Hunting As United States Pastime 1960 to 2020: Implications for Conservation

1 Question

Hunting as a pastime is declining in the United States.¹ Its prolonged slump and projected decline is significant because license fees and taxes fund wildlife conservation efforts. This “user-play, user-pay” funding system–a model replicated across the globe–is jeopardizing conservation efforts as hunting declines. (Rott 2018)Recent legislative proposal at the federal level have attempted to diversify funding sources in response. The question for consideration is whether hunting declined from 1960 to 2020, how much agreement exists between available data sources, and which states have been impacted.

2 Background

Hunting is a significant source of entertainment, excercise, camraderie, and nourishment for many Americans, especially those living in rural locations where leisure opportunities are scarce and wildlife more prevalent. Every five years the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation is conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Census. The last survey in 2016 found that “11.5 million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 184 million days and took 147 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $26.2 billion.” (US Census Bureau 2016) The survey reported that the national participation rate was four percent with significant regional variation. For example, the New England region had a two percent participation rate while the East South Central region had an eight percent participation rate. (US Census Bureau 2016) Given its popularity and economic impact, hunting is rightfully the subject of intense study.

2.1 Wildlife as Public Resource

Wildlife is a public resource and should be managed prudently. The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is considered to be the cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (AMWC). The doctrine posits that “wildlife is owned by no one and held in trust by governments for the present and future benefit of its citizens.”(Jacobson et al. 2010) It was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case Martin vs. Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). There, the Court held “that the public held a common right to fish in navigable and tidal waters of New Jersey because they and their underlying lands were owned by the state for the common use by the people.” (The Wildlife Society et al. 2010)

While Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee may have been the first case, the more signifcant one in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence was Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). There, the Illinois Legislature had granted an portions of the waterfront and harbor to the Illinois Central Railroad. The conveyance was contested by a subsequent legilsature. The Court held that the public trust doctrine prevented the legislture from alienating the public right to the lands under navigable waters. (“Illinois Central Railroad V. Illinois” 1892) Professor James L. Sax refers to the case as the “lodestar” in American public trust law. (Sax 1970)

Since the government under American law is entrusted with the public’s assets, it has a responsiblity as trustee and fiduciary to safeguard them for the long term benefit of the public.(The Wildlife Society et al. 2010)

2.2 U.S. Conservation Movement

Many commentators point to the establishment of the first national park as the origin of the U.S. conservation movement. In 1872, a bill creating Yellowstone National Park was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. American sportsmen were the catalyst for the U.S. conservation movement who saw the waste of wildlife and habitat as a cause for the extinction of some species and sought to preserve others.(Reiger 2000). Westward expansion of the railroad and its associated decimation of wildlife mustered American conservationists. The loss of the passenger pigeon 1916 and the near extirpation of the bison added to the urgency and demonstrated the fragility of the environment.

The late 19th and early 20th century ushered in an era of conservation activism of both habitat and wildlife. Hailed as the “American Conservation Movement”, it was extensive in scope and widely embraced by the public. The Library of Congress assembled a collection of significant materials from 1850 to 1920. When narrowed to just Congressional and Presidential actions, the collection consisted of “140 Federal statutes and Congressional resolutions, 34 additional legislative documents, excerpts from the Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record [and] 360 Presidential proclamations.” For more details on Legislative and Executive Branch action, see the table of bibliographic references with summary at 7.3.)

Figure 2.1: Plot shows that a large portion of federal action occurred in the twenty years between 1900 and 1920. Data taken from the Library of Congress Evolution of the Conservation Movement website.

The subjects of the various federal actions were diverse and, at times, ambitious. They included the acquisition of land to be set aside for national parks, the establishment of a national park service, irrigation of the arid lands of the West, the granting of railroad right-of-way through federal lands, the regulation of seal hunting and other fur bearing animals in the “District” of Alaska, the establishment of fish hatcheries, protection of trees on federal lands from the harvesting of pitch or turpentine, regulation of the sale and harvest of sponges from the Gulf of Mexico, the study of Texas oyster beds, the protection of migratory birds, and the creation of a commission on the construction and use of water power. And there were hundreds of other initiatives. Two more federal enactments would have lasting and profound impact on the support of state conservation efforts in hunting: specifically, the creation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pittman-Robertson Act.

Currently housed with the Department of the Interior, the history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) spans 150 years. It began as a merger between two agencies that were formed much earlier, during the period mentioned above. The Office of the Commission of Fish and Fisheries (established 1871) was combined with the Bureau of the Biological Survey (established 1885). Ultimately, the offices were consolidated withinn DOI in 1939 and renamed the “Fish and Wildlife Service”. The agency is crucial to state-level fish and wildlife agencies in that it acts as the “flow-through” entity for the administration of two important programs: the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (hunting) and the Dingell-Johnson Act (fishing). (Congressional Research Service 2018)

In 1937, the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act became law, providing funding for state agencies to carry out conservation efforts. The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a preëxisting 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money generated by the tax is instead given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the states via the Federal Aid to Wildlife Fund. This topic will be discussed in section The Act is widely credited for restoring the populations of white-tailed deer, wild turkeys and wood ducks. Other animals like American black bears, elk, and cougars have expanded their ranges. The act will be discussed in greater detail in section 2.7 Due to the success of the Pittman–Robertson Act, a similar act was proposed for the protection of fish species, titled his act was titled the Federal Aid in Sports Fish Restoration Act.

2.3 States’ Role in Conservation

States fish and wildlife departments play a key role in conservation. Wildlife management is divided between the federal government and individual states. States have primary responsibility as the trustees of wildlife due to the Public Trust Doctrine, except where the Constitution provided for federal oversight.(Bean et al. 1997) “Regulated hunting and trapping have been cornerstones of wildlife management in the United States since the advent of wildlife conservation,” write two prominent zoologists along these lines."(Braverman 2015)

Table 2.1: State Fish & Wildlife Conservation Funding by Source

source	type	pct
Agency	License Sales	35%
Agency	Entry Fee	3%
Agency	Small Grants	3%
Agency	Watercraft	2%
Agency	Trust	1%
Agency	OHV	1%
Federal	Pittman-Robertson	15%
Federal	Dingell-Johnson	9%
Federal	USFWS	4%
Federal	Coast Guard	1%
State	General Fund	8%
State	Non-General Fund	6%
State	Sales Tax	3%
Other	Other	11%
1 Column does not total to 100% due to rounding errors.
2 Data from Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Survey.

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recently surveyed its members from all 50 states. The effort was undertaken to better understand the scope of state conservation efforts. Forty-six members participated. The agencies own, manage, leverage, spend or employ

• 464 million acres of land;
• 167 million acres of lakes, reservoirs, wetlands and riparian areas;
• 190,000 volunteers;
• 50,000 total employees;
• 11,000 degreed biologists;
• 10,100 law enforcement officers;
• 6,000 employees with advanced degrees;
• 43,515 vehicles; and
• 5.6 billion dollars in combined budgets

The survey cited as a “major problem” the fact that most citizens do not realize that conservation efforts are primarily shouldered by state fish and wildlife agencies. (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 2017) The table 2.1 at right shows funding by source with hunter licensing fees and Pittman-Robertson funs being the two larges revenue sources.

2.4 Decline of Hunting

According to an article in Outdoor Life, hunting reached its peak in 1982 when nearly 17 million hunters purchased 28.3 million licenses. Additionally, persons born between the years 1946 and 1964, commonly referred to as the “Baby Boomers”, are the largest cohort of hunters and will age out of the sport in the next 15 years.(Krebs 2019) The decline was acknowledged and projected to continue in Wisconsin deer hunters through 2030. (Winkler and Warnke 2013)

In a 2012 study of Wisconsin deer hunters, researchers projected 10% decline through 2020 and an additional 18% decline from 2020 to 2030. (Winkler and Warnke 2013)

2.5 Reasons for Decline

Legal hunting enjoys widespread public support in spite of declining participation. The decline of hunting has less to do with overall public perception and more with changing preferences and demographics within American society. In a 2019 survey funded by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, legal hunting continues to enjoy widespread support with 80% of public supporting it. (Response Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2019) This level of approval has been stable since 1975 when it was first reported at 75%. The approval was greatest when hunting was undertaken for sustenance, safety or wildlife control, but dropped when the activity was undertaken for sport or to obtain trophies. (Response Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2019) Support was greatest when the respondent was “male, white, living in a rural area, living in the Midwest or Southeast regions, and growing up with firearms.”(Response Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2019)

Proferred reasons for the decline include aging of hunting population, increased urbanization, change in consumer preferences . . .

Various explanations for the decline in hunting have been tendered. Researchers found evidence that more people opt for electronic entertainment and urban living as explanations for the decline in hunting. (Robison and Ridenour 2012)

2.6 Declining Fees and Taxes

“Fish and wildlife conservation funding in the U.S., at least at the state level, typically is characterized as a user-pay, user-benefit model.” (Organ et al. 2012) “From the earliest days of active management and enforcement by nascent state fish and wildlife agencies, hunters, anglers, and trappers have funded restoration and conservation initiatives.”(Organ et al. 2012) Conservation efforts are generally financed through two sources: the sale of hunting licenses from the state and the sale of firearms. Though smaller resources also add to conservation efforts. To this day, the combination of sportsmen-derived funds from hunting licenses and gun sales comprise between 60 and 90 percent of the typical state fish and wildlife agency budget.(Organ et al. 2012) Some wildlife agencies’ budgets, however, rely on even higher percentages of revenue from sportsmen. States, like Texas, fund 97% of its conservation efforts from these two sources.(Braverman 2015)

The primary reliance on hunters as the funding mechanism for conservation is frustrating for many. “Hunters are key stakeholders; their contributions and integral role in wildlife conservation continue to be important. Maintaining hunter involvement and financial support of the Institution is necessary, but not sufficient.” (Jacobson et al. 2010) Jacobson further states that “[w]e can no longer rely on our most committed constituency to carry the brunt of the financial burden and subsequently be the primary beneficiaries of our actions.”(Jacobson et al. 2010)

Conservations efforts require long term, sustainable and dependable funding sources. (Jacobson et al. 2010) User-based funding is declining and benefits a narrow group of constituents. “Other funding options states have pursued include dedicated revenues from vehicle license plates, voluntary tax check-offs, and nonprofit foundations to accept financial gifts.”(Jacobson et al. 2010) These fees have been voluntary and negligible in their impact. Missouri and Virginia were cited as having funding models that were “reliable, consistent and broad-based.” (Jacobson et al. 2010)

2.7 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.), enacted in 1937 and now known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs.(Congressional Research Service 2019)

The Pittman-Robertson Act directed that funds collected from the sale of firearms be deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund which has been expanded over the years to include other equipment as well. Specifically, the taxes are:

• a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers(“26 USCS _ 4181.PDF,” n.d.);
• an 11 percent tax on archery equipment and a per shaft arrow tax; and
• an 11 percent tax on firearms and ammunition.

Receipts from these taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund. "The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act apportions and allocates funding for five distinct purposes:

1. program administration (Section 4(a));
2. Wildlife Restoration (Section 4(b));
3. Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c));
4. Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10); and
5. Multistate Conservation Grants (Section 11)."

(Congressional Research Service 2019) Three of the five purposes have funding allocated based on a formula. Wildlife restoration funds are apportioned with one-half of the apportionment based on the ratio of the state’s land mass relative to the land mass of the whole country. The second half of the forumula apportions the funds based upon the number of state hunting license holders to the total number of hunting license holders. Hunter education and enhanced hunter education use a different forumula.

The states that receive the most funds are large with lots of hunters relative to the rest of the country. And states that are small, with few hunters relative to the rest of the states, receive the least money. No state receives more than 5% of the apportionment or less than one-half of 1% of the apportionment. In 2020, Alaska and Texas received the highest apportionment of wildlife restoration funds at $23.6 million each or 5% of the apportionment. Seven states received the statutory minimum apportionment of 1% which equated to $2.4 million. The states receiving the smallest portion of wildlife restoration funds were Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The other two purposes are not subject to apportionment: the multistate grants and the administration fee to the USFW.

Figure 2.2: Diagram illustrates the flow of money into the Wildlife Restoration Fund and then how it is distributed to the states. Revenues were from FY 2019 and the apportionment was for FY 2020.

2.8 Recent Federal Developments

National conservation advocates have identified the funding challenges and are urging the adoption of a new, broad-based funding strategy. “[E]ach state and U.S. territory [is required] to develop a State Wildlife Action Plan - a proactive, comprehensive conservation strategy which examines species health and recommends actions to conserve wildlife and vital habitat before they become more rare and costly to protect.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 2) “A national survey determined that each state needs an average of 26 million in new funding annually ($1.3 billion collectively) to efectively implement State Wildlife Action Plans to prevent species from becoming threatened or endangered.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 3)

The deficit in state conservation funding was addressd in a bill known as the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2019. It would amend the Pattman-Robertson Act and expand conservation funding by $1.3 billion from the general fund –as opposed to reliance on excise taxes on guns and archery equipment– and expand funding to Indiana Tribes by $97.5 million.

Its introductory findings of fact are foreboding as it acknowledges that “[t]he Nation’s efforts to recover at-risk wildlife populations are not keeping pace with the increased demand for natural resources and threats to native wildlife, including disease, invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation, shifts in temperature ranges, and extreme weather.” (Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2019 n.d.) Additionally, “[a]n assessment of the best-known groups of United States wildlife and plants indicates that one-third of America’s species are vulnerable to extinction and one-fifth imperiled and at high-risk of extinction.”

States would be required to provide at least 25% in nonfederal matching funds. The source of match can be monetary or in-kind contributions originating from state or local governments or private entities such as conservation organizations, universities, businesses, private landowners, or volunteers." (Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 3)

3 Data Sources

Data was retrieved from three sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

3.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife

States require a hunting license for those harvesting game. People who engage in hunting within the boundaries of the state they reside in require a “resident” hunting license whereas those who travel to another state require a “non-resident” license. A proxy for the popularity of the pastime is the number of hunting licenses issued by the states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife tracks the issuance of hunting, and fishing, licenses.(US Fish & Wildlife 2020) Data is available via their website. Hunting license information is collected annually from (1) state, (2) territory and (3) insular areas license certifications. The data is available for the years 1958 - 2020, though it is in a pdf format. Variables included:

1. Certified Paid Hunting License Holders–Defined as one individual regardless of the number of licenses purchased.
2. Resident licenses, tags, permits and stamps.
3. Non-resident licenses, tags, permits and stamps.
4. Total hunting licenses, tags, permits and stamps.
5. Gross cost to resident hunters.
6. Gross cost to non-resident hunters.
7. Total gross cost to hunters.

The early years in the dataset did not have values in each of the columns.(US Fish & Wildlife 2020)

3.2 IPUMS Population Data

According to their website, “the IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) provides free online access to summary statistics and GIS files for U.S. censuses and other nationwide surveys from 1790 through the present.” (Manson et al. 2020). The total population data by state was needed for the years studied so that a per capita computation could be made.(Manson et al. 2020) NHGIS is one of several IPUMS data integration projects located with the Minnesota Population Center at the Institute for Social Research & Data Innovation at the University of Minnesota. (Manson et al. 2020)

3.3 National Survey FHWAR

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR) reports results from interviews with U.S. residents about their fishing, hunting, and wildlife interaction. The survey has been taken every five years since 1955, predating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife hunting license data by eight years. Originally titled the “National Survey of Fishing and Hunting,” it is a valuable resource in identifying hunting trends. (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016) The agency describes its survey as “one of the oldest and most comprehensive continuing recreation surveys.”(U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016)

The interviews were held in two stages: one via telephone of 22,725 to determine who hunted in the household and the second stage was a more in-depth interview of a subset from those identified in first stage.The 2016 survey–the latest available, 3,931 anglers and hunters and 3,997 wildlife watchers were interviewed.(U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016) The report was explicit that the sample size was large enough for a national conclusion, but the state-level survey was conducted by a private contractor and the results were not included in the report. "The 2016 Survey’s questions and methodology were similar to those used in the surveys since 1991 and were comparable.(U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016)

In spite of the cautionary disclaimers regarding comparisons between the surveys after 1991 to the surveys before 1991, the surveys prior to 1991 are included in this report, although they are designated by a different color. Table 3.1 showing the numerators and denominators for the calculation of the participation rate is included below. Note how the age groups change over time and the all-time high for hunters was 1975 when hunters as young as 9 were included.

