hunter avg. age in NY

[greybeard]

I can only find dated information reporting the average age of New York hunters. The last report that I read listed the age at a round 46 years old.

Does anyone have any current information ?

 

I'm interested because in following anti hunting sites and listening to conversations I have some future concerns. I'm not sure if those concerns of mine  are justified and worth discussing so I'm trying to gather more info. for myself

[landtracdeerhunter]

Nearest data I found was from 2008, on page 5, document below. Covers Northeast though. Your number is spot on. Also found interesting that male hunters out number women hunters, 9-1. Their is another thread on this topic here, touches on the problem why, dated July 2012. I find it interesting that their can be 23 pages of " 4 deer in 9 seconds," but only 3 about hunter recruitment.  Nobody will have to worry about "4 deer in 9 seconds" if this trend continues in NY. !

HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf

Edited January 5, 2014 by landtracdeerhunter

[G-Man]

the age of the hunters is increasing as it the push for ar's.. is it because of their age that they want the ar's or is it the new hunters jaded by tv entertainment expecting all deer to be once in a lifetime kills? I'd like to see a chart of ar's by age and experiance hunting. would it help in hunter recruitment or hurt? just a thought.....

[greybeard]

landtrac...Thank you. My concerns appear to be  warranted.

 

I agree with you that recruitment  is something that we should all be concerned about. This was partially the reason that I asked the question.It may be  BIG problem in the future.

 

I found , what I believe to be, an attack by antihunters that can only be thwarted by increasing numbers of younger hunters.(I was told about it and read about it)

I'm not sure that their strategy can be effective, but it can work if they increase their numbers of DEDICATED antis and we lose potential DEDICATED hunters. 

 

Another thing that concerns me is that, unlike many hunters, the antis never seem to attack each other. THEY are against ALL hunting, while WE bicker amongst ourselves as to strategies, techniques and equipment. We turn off  some young hunters .

 

We are fortunate that many times the antis respond to specific issues, kind of crisis management. They come out to protest a squirrel hunt, or bear hunt then go home kiss the parakeet, plant a petunia , send a check , believe that they saved the world and wait for the next crisis.. However, that being stated, we must realize that they do have DEDICATED people with power and money,  who have launched successful campaigns against us and therefore they can not be ignored. In addition, they seem to be increasing their numbers of young people, while we lose young people. We need new blood to fight .

 

If we don't recruit, in 20 years the average age will be 66 !!! (Twenty years goes quickly.)

[Vince1]

I myself live in the city and never even thought about hunting till I started camping and picked up a bow because I always played a ranger/hunter type character in rpgs, I was a HUGE gamer. one day I looked at my boys and saw they were going down the same route.

 

dropped the joystick and now they LOVE going scouting with me and camping.

 

seems to me that the only PR I have ever seen is from people against hunting. now im the guy at my job who hunts and cant stop talking about it.

 

lotta people who would love to hunt if you introduce it to em or at least get em interested. heard about a group like that but I think most of that happens out west.

[sits in trees]

I know Im getting older...

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I believe this goes back to a post of where you think hunting is headed!  It will be an older mans sport on the HF ranches and gobbled up land. Its going to take money and with that there has to be success in your life to have money!

That takes time= Age!

[CuseHunter]

I know I'm getting my friends into hunting, with all these shows on tv like duck dynasty everyone wants to be a Robertson. Yet most don't know how to skin a squirrel or have anyone in their lives to show them how. I had to teach myself a lot, but if it were not for my friend and his dad to show me the ropes and let me hunt with them on their property, I would be nowhere in hunting.

[Mr.Zach]

I'm 30 and work with youth from NYC.  One trend I see is that people my age and younger want instant gratification/feedback.  I think it is safe to say this stems from an over conectedness to technology.  When it comes to hunting, the payback takes a while, and sometimes it never comes.

 

At the same time I see in my peers a growing desire to for the "old ways" and appreciation for farming/gardening/hunting.

 

Sadly, there is to much to know about hunting to be learned in one generation.  We need the knowledge to be passed down through generations.  If the incoming generations have to learn through books and Youtube vidoes (like I did) it will be tough for the art of hunting to be preserved.

