill animals. They are amply being replaced by people learning not just about the animals but how nature works.

This is why I conclude that the hunters’ contention that we Americans are becoming less attached, less attuned to nature is indeed a myth. According to the numbers, there are more, not less, of us, especially the young, getting out in nature. Only, rather than going there with the objective of killing animals, more of us want to observe them alive! The binoculars are replacing the rifle. We are increasingly learning more about the total natural history of animals rather than just how to find them/grow them to kill them. Contrary to the concern of the hunters, more, not fewer, Americans are increasingly becoming knowledgeable about nature.

Now the last question: Should they have a say in how wildlife are managed?

The hunter generated myth that you only learn about wildlife if you intend to kill it has to itself die. Hunters do not know best and hunting should not be the dominant goal of how wildlife are managed. The openly proclaimed consequence of that strategy is managing for more game in the bag. Nature should not be managed just as the personal slaughterhouse of the 4.5% of us that hunt. A much larger percent of us want to see animals alive and pay considerably more for that opportunity.  And our voices should be heard regarding the management, better, the conservation of wildlife in this country. 

 So yes, they should have a say, a major say in how wildlife are managed…but they don’t.

Despite 20 years of data showing greater participation and monetary contributions by wildlife watchers, state game agencies, regardless of what they call themselves, remain hunter agencies whose goal is to grow more game for hunters to kill. This has to change. We all own the wildlife and we all should have a say in how they are conserved. However, wildlife watchers are still placated, marginalized, even ridiculed.  Agencies may dialog with us, pretend to listen to us but in the end…ignore us.

The only way things will change is if we, the other 95.5% demand that wildlife are managed, not just for the gun but also for the binoculars. To do this, we the 95.5% should demand that these agencies be primarily funded by reinvesting a small portion of the general funds wildlife watching generates, not mainly by the self-serving license fees of hunters. Only then will these agencies stop being quasi-private hunting clubs and be truly responsive to all of the citizens of a state. Only then will the conservation of wildlife, not the management of hunting them, be the dominate role of wildlife agencies. Our numbers are growing and our voices need to be heard.