Table 3.1: Computation of FHWAR Participation Rate 1955 - 2016

year	method	tot_hunters	age_group_hunters	tot_pop	age_group_pop	part_rate
1955	A	11,784,000	hunters_12_&_over	118,366,000	pop_12_&_over	9.96%
1960	A	14,637,000	hunters_12_&_over	131,226,000	pop_12_&_over	11.15%
1965	A	13,583,000	hunters_12_&_over	141,928,000	pop_12_&_over	9.57%
1970	A	14,366,000	hunters_12_&_over	155,230,000	pop_12_&_over	9.25%
1975	B	20,591,000	hunters_09_&_over	184,300,000	pop_09_&_over	11.17%
1980	C	12,791,000	hunters_16_&_over	169,942,000	pop_16_&_over	7.53%
1985	C	16,684,000	hunters_16_&_over	181,095,000	pop_16_&_over	9.21%
1991	C	14,063,000	hunters_16_&_over	189,964,000	pop_16_&_over	7.4%
1996	C	13,975,000	hunters_16_&_over	201,472,000	pop_16_&_over	6.94%
2001	C	13,034,000	hunters_16_&_over	212,298,000	pop_16_&_over	6.14%
2006	C	12,510,000	hunters_16_&_over	229,245,000	pop_16_&_over	5.46%
2011	C	13,674,000	hunters_16_&_over	239,313,000	pop_16_&_over	5.71%
2016	C	11,453,000	hunters_16_&_over	254,686,000	pop_16_&_over	4.5%
Note:
Column does not total to 100% due to rounding errors.

4 Analysis

4.1 General

Household surveys represent a better way to measure outdoor activity than “on-site” metrics. “On-site” metrics were the earliest of metrics and historically consisted of measurements like the number of visitors to a park. But household surveys are a better method for determining participation rates. Yet, their usefulness in recreation planning and management suffer from methodological and conceptual issues. (Manning 2011)

First, these studies are often interpreted in the context of demand for recreation activities. (Manning 2011) The studies failed to take into account the existing recreation opportunities and the possible substitution of alternative outdoor activities. “It is quite likely that high participation rates will correlate with abundant opportunities, especially when these opportunities are priced at nominal levels, as is traditional in the public sector.” (Manning 2011) Two studies found statistically significant effects on participation rates when linked to the supply of recreation opportunities.

The second problem with household surveys of outdoor recreation is their focus on the underlying activity (hunting and fishing) than the meaningfulness of the outdoor experience. In other words, early studies focussed too much on the “what” and not enough on the “why” of the experience. A person’s participation in outdoor recreation may have many motivations, and they may be satisified by multiple activities. (Manning 2011)

Finally, household surveys of outdoor recreation also have a number of methodological flaws as well. The overall lack of consistentcy has made comparisons across time difficult. They include the irregular administration of surveys, inconsistent inclusion of activities, definitional problems (walking vs. hiking, for example), varying data collection techniques (phone surveys vs. personal interviews), “sample size, response rates, age of respondents, recall period and question wording and sequence.” (Manning 2011)

At least two studies have examined participation rates as reported by different organizations and different activities.

Bevins and Wilcox 1979

Stynes, et. al 1980.

Nationwide Recreation Surveys (NRS) renamed the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) have attempted to maintain consistency in research methods over the time span of the survey 1960 through 2009.

The analysis relied upon the statistical programming language known as R. (“R: The R Project for Statistical Computing” 2020) The plots were graphed with ggplot2.(Wickham 2016) The data from the sources above were combined into a single, wide dataframe and then converted into long format. The total number of observations in the dataframe was 3100 and the number of variables or columns was 6. The column names “key” and “value” are the default labels in the tidyr package. (Wickham and Henry 2020) Consistent with good data practice, each row is an observation and each column is a variable. (Wickham 2014) The top 5 rows of the dataframe are shown below for illustrative purposes.

Table 4.1: Top 5 Rows of Hunting License Dataframe

fips	state	abb	year	key	value
01	Alabama	AL	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	311,454
02	Alaska	AK	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	31,474
04	Arizona	AZ	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	105,640
05	Arkansas	AR	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	223,641
06	California	CA	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	610,882
08	Colorado	CO	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	241,301

The variables that were assembled into the dataframe are as follows:

Table 4.2: Variable Frequency by Year

	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
gross_cost_to_non-resident_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	0	50
gross_cost_to_resident_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	0	50
non-resident_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
per_capita_hunting_license	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
pop	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
resident_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
total_gross_cost_to_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
total_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
wr_apportionment_real_dollars	50	50	50	50	50	50	50

Not all variables were carried forward through the period of 1960 to 2020. For example, the 1960 data from USFW omitted five of the possible six variables which were filled with NA. Only observations with values were retained while NA values were omitted. This is also known as “complete cases” strategy and is a traditional approach to dealing with missing values. (Graham, Cumsille, and Shevock 2012) The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, as well as U.S. territories, were also omitted. Thus, the “50” seen frequently in the table above represent the 50 U.S. states.