[Elmo]

I thought about hunting when I went to school in Michigan but them forgot about it when I moved back to NYC. I decided to take the plunge when my bro thought of doing it too. I dove in head first. With no one to me for us, we made a lot of mistakes. You can only get so much from books, YouTube, and Google. I invest so much time and money as well as wasted a bunch of money as well (buying stuff I thought I need but didn't). When I think back, what I did was pretty crazy. How many people are willing to blindly spent over $1000.00, go through all trouble figuring things out...just to SEE if its something I might be interested in doing?

I think there's a lot of people who would be interested in hunting but not willing to commit to it since its an unknown to them. Hunting is an activity that if you want to do it yourself (have your own gear, drive yourself out to spots, etc), you have invest a pretty penny to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mike rossi]

Its easier to get members of the general public to accept hunting than it is to get them to become hunters. This is the only realistic approach to countering anti-hunting legislation and stake holder comment against hunting when conservation policy or hunting regulations are being considered.

 

Besides the realm of political support for hunting; as far as hunters numbers, fewer the better works for me. The problem with that is that hunting an integral part of the funding strategy for conservation. It is no longer the only source of conservation funds and other sources are growing as hunter revenue is dropping. But license and excise tax revenue derived from hunting is still is a lot of money which is very important to conservation programs.

 

There is one factor that has been identified, which effects BOTH recruitment and causes hunters to dessert the sport that isn't widely publicized. That factor is the poor behavior of "other" hunters. Enough people can see over the dorky or dark images anti hunters paint hunters as, but when we act like pigs we earn disrespect without the help of anti hunters.  

 

 

[Doc]

One of the problems with this recruitment problem is that the general opinion is that if you can just introduce kids to hunting, it will somehow magically stick for life. And so we devise all kinds of special youth seasons, and pat ourselves on the back for having solved the problem.

 

The fact is that the problem is cultural. Times are changing and so is each generation and their wants, needs and aspirations. Techno-gadgets are king now. If it doesn't have a button, a beep, and a display, it simply ain't worth doing. How you fight cultural evolution is beyond me, but that is the front where the battle has to be fought. 

[mike rossi]

Doc,

 

You cant fight what you call cultural evolution. You must adapt your plan for the future. We need to start fostering acceptance of hunting by the public majority as a sport pursued by a small minority and which contributes a minority amount of conservation revenue. Along with that revenue hunting serves as a tool of wildlife managers, not just as the most known function of population control and nuisance abatement, but its function in helping managers collect biological data and monitor species...

 

 

Edited January 6, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Well, I have always thought that a stronger presence of the DEC in the schools might be a good part of the solution. Some periodic school presentations by DEC personel would be a good start. Not just to push hunting, and maybe not mentioning hunting at all, but just a school level effort to push outdoor activities and an appreciation for the importance of matters of environment and nature.

 

Perhaps a program of public spots on TV that offset the messages of the anti-hunters might help in the battle for the hearts and minds of today's youth, as well as the adults that guide the attitudes of youngsters.

 

A bit of a push that emphasizes camping and hiking might also help reverse some of the techno-lazy craze for both youth and adults.

 

Things have to be implemented to re-establish the cool-factor of outdoor activity. If reversals can be made in those areas, things like hunting and fishing and trapping will just naturally come along for the ride.

[growalot]

Or just casually striking up a conversation about hunting ...where ever you go...I do that all the time...check out lines are a great place...waiting rooms...ect..ect..They see a clean casually dressed middle aged woman talking about saving money and by passing chemical ridden store meats... with a friendly smile...talking about recipes and low fat corned venison and sausages...how filling the freezer is one less deer accident...everyone seems to have hit one at one time or another... ..next thing you know they are asking questions.. .they walk away thinking about it and I have changed in small part there preconceived idea about what a hunter is...where the catch is though...is when they ask about getting a license...the class ...then the facial expressions change....

[RemingtonChevy]

Since Duck Dynasty I have noticed it becoming more popular with younger people.  This is because I worked in a school with teenagers.  Lots of camo being worn to school

[Doc]

Since Duck Dynasty I have noticed it becoming more popular with younger people.  This is because I worked in a school with teenagers.  Lots of camo being worn to school

Is the camo related to hunting, or simply a fashion statement? I see a lot of camo on kids that will likely never step foot in the woods.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Is the camo related to hunting, or simply a fashion statement? I see a lot of camo on kids that will likely never step foot in the woods.

Let alone see or touch a gun.   Well touch one that may be used for hunting anyways.  Seen some real winners wearing our colors!

