From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:58:04 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <altar.703144584@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
> 
>  
>      What stated reasons do hunters themselves give for quitting?
> Believe it not, not only a few quit, but quite a significant
> number within a short period of time from first starting.  That
> was the question posed to 296 people who first hunted in New
> Jersey in 1976 but who did not purchase a hunting licence in
> 1981.

So what we have here are not folks who have learned hunting as kids, but 
those who decided to try it out?  So they first hunted in '76 and didn't 
purchase a license in '81.  Was '81 the *first* year they did not purchase 
a license?  What I'm trying to get a handle on is how long, exactly, they 
stuck with it.

It is interesting to note that many other activities suffer from a high 
turnover rate of potentially new enthusiasts.  Fencing is one such 
activity.  Usually, when people discover that it isn't like the pirate 
movies they used to watch, and it isn't like Star Wars lightsaber battles, 
they lose interest and quit.  This does not mean that there is something 
intrinsically wrong with fencing.  It does mean that many people, for one 
reason or another, lose interest in it.  Some are disillusioned to discover 
that it isn't what they thought it was, some find it much harder than they 
thought it would be, some just find it boring.  The list goes on.  The 
point is that this says more about the potential enthusiasts than it does 
about the activity itself.

>  
>      Over the past decade there has been about a 30% overall

Now, why 296 people?  How were they sampled from the 30%? Are they 
representative of this 30%?

> decline in New Jersey's hunting-licence sales.  You can be
> assured that the "wildlife management" officials are mighty
> worried since the larger portion of their salaries comes from
> these licence sales.  Such, is the weakness of a system of
> wildlife "protection" that would make that system depended upon a
> vested interest group (hence, we have not wildlife protection,
> but "management").  The following results were compiled by

Actually, this kind of a 'user pay' system generally works quite well.  
There is a recession on after all, even government jobs are not necessarily 
safe.

> trained interviewers at the Eagleton Instutite at Rutgers
> University.  Based upon a content analysis of responses to an
> earlier open-ended questionnaire, a set of 10 reasons for
> quitting were educed.  A sample of 296 "deserters" were then ask
> to rate each of the 10 reasons.  The following results are from
> James Applegate (1989; Dept. of Horticulture and Forestry,
> Rutgers University).  "Patterns of Early Desertion Among New
> Jersey Hunters".  WILD. SOC. BULL., 74:476-481. (note their
> obvious worry as expressed by referring to attrition as
> "desertion")
>  

I for one don't see that the term desertion carries with it any connotation 
of worry per se, but that is a minor point.

>  
>            Reasons why former hunters did not purchase
>             a hunting licence in New Jersey in 1981.
>                                 
> reason                                       very        not very
>                                            important    important
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 1.  Other things I like better
>      than hunting .........................  54%            45%
> 2.  Too many other hunters ................  35%            65%
> 3.  No good hunting places ................  34%            66%
> 4.  Hunting is more expensive
>       than I thought ......................  26%            74%
> 5.  Don't like to kill animals ............  21%            77%
> 6.  Hunting not as much fun          
>       as I thought ........................  20%            80%
> 7.  Can't get anything while
>       hunting .............................  18%            82%
> 8.  Now one to hunt with ..................  16%            84%
> 9.  Don't have equipment to hunt ..........  12%            88%
> 10.  Some people I know disapprove
>       of hunting ..........................  11%            89%
>  
>  
>      Now, the first thing that our inveterate hunters should note
> is that it is not us AR folk who are threatening your so-called
> "sport", but rather, it is that the activity of hunting
> inherently is not all that interesting or challenging (I know,
> you will noisily testify otherwise, but stop thinking about
> yourself for a moment and keep in mind that we are talking about
> those people who do quit, why they quit).  The most often cited
> reason for quitting was simply that there are other more
> interesting or meaningful recreational options to be preferred
> over that of hunting.  Incidentally, residential proximity to
> hunting had no relation whatsoever to this "desertion".

Ok.  Lets see.  There are other things these 'deserters' like to do better. 
 So this implies that 'hunting inherently is not all that interesting or 
challenging'?  I don't think so.  It implies that hunting is less apealing 
to them than their other activities, which says far more about their tastes 
than it does about hunting.

Further, I don't see any mention of these 'deserters' *protesting* hunting.  
They just decided it wasn't their cup of tea.  That they did so after 
having experienced it first hand simply makes them all the more respectable 
to my mind.  At least they went to the trouble of investigating the reality 
rather than relying on media myths.  So I fail to understand how these 
'desterters' threaten hunting in any way what so ever.  There will always 
be people trying out new activities and giving them up.  The trick is to 
find activities that the individual likes to do.  Now, if 70% of the 
hunters were not going back out into the woods, then maybe I could be 
convinced that the 'deserters' are threatening the sport.  I think that AR 
folks who go out of their way to insure that childern anthropomorphise 
animals at a very early age threaten the sport of hunting much more 
seriously than any 'deserters'.
  
>  
>      The next most often cited reasons simply bear on what
> hunters themselves are doing to themselves.  I regret to say that
> you and your "sport" are your own worst enemies.  Too many of you
> are stalking after that one Bambi.  It is crowded out there, and
> it is no wonder that hunting firearm deaths and crippling are a
> serious problem (see "Hunting Firearm Injuries" AMER. J. OF
> PUBLIC HEALTH, 1988, 78(12): 1585).

Hunting firearm deaths and injuries have been substantially reduced and almost 
completely eliminated here.  

An over abundance of hunters will correct itself in exactly this manner.  
Those who are less dedicated, and less enthusiastic about it will drop out, 
leaving the woods to those of us who are more serious about it.

>  
>      Note that only 1 in 5 chose ethics (5th on the list) as one
> of the reasons prompting their not bothering to purchase a
> hunting licence.  Not very impressive, is it?  With respect to

Actually, I find it very impressive.  It tells me that despite massive 
programs, the AR folks haven't been very successful at instilling their 
view of ethics into our society.

> social pressure, only 11% chose reason #10 as having any weight
> in their decision (the least frequently chosen reason).  And what
> might we conclude from this?  Again, it is not us AR folk that
> are your worst enemies, nor is it even your conscience, or even
> social disapproval by friends, etc.  So why are you Elmer Fudds so

Peer presure has always been vastly overrated to my mind.

Just because someone has stopped hunting themselves does not mean that they 
are opposed to others doing so.  Consequently, I don't see any way I could 
possibly view these 'deserters' as enemies of hunting.....I just don't buy 
it.

People who characterize hunters as goofy Elmer Fudd type folks...that's a 
different story.

> hostile to us harmless AR wabbit folk?  Looking for a scapegoat?
> What the above results show is that according to ex-hunters
> themselves, it is inherent to hunting that this killing of
> harmless animals is simply less interesting than many other
> things, and it is you yourselves and the loss of habitat that is
> destroying the opportunity for easy kills and even its "pleasure"
> (such as it may be for whatever cross-grained reason).  So guys,
> don't blame us if your numbers are declining, blame this "sport"
> for being uninteresting and yourselves for finding better things
> to do.

Well, this is at least your interpretation of the situation, not surprising 
given your views.

Hunters as a group are well aware of the threats that decreased habitat 
pose to our sport.  We fight this habitat reduction on a number of fronts.  
I don't know of anyone off the top of my head who has claimed that AR folks 
have caused an immediate, drastic reduction in hunter numbers, either 
directly or indirectly.  What many hunters, including myself, do fear is 
that the AR movement will be successful in propogating its myths to the 
detriment of the sport and the wildlife itself.  This is one of the reasons 
we get upset when we see books targeted at children.  I for one am 
confident that, given both sides of the story, people will be able to 
discern the truth for themselves.

>  
>                                               ted
>  
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069