- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Hunted have reason to cheer
January 9, 2003
By JOEL HOOD, Modesto BEE STAFF WRITER
Overcast days were unsettling, but never so much as when visibility was good. Clear days were downright scary.
Twenty years ago, in a not-so-remote public hunting zone in Inyo County, Ceres native Mike McCullough could look across a half acre or so of steep mountain terrain and see other hunters quietly moving through the low brush.
It was a rare hunting trip on public ground that didn't include jolting rifle blasts from nearby hunters. But seeing rival hunters was something entirely different, McCullough said.
It meant that, if they were paying attention, the hunters could see you, too. Or worse, mistake you for something with four legs and fur.
That was it, McCullough decided. Hunting in California had always been somewhat mundane. But with most private land off-limits, hunting on public land had become a risky adventure -- possibly life-threatening.
"I just didn't feel safe," said McCullough, who along with brother David now takes annual deer, elk and antelope hunting trips to eastern Oregon. "I didn't like the feeling that there were other hunters in such close proximity. It was very uncomfortable."
It's no secret California has lost its luster for a great number of hunters. Some, like the McCulloughs, have rekindled their interest for the sport in other states or countries. Others have simply dropped hunting altogether.
Despite efforts by the California Department of Fish and Game to bring back former hunters and encourage newcomers to start, the number of hunting licenses sold continues to fall. Now, at least one hunting organization is drafting legislation with the hope that it sparks a hunting revival in California, which it says is as good for the environment as it is for the economy.
"This issue is a big concern for us," said John Carlson, the DFG's branch chief of the state wildlife program. "I don't no if we can ever really get it turned back around."
Numbers are down
Over the last 30 years, resident hunting license sales in California have plummeted more than 50 percent, from 690,790 sold in 1970 to about 286,000 sold in 2001, the last complete year on record. The number is expected to rise slightly for 2002, officials say, but the total is still among the lowest since the DFG began keeping license sales statistics in the mid-1940s.
Hardest hit by this recession are deer tag sales, which have dropped almost 25 percent since 1991. Upland Game Bird Stamp sales have fallen 10 percent in eight years.
Only duck stamps seem to have been immune to this slide. Their sales have increased slightly in the last decade, from 68,359 sold in 1991 to 74,294 in 2001.
Still, the overall downturn had prompted DFG officials to raise license fees in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. Since 1992, the price of a resident hunting license has jumped 23 percent (from $23 to $29.50), with the hope of recuperating lost revenue. Deer tags prices have also increased over the same period, from $13 to $17.50, and nonresident hunting licenses have jumped from $136 to $173. The price for a duck stamp is $10, same as it was in 1993.
The sales figures are so low, officials say, the DFG is no longer been able to support itself through license sales, as it was designed to do. It's now largely subsidized by the general state fund.
"Those of us who work in the hunting programs are very concerned," said the DFG's Deer Management Program director, Craig Stowers. "Our revenue is really falling and the number of sales shows a lack of interest in wildlife issues. We're losing hunters to other states and we're losing hunters who simply give up the sport.
"To me, there's not a lot (the DFG) can do except find ways to enhance its product. But I don't know that we can ever make California that attractive to hunters."
Walk into any sportsman's club in California and you're likely to get a laundry list of reasons why the state is losing interest among hunters:
In parts where there was once fertile hunting ground, there are now subdivisions.
Most private land is off-limits to hunters and the public land has become too crowded.
Hunting licenses have become too expensive and the seasons have been cut shorter.
The price of owning and maintaining a gun has increased.
It's now easier than ever to plan exotic hunting vacations to other states and other countries.
The deer population is in a recession due largely to irreparable changes in habitat.
But perhaps most significant, DFG officials say, is the gradual change in attitude toward the sport. Hunting no longer evokes rustic images of Teddy Roosevelt standing heroically beside a slain rhino in the South African plains. It is no longer romantic.
For many Californians, hunting is seen as cruel and barbaric, directly or indirectly contributing to the state's soaring levels of violence.
Where the change in attitude began is anyone's guess. Stowers traces the anti-hunting sentiment to the winter of 1956 when, after years of rising deer populations, DFG officials approved a special three-day doe hunt to wrap up the season.
"Basically, you could take anything with fur," Stowers said.
While the plan worked to substantially lower the deer count, Stowers said it had other long-term psychological affects that still permeate today.
"The forests ran red with blood," Stowers said. "It was a success story, but the public perception was that this was a very bad thing. We're still paying for it."
Still, some hunters say the drop-off in sales has little to do with anti-hunting sentiment and more to do with raising prices and increasing restrictions.