[Elmo]

Mossy Oak or military camo?  Military camo for fashion has been around for ages.

[greybeard]

. My question originated from conversations and then some verification of what I was told  by antis, and just non hunters.I was going to wait until I got a better feel for the  coordinated efforts by anti hunters before I wrote about it.

 

 Mike Rossi ...You are correct about conservation funds coming from other sources.Some of those sources are what caused my concern.

The antis are recommending wildlife funding to compete with our license money. They reportedly want more access to hunting areas as well as more of a voice in wildlife Management.

 

 Although I am not finished looking into these,there are 3 areas(at this time) that concern me:

                                                              The non Hunters stamp ..

                                                                Wildlife Conservation Stamp...

                                                                The third is being recommended for non hunters regarding all species also                          recommends creating a stamp for specific wildlife to match  our stamps (like turkey stamp).. I was told of this one and saw it, unfortunately I can't point to the site because I can't find it again...It's on the internet, but I can't relocate it.

The antis continually point out how low hunters numbers are compared to  what they refer to as wildlife watchers when recommending the above funding tools..

 

Another issue that concerned ,me was anti hunters advised to get hunting licenses. Some sources of this were well meaning, but the anti sources recommend it to get into our designated hunting areas to disrupt hunting. One site gave explicit instructions of how to disrupt while looking like hunters. It advised antis to wear masks because of cameras put up by hunters, take occasional safe shots to scare game, take down tree stands,etc.

 

My concern about antis having hunting licenses, aside from the obvious, is that they will park in our spots(on LI that's a real issue), and  they will participate in surveys and have a hunters voice.

 

The non hunting stamps/license may allow them access as well as a voice as a non hunting group.. both of which are stated in their documentation. They also state that more funding gives them a bigger voice with legislators.

 

 The above, are in my opinion, just some of the reasons why we need younger hunters.

 

We all know that the antis read our hunting sites and have even been caught here baiting hunters with questions. They use our words against us.

Their PR campaigns have had an effect turning hunters on each other while selling the public on the cruelty of hunting....Look at their term "canned hunt"...Hunters use it constantly.. The antis attack hunting with Hounds, look at California, They are now attacking bear hunting, for 2014, over bait and using hounds in Maine..(I seem to recall that antis stopped dove hunting in Michigan, and I believe that some time ago they attacked pigeon shoots in Pa., but I don't recall if they were successful on the pigeons.)... There's too much to write about

 

My opinion, shared by others on other sites,  is that  we should NEVER be publicly critical of how others hunt as long as it is legal. If we don't like what they do then we just  shouldn't do it ourselves. Stating that we don't participate in it is fine, but disrespectful criticism fuels the anti cause. I believe that it also deters young impressionable potential hunters.

 

I constantly read about the Safe Act, as well as Federal Gun legislation which is good and appropriate, but I think that we seem to ignore the anti hunters coordinated attacks  and the long range effect. Some are funded by groups throughout the U.S. so an anti hunting campaign can be launched even in conservative states.

 

I am still looking at anti hunting sites, which I am doing for my own head. I like to know what the other side is doing . I am aware that much of what I wrote is my interpretation of what I have been told and read.

 

 

[mike rossi]

You know, that is too much at once. Lets break it down...

 

First: If new funding strategies for conservation are going to be manipulated by anti hunters, that is the DEC's job to iron out, but I think it already is... Non hunters can already buy a variety of stamps to support conservation, there is no need to attach identity to them by naming then non hunters stamps. The name of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp has already been changed to the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp. That name change is a better description but does not give identity to any group - including hunters.  Anti hunting organizations have enough money and if they wanted to engage in conservation partnerships with the DEC like legitimate conservation organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, and other NGOs they are welcome to do so, they certainly have a big enough budget. To create a conservation stamp which by name gives identity to non hunters, so that they can compile accounting records to bolster a political agenda, doesn't pass the giggle test. Besides being disingenuous and duplicating something already in place, such a duplicated effort would require some administration costs, in another words less bang for your buck. That by itself goes against the grain of wildlife and fisheries agencies which are accustomed to small staffs and low budgets, and historically use money as efficiently as possible.

