From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:22:22 GMT

kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown) writes:




>Sorry Ted, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions on the dangers
>to the future existence of hunting being a result of it not being
>interesting.  I suspect that if you posed many of those questions,
>rewritten according to activity, that you would get the same trend in
>answers for any sport or activity.  
> . . .

Please, no need to speculate.  Collect some data, or look up some 
in the J. of Leisure, etc.   Tell me, why should your opinion count more
than that of 296 respondents randomly selected from a larger population
of 16,021, and collected by trained interviewers under the direction
of trained and published researchers?  No doubt, you are probably
correct with respect to yourself, but I assume that you are not
an "ex-hunter".  Why, then, do you presume to speak on their
behalf and so readily discount their collective polled opinion?
This kind of quick dismissal leads me to think that self-justificatory
needs are preventing a fair and open-minded appraisal of the data.


>How many people have tennis rackets,
>golf clubs, running shoes, ski equipment, etc., sitting in a closet gathering
>dust?  The difference in hunting is that you must pay each year for the
>privilege of hunting so it is easy to see when there is a decline.  By 
>the way, there is not decline in licensure sales in NC...maybe it has
>to do with the availability of hunting land in NC vs New Jersey.

What do you mean that there is no decline of some 30% in hunting-
license sales over the past decade?  I've cited my source, what
is yours?  Please, no more testimonies, just some facts.



>I am sure that a lot of people start hunting like you would start any
>activity...it sounds interesting and fun.  Once people start, however,
>they find that hunting, like any sport, takes a lot of time and dedication
>both during the hunting season and during off-season (scouting lands,
>learning about the habits of game animals, practicing your 
>marksmanship, etc.).  The sport is not as simple as some people make it
>out to be.

What you are doing here, it seems to me, is to de-evaluate these
"deserters" as being some kind of failures.  Given that young
kids and octogenarians can hunt, I really don't think this "sport"
compares with the skill and dedication it takes to be a good
tennis or even ping-pong player. But let's not argue this one.


>Speaking from personal experience (and let me point out that I hunt, have
>. . .

Again, what relevance has your personal testimony got to do with the
empirical data presented?  I did ask that self-reference be suspended,
if only for a moment.  I guess that was a very brief moment. 

>As a last thought I will just state that if the hunter is ever stopped
>from his sport, wildlife, at least here in the US, will be more
>threatened than ever.  

This is simply an article of faith and likely a self-justification.
The larger majority of people want wildlife preserved.  Why are
hunters "necessary" for this to be possible?  I would hope that 
history and democratic societies are more open to future
possibilities than just one.   

                                ted
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals