From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:49:15 GMT

robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <altar.703266920@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>...
>> True enough, but which interest group, when conflicts occur, is going
>> to get the most attention?  That's right, the one which can exact the most
>> political and economic pressure.  Making the DNR directly dependant
>> upon hunting licence fees exerts a considerable amount of economic/political
>> pressure, to say the least.  Better if the hunting fees went into 
>> general federal reserves, but I don't think hunters would like that idea?
>> And why not; the reason is obvious.

>Interesting you feel this way.  When I wrote a letter to the DNR here 
>complaining about the ban on Sunday hunting, I was haughtily told that only 
>about 10-15 percent of the population hunts and that the other 85-90% wants 
>one day a week in which they can go in the woods would fear of being shot 
>(this is almost an exact quote).

6 days out of 7 sounds like you are getting your way in my books.  I would
like to see 0 days out of 7 for hunting, but I know that it will not 
happen in my lifetime.


>  Now, this sounds really plausible on the 
>surface, but remember they are referring to hunters by *population* and the 
>population includes *all* individuals.  Most of the hunters I know are 
>husbands and fathers.  So it would be more appropriate to assess the 
>situation on the basis of the number of *households* that are involved in 
>hunting.  Assuming four people / household (lots of folks here have more 
>than two kids, but lets assume just two for argument's sake) and this 
>10-15% jumps to 40-45% of households that are involved in hunting.  The 
>point of this is that the DNR here is *actively* trying to downplay the 
>importance of hunters.  Far from pandering to hunters, we are treated as a 
>barely tolerated minority by the DNR when the truth is far far different.


John, this is not good demographics.  Can we be sure that all members 
completely approve and support that 1 member of their household who
does hunt?  Toleration for your 6 day a week  hunting is not necessarily
support for you to have your way 7 days a week at the expense of those
others losing their meager 1 day a week hunt-free access to the park.
For reasons like this you cannot so simply group people into households.
When we talk about households who buy brand X of toothpaste, presumably
only one brand is purchased and is used by all members of the household.
Hence, it might make sense here to talk about households as opposed to
individuals.  This is not at all apparent with respect to hunting.
Household buy and use the same toothpaste, only very few households as
a whole go hunting.

Also, is it fair to include infants and children?  Indeed, what
age range makes up 85% to 90% of non-hunting users?  If the figures
were based upon adult users, then you cannot included children.

Finally, the 85% to 90% who want to go to the woods one day a week
when no hunting occurs are presumably users, hence any collapsing of
individuals into households is completely meaningless for the purpose
of determining fair and equitable access to the park by users of the
park.

                                      ted.