[Doc]

 

......My opinion, shared by others on other sites,  is that  we should NEVER be publicly critical of how others hunt as long as it is legal. If we don't like what they do then we just  shouldn't do it ourselves. Stating that we don't participate in it is fine, but disrespectful criticism fuels the anti cause. I believe that it also deters young impressionable potential hunters.........

 

Not to get the thread side-tracked too far, I have to say that I can't agree with this. We cannot allow the antis to dictate the topics of our discussions. I refuse to let them control our opinions and our right to state them. I am not going to hide my opinions or be muted by this crowd. I believe that nothing bad comes from discussion. We may occasionally have problems with the way we word our discussions, and the thin skins of those who may feel offended that anyone would ever question certain practices. But to stifle dissent and discussion would be a huge capitulation to these people and I for one, refuse to allow them that power over us. No matter what details we may argue about, we are always united in our defense of hunting in general. That never changes no matter how loud our internal disagreements or discussions get.

[mike rossi]

Not to get the thread side-tracked too far, I have to say that I can't agree with this. We cannot allow the antis to dictate the topics of our discussions. I refuse to let them control our opinions and our right to state them. I am not going to hide my opinions or be muted by this crowd. I believe that nothing bad comes from discussion. We may occasionally have problems with the way we word our discussions, and the thin skins of those who may feel offended that anyone would ever question certain practices. But to stifle dissent and discussion would be a huge capitulation to these people and I for one, refuse to allow them that power over us. No matter what details we may argue about, we are always united in our defense of hunting in general. That never changes no matter how loud our internal disagreements or discussions get.

 

It is impossible to promote ethics and fair chase amongst hunters if we take a anything goes attitude. The adoption of that attitude makes it even more impossible to promote acceptance of hunting to the public majority who do not hunt but likewise do not necessarily oppose hunting. As already stated a significant factor in poor recruitment and RETENTION of hunters is the behavior of other hunters. While some are touting the solidarity chant many more are distancing themselves from the sport...

 

Early in the history of game laws when market hunting was banned, so-called "sportsmen" decided what was sporting and what was not sporting and made recommendations for regulations  based on what they thought was ethical, fair chase, and distributed the game resource fairly. This is "nothing new". Neither are the disagreements among sportsmen...

 

Basically, that philosophy is saying because of anti hunters; individual sportsmen should no longer contribute to social decisions about what is ethical, sporting, fair chase, and distributes opportunity fairly. Or even express their own opinions... Bad Idea... Yet, hypocritically, we are supposed to unconditionally agree with the socio-political agenda handed down by the politically connected... In other words, organizations and individuals should not be divisive and thou shall not buck the system...

Edited January 7, 2014 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Am I talking to myself again or did we reach agreement? OK I will move on. GB states the antis are continually stating wildlife watchers are more numerous than hunters. That is a true statement and we need to be cautious with this.

 

Wildlife watchers are much more numerous, have a larger voice, and outspend us. Along with hunting, wildlife watching is one of the seven or so "Public Priority Uses" of Pitman Robertson Lands.

 

However, avid wildlife watchers are not necessarily anti hunters. That is a pipe dream or embellishment of anti hunters. However the behavior of hunters will determine if they accept hunting or become frustrated and join the antis. The antis will have a tough time recruiting them otherwise. Since they read good material and participate in organized trips which are led by someone who interprets and teaches, they are not highly susceptible to the unscientific or emotional drivel of anti hunters.

 

There was a proposal to attach the Pitman Robertson Tax to binoculars and bird seed about 10 or 15 years ago which congress rejected. However, wildlife watchers and the NGOs they support make substantial voluntary donations of cash, labor, time, and land.

 

All that being said I want to comment on the idea of attaching a conservation tax to bird seed. According to the FWS: "bird watchers use bird seed to aid them in observing birds". True, but so do many others I would not put in the same category as birders. Furthermore, feeding wildlife is not always consistent with good conservation. The third concern might resonate a little more with one of  Grey Beard's concerns he expressed earlier in this thread.