"In California, you don't get enough bang for your buck," said Manteca outfitter Mel Tucker, whose Outdoors Worldwide Adventures coordinates hunting trips to Canada, Mexico and throughout the western states. "The state of California wants you to buy their licenses and stamps, paying exorbitant fees, and then not use them. California is the least sportsman-friendly state I visit."
Not enough land
The biggest gripe among many area hunters is a lack of available land. About half of California's 101 million acres is privately owned and largely unavailable to hunters.
Although the DFG does encourage private landowners to allow hunting on their property through its Private Land Management Program, a majority of owners choose not to participate. There is currently only about 270,000 private acres for use in the PLM Program.
"Over the years it has just become so much more difficult to use private land because of the liability issues," said Modesto's Craig Hueter, who runs Trophies West Outfitters. "And that puts so much pressure on the public land. I talk to guys who won't even hunt on public land because it's dangerous and too often has nothing to offer."
In an attempt to lure more tourism dollars through hunting, states like Oregon, Montana, Kansas and others have adopted more hunter-friendly private land programs that alleviates much of the liability to landowners.
A similar program may soon be coming to California. Later this month or next, Assemblyman Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, is scheduled to introduce legislation that would make it easier for landowners to bring hunters onto their property. The proposal, drafted by the California Waterfowl Association, will loosen some of the restrictions on liability in case of injury or damaged property.
The program would pay landowners an established price per acre for public use and hunters would pay an annual fee, likely between $100 and $150, to participate. That cost would be on top of the required hunting license and animal tag fees.
Also under this plan, the DFG would lend its resources to help improve habitat on private land.
Mark Hennelly, the deputy director of government affairs for the California Waterfowl Association, said the biggest hurdle yet to cross is whether provisions in the civil code will override any changes to liability laws.
"It's about getting participation from (private landowners)," Hennelly said. "The public land we have for hunting in California is too crowded and you're not going to get hunters excited unless you give them some other opportunities. There have been studies done in other states to show how much of a boost this gives to the hunting industry and it's quite significant.
"California needs to do something to get more people involved in the sport of hunting and make it more attractive to those who already do."
Short of that, DFG officials say the future for hunting in California is very much in question.
"We're doing as much as we can to get hunters more opportunities. We're adopting new programs and we're trying new things," Carlson said. "But this isn't just about hunting. It's about competing for time. And maybe the culture is just different today."
January 9, 2003
By JOEL HOOD, Modesto BEE STAFF WRITER
Overcast days were unsettling, but never so much as when visibility was good. Clear days were downright scary.
Twenty years ago, in a not-so-remote public hunting zone in Inyo County, Ceres native Mike McCullough could look across a half acre or so of steep mountain terrain and see other hunters quietly moving through the low brush.
It was a rare hunting trip on public ground that didn't include jolting rifle blasts from nearby hunters. But seeing rival hunters was something entirely different, McCullough said.
It meant that, if they were paying attention, the hunters could see you, too. Or worse, mistake you for something with four legs and fur.
That was it, McCullough decided. Hunting in California had always been somewhat mundane. But with most private land off-limits, hunting on public land had become a risky adventure -- possibly life-threatening.
"I just didn't feel safe," said McCullough, who along with brother David now takes annual deer, elk and antelope hunting trips to eastern Oregon. "I didn't like the feeling that there were other hunters in such close proximity. It was very uncomfortable."
It's no secret California has lost its luster for a great number of hunters. Some, like the McCulloughs, have rekindled their interest for the sport in other states or countries. Others have simply dropped hunting altogether.
Despite efforts by the California Department of Fish and Game to bring back former hunters and encourage newcomers to start, the number of hunting licenses sold continues to fall. Now, at least one hunting organization is drafting legislation with the hope that it sparks a hunting revival in California, which it says is as good for the environment as it is for the economy.
"This issue is a big concern for us," said John Carlson, the DFG's branch chief of the state wildlife program. "I don't no if we can ever really get it turned back around."
Numbers are down
Over the last 30 years, resident hunting license sales in California have plummeted more than 50 percent, from 690,790 sold in 1970 to about 286,000 sold in 2001, the last complete year on record. The number is expected to rise slightly for 2002, officials say, but the total is still among the lowest since the DFG began keeping license sales statistics in the mid-1940s.
Hardest hit by this recession are deer tag sales, which have dropped almost 25 percent since 1991. Upland Game Bird Stamp sales have fallen 10 percent in eight years.
Only duck stamps seem to have been immune to this slide. Their sales have increased slightly in the last decade, from 68,359 sold in 1991 to 74,294 in 2001.
Still, the overall downturn had prompted DFG officials to raise license fees in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. Since 1992, the price of a resident hunting license has jumped 23 percent (from $23 to $29.50), with the hope of recuperating lost revenue. Deer tags prices have also increased over the same period, from $13 to $17.50, and nonresident hunting licenses have jumped from $136 to $173. The price for a duck stamp is $10, same as it was in 1993.
The sales figures are so low, officials say, the DFG is no longer been able to support itself through license sales, as it was designed to do. It's now largely subsidized by the general state fund.
"Those of us who work in the hunting programs are very concerned," said the DFG's Deer Management Program director, Craig Stowers. "Our revenue is really falling and the number of sales shows a lack of interest in wildlife issues. We're losing hunters to other states and we're losing hunters who simply give up the sport.
"To me, there's not a lot (the DFG) can do except find ways to enhance its product. But I don't know that we can ever make California that attractive to hunters."
Walk into any sportsman's club in California and you're likely to get a laundry list of reasons why the state is losing interest among hunters:
In parts where there was once fertile hunting ground, there are now subdivisions.
Most private land is off-limits to hunters and the public land has become too crowded.
Hunting licenses have become too expensive and the seasons have been cut shorter.
The price of owning and maintaining a gun has increased.
It's now easier than ever to plan exotic hunting vacations to other states and other countries.
The deer population is in a recession due largely to irreparable changes in habitat.
But perhaps most significant, DFG officials say, is the gradual change in attitude toward the sport. Hunting no longer evokes rustic images of Teddy Roosevelt standing heroically beside a slain rhino in the South African plains. It is no longer romantic.
For many Californians, hunting is seen as cruel and barbaric, directly or indirectly contributing to the state's soaring levels of violence.
Where the change in attitude began is anyone's guess. Stowers traces the anti-hunting sentiment to the winter of 1956 when, after years of rising deer populations, DFG officials approved a special three-day doe hunt to wrap up the season.
"Basically, you could take anything with fur," Stowers said.
While the plan worked to substantially lower the deer count, Stowers said it had other long-term psychological affects that still permeate today.
"The forests ran red with blood," Stowers said. "It was a success story, but the public perception was that this was a very bad thing. We're still paying for it."
Still, some hunters say the drop-off in sales has little to do with anti-hunting sentiment and more to do with raising prices and increasing restrictions.
"In California, you don't get enough bang for your buck," said Manteca outfitter Mel Tucker, whose Outdoors Worldwide Adventures coordinates hunting trips to Canada, Mexico and throughout the western states. "The state of California wants you to buy their licenses and stamps, paying exorbitant fees, and then not use them. California is the least sportsman-friendly state I visit."
Not enough land
The biggest gripe among many area hunters is a lack of available land. About half of California's 101 million acres is privately owned and largely unavailable to hunters.
Although the DFG does encourage private landowners to allow hunting on their property through its Private Land Management Program, a majority of owners choose not to participate. There is currently only about 270,000 private acres for use in the PLM Program.
"Over the years it has just become so much more difficult to use private land because of the liability issues," said Modesto's Craig Hueter, who runs Trophies West Outfitters. "And that puts so much pressure on the public land. I talk to guys who won't even hunt on public land because it's dangerous and too often has nothing to offer."
In an attempt to lure more tourism dollars through hunting, states like Oregon, Montana, Kansas and others have adopted more hunter-friendly private land programs that alleviates much of the liability to landowners.
A similar program may soon be coming to California. Later this month or next, Assemblyman Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, is scheduled to introduce legislation that would make it easier for landowners to bring hunters onto their property. The proposal, drafted by the California Waterfowl Association, will loosen some of the restrictions on liability in case of injury or damaged property.
The program would pay landowners an established price per acre for public use and hunters would pay an annual fee, likely between $100 and $150, to participate. That cost would be on top of the required hunting license and animal tag fees.
Also under this plan, the DFG would lend its resources to help improve habitat on private land.
Mark Hennelly, the deputy director of government affairs for the California Waterfowl Association, said the biggest hurdle yet to cross is whether provisions in the civil code will override any changes to liability laws.
"It's about getting participation from (private landowners)," Hennelly said. "The public land we have for hunting in California is too crowded and you're not going to get hunters excited unless you give them some other opportunities. There have been studies done in other states to show how much of a boost this gives to the hunting industry and it's quite significant.
"California needs to do something to get more people involved in the sport of hunting and make it more attractive to those who already do."
Short of that, DFG officials say the future for hunting in California is very much in question.
"We're doing as much as we can to get hunters more opportunities. We're adopting new programs and we're trying new things," Carlson said. "But this isn't just about hunting. It's about competing for time. And maybe the culture is just different today."