4.2 National

Diam volutpat commodo sed egestas. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh. Ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Cras semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at. Gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac. Ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque. Egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. In nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at. Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida. Feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus.

Diam volutpat commodo sed egestas. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh. Ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Cras semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at. See 4.1. Gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac. Ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque. Egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. In nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at. Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida. Feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus.

## `summarise()` ungrouping output (override with `.groups` argument)

Figure 4.1: Figure shows the total number of hunting licenses or answering in the affirmative on the Survey of FHWAR. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Diam volutpat commodo sed egestas. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh. Ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Cras semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at. Gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac. Ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque. Egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. In nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at. Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida. Feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus. See 4.2.

## `summarise()` ungrouping output (override with `.groups` argument)
## `summarise()` ungrouping output (override with `.groups` argument)

Figure 4.2: Figure shows the percentage of the population that engages in hunting. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Aenean vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar. Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis. Mi bibendum neque egestas congue quisque egestas diam in. Vel pretium lectus quam id leo in vitae turpis massa. Cursus in hac habitasse platea. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Sed blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu dui. In ornare quam viverra orci. Libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. See 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Figure shows that the declining percentage of hunters is due to rising population while hunting license issuance has remained the same.

Aenean vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar. Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis. Mi bibendum neque egestas congue quisque egestas diam in. Vel pretium lectus quam id leo in vitae turpis massa. Cursus in hac habitasse platea. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Sed blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu dui. In ornare quam viverra orci. Libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. See 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Gross cost per hunter and per person compared to inflation. Notice the y-axis showing that the per person cost is less than $3.00

Aenean vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar. Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis. Mi bibendum neque egestas congue quisque egestas diam in. Vel pretium lectus quam id leo in vitae turpis massa. Cursus in hac habitasse platea. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Sed blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu dui. In ornare quam viverra orci. Libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. See 4.3. ## State-level

(#tab:table_00)Top 10 States for Hunting

rank	state	licenses/1000
1	South Dakota	239
2	Wyoming	224
3	Montana	209
4	North Dakota	166
5	Idaho	162
6	Oklahoma	140
7	Alaska	120
8	West Virginia	117
9	Wisconsin	117
10	Maine	115

(#tab:table_00)Bottom 10 States for Hunting

rank	state	licenses/1000
41	Nevada	22
42	Maryland	19
43	Delaware	16
44	Connecticut	10
45	Florida	9
46	Massachusetts	8
47	New Jersey	8
48	California	7
49	Hawaii	7
50	Rhode Island	7

Table 4.3: Top 10 States %Change in Hunters

rank	state	percent_change
1	Oklahoma	54.4%
2	North Dakota	42.3%
3	Alabama	7.5%
4	Mississippi	6.1%
5	Georgia	-0.4%
6	West Virginia	-1.9%
7	Louisiana	-3%
8	Missouri	-8.7%
9	South Dakota	-9.1%
10	Hawaii	-12.7%

Table 4.3: Bottom 10 States %Change in Hunters

rank	state	percent_change
41	Massachusetts	-65.7%
42	Virginia	-70.5%
43	Delaware	-71.3%
44	Indiana	-71.7%
45	New Jersey	-72%
46	New Hampshire	-73.1%
47	Florida	-73.2%
48	Washington	-76.9%
49	California	-83%
50	Nevada	-84%

4.3 Further Research

2014 Allocation of gun revenue plotted compared to hunter license data. A floor and ceiling is set within the allocation forumula as well as territorial size.

5 Conclusions

Hunting license issuance among the states for the 1960 to 2020 years declined. This conclusion matches other studies and other datasets. Possible explanations in the decline in hunting include the aging of the U.S. population, the continued migration from rural to urban settings.(Mehmood, Zhang, and Armstrong 2003)Hunting as a pastime remains grim, imperiling state conservation efforts. Wildlife and habitat conservation efforts will depend on the US moving away from a “pay-to-play” model and toward more sustainable funding streams like that proposed in the Act.

6 Bibliography

“26 USCS _ 4181.PDF.” n.d.

Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife. n.d. “About Us - Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife.” http://ournatureusa.com/about-us/.

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 2017. “The State Conservation Machine.” [n.p.].

Bean, Michael J., Melanie J. Rowland, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Wildlife Fund (U.S.). 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Braverman, Irus. 2015. “Conservation and Hunting: Till Death Do They Part? A Legal Ethnography of Deer Management.” Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 30 (2): 57.

Congressional Research Service. 2018. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An Overview.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2019. “Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding Apportionments for States and Territories.”

Graham, John W., Patricio E. Cumsille, and Allison E. Shevock. 2012. “Methods for Handling Missing Data.” In Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202004.

“Illinois Central Railroad V. Illinois.” 1892.

Jacobson, Cynthia, John Organ, Gordon Batcheller, and Len Carpenter. 2010. “A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (December): 203–9. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-485.

Krebs, Natalie. 2019. “Why We Suck at Recruiting New Hunters, Why It Matters, and How You Can Fix It.” Outdoor LIfe, October.

Manning, Robert E. 2011. Project MUSE - Studies in Outdoor Recreation. 3rd ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/1583.

Manson, Steven, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Tracy Kugler, and Steven Ruggles. 2020. “IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 15.0 [Dataset].” Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.

Mehmood, Sayeed, Daowei Zhang, and James Armstrong. 2003. “Factors Associated with Declining Hunting License Sales in Alabama.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8 (4). Routledge: 243–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/716100423.

Organ, J.F., Valerius Geist, Shane P. Mahoney, Steven Williams, Paul R. Krausman, Gordon R. Batcheller, Thomas A. Decker, et al. 2012. “The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04.” The Wildlife Society: Bethesda.

Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2019. n.d. Accessed December 14, 2020. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3742?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR3742%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1.

Reiger, John F. 2000. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, 3rd Ed. 3rd Revised and Expanded ed. edition. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Response Management, and National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2019. “American’s Attitudes Toward Hunting, Fishing, Sport Shooting and Trapping.”

Robison, Kristopher K., and Daniel Ridenour. 2012. “Whither the Love of Hunting? Explaining the Decline of a Major Form of Rural Recreation as a Consequence of the Rise of Virtual Entertainment and Urbanism.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17 (6). Routledge: 418–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.680174.

Rott, Nathan. 2018. “Decline in Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays for Conservation.” NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation.

“R: The R Project for Statistical Computing.” 2020. Vienna Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Sax, Joseph L. 1970. “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention.” Michigan Law Review 68 (3). The Michigan Law Review Association: 471–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/1287556.

The Wildlife Society, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Wildlife Management Institute. 2010. “The Public Trust Doctrine.” Wildlife Society: Maryland.

US Census Bureau. 2016. “2016 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw-16-nat.html.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”

US Fish & Wildlife. 2020. “US Fish and Wildlife Service National Hunting License [Dataset].” Washington, D.C.: US Fish & Wildlife.

Wickham, Hadley. 2014. “Tidy Data.” Journal of Statistical Software 59 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i10.

———. 2016. “Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis.”

Wickham, Hadley, and Lionel Henry. 2020. “Tidyr: Tidy Messy Data.”

Winkler, Richelle, and Keith Warnke. 2013. “The Future of Hunting: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Deer Hunter Decline.” Population and Environment 34 (4): 460–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-012-0172-6.

7 Appendix

7.1 Annual Wildlife Restoration Apportionment

7.2 Directory of Fish & Wildlife Associations

Directory of state F&W offices State and Territorial Fish and Wildlife Offices

7.3 Federal Action in Conservation 1850 - 1920

The Library of Congress compiled a wide ranging collection of materials documenting the conservation movement. The collection, entitled “The Evolution of the Conservation Era 1850 to 1920”, can be found on its website. The Law Library of the Library of Congress contributed 555 separate documents for the collection. Those materials are referenced here and serve as the basis for both the plot and the table below.

Figure 7.1: Table of U.S. Legislative and Executive Branch Actions in conservation from 1850 to 1920.

---

1. The views, analysis and conclusions presented within this paper represent the author’s alone and not of any other person, organization or government entity. While I have made every reasonable effort to ensure that the information in this article was correct, it will nonetheless contain errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It is a working paper subject to revision without notice as additional information becomes available. Any liability is disclaimd as to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.↩