 

Over half of the 40 lower states which allow the hunting of mourning doves as well as the remaining 8 lower states which do not, have experienced a tremendous opposition to establishing hunting seasons. Not only has this occurred over a large geographic area, i.e. the entire United States, but it has been going on for 40 years or more. The main driver has been the DC based HSUS. The HSUS has been surprisingly successful in blocking dove hunting nationwide for over 40 years using just a few standard stock arguments. One of those is that people who maintain bird feeders will have reduced opportunities to observe mourning doves if hunting seasons are established. The average homeowner with a bird feeder is much more numerous than the avid birder who understands conservation and also has a bird feeder for the purpose stated by the fish and wildlife service. Despite published research suggesting a distinction between "rural doves" and "suburban doves" this argument, among others, has been accepted by state legislators. Furthermore mourning doves are so abundant, ranked 11th in relative abundance of all birds in the USA, it is unlikely few if any people who notice less doves at their feeders. Taking that two steps farther... Most doves migrate and as they do others may or may not occupy the same feeders. Then consider that half of the population lives less than one year even if no hunting occurred anywhere. Too make a long story short, people would not notice less doves at their feeders due to hunting as promoted by the HSUS and accepted by state lawmakers. A conservation tax on bird seed captures too many people some of which do not use wise conservation practices and/or condone ideologies that are not consistent with conservation. Such a tax may lead to a "misunderstanding".... For more information follow our face book page.

 

 

[greybeard]

Mike Rossi, I've been reading your posts, but I haven't answered yet because I'm trying to locate that other site, to make my point clearer. I should have written it down, or saved it, but I didn't.(I'm somewhat computer illiterate)

 

I will try answer your question as to why I named the stamps.

 

As I read the topics on this site, it appeared to me that many gun owners, myself included, react to laws after they are passed. It's mostly because they(we) didn't see it coming. This is not a criticism, we just get blind sided.( I wish that someone knew that the Town of Huntington was going to close it's waters to hunters before it happened, maybe we could have reached an understanding. Now it's catchup, and I doubt that it will be reversed...

 

I THOUGHT, I guess wrongfully, that if I saw something that I believed was could effect hunting that I should point it out.

 

The identified stamps(licenses) are on the internet. I didn't disclose anything private. It's for anyone to look up, if interested, and determine if they agree with me, or not.

 

The non hunters stamp, in particular does not favor hunters. Take a look at their site and I believe that you will agree with me.

 

The Wildlife Conservation stamp initiators appear, to me, to be looking for their own voice, separate from hunters. They want more to say about issues such as wildlife management. It is my opinion, after reading different info , that they can effect hunting in the refuges

 

The third I can't find again.

 

As far as hunting licenses for non hunters .as I previously wrote, I agree that it can have some positive results. However, when reading anti sites, one in particular that mentions getting a license,the writer instructs how to disrupt hunting and not get caught.

In addition , when they are licensed they can have access to areas designated for hunters. On LI we have very little land for hunting. Some have designated spots, I would not want the thought to catch on and I lose a spot to a non hunter.

A while back, I saw a youtube thing, where a non hunter was complaining about access to coop lands for hunters. He was standing in one of my waterfowl spots on the coop. I know it's one thing, but it concerns me... Others want more access.

 

A while back,I was booed by children on a field trip to a marsh where I hunt. They were on a newly constructed walkway for nature lovers( the teacher was a true professional and handled it). Another time I went there and was advised by local law enforcement that nature lovers(that's not a negative term, just my description to differentiate them from hunters)), were looking over the marsh. He was not going to stop me, but when I said that I didn't want an audience and was leaving, he was visibly relieved. That spot is now pretty much unavailable for hunting now. Is it because of the new viewing site, maybe not, but I know that the Town does not want us in there...

 

Huntington closed because a goose hunter hit a goose that crashed down near kids. The officials did not like the hunters attitude, although he was right, and I';m sure public pressure led to the closing of the area. ..

MY OPINION..As spots open in marshes for non hunters and ducks drop at their feet,  pressure may be brought to close areas to hunters, or even maybe divide the marshland.(again.. my opinion)

One other issue is the fact that they may participate in hunter surveys, if it catches on those dove hunting surveys,etc. may be answered by non, and even anti hunters. (I did not see a down side in mentioning that.)

 

I gather that most here disagree with me and that's fine with me. Maybe I am over reacting to what I perceive as threats, or ideas that would effect my hunting.

 

If anyone is interested they can read the sites and decide for themselves, if not they can ignore this.

 

I do know that wildlife organizations have money and that they do many good things, but I feel that we should know that some , the ones who do not favor hunting, are out there and be prepared if one of their ideas conflict with ours.

 

Doc.. We disagree, because of our different experiences.. You make some good points, but again we disagree..