R3, Access, and Ethics

Re-posted from castingaline.wordpress.com.

Imagine that the government has banned hunting. Or your friends consider recreational fishing as cruel. Maybe your neighbors despise you for being so inhumane…

To skip the R3 review, skip to "Access" below.

The Basics

If you are a hunter, angler, trapper, or otherwise participate in outdoor recreation, you might have heard about R3. For those who have not looked any further, R3 stands for recruitment, retention, and reactivation. Each of these labels has its own meaning. A new participant is a recruit. If that person continues to participate, he or she is retained. If a person “lapses” in participation, but decides to start up again, he or she is reactivated. To better illustrate this process, see the below image of the “Outdoor Recreation Adoption Model.”

(Source: Matt Dunfee/Wildlife Management Institute/CAHSS)

Let’s be clear on a couple of things. This model is a sociological concept that can be used for nearly any activity; however, professionals have been using this concept to view programs administered by conservation agencies and partners through a different perspective. The focus is mostly on hunters and anglers. Without getting into an even longer discussion, the reason is simple: hunters and anglers (and recreational shooters) pay for the majority of wildlife and fisheries conservation in North America. Less participants means less license and equipment sales, which means less funding for conservation, management, and education. Additionally, it means less acceptance, less political influence, less understanding of these activities, more disconnect with the environment, and fewer traditions being maintained. In the bigger picture, it could possibly mean loss of species, higher spread of disease among wildlife populations, more nuisance complaints, and a complete loss of a way of life. But let’s not give up hope just yet.

To the point: The number of hunters and anglers as a percentage of the population has declined since the mid-80’s (USFWS, see graphs later). Our overall population increases, but the number of license-buyers does not. Additionally, a majority of these participants are aging. This means that over the next decade or two, if no R3 occurs, there will be a steep drop in the number of hunters and anglers, which also means a steep drop in conservation funding. See this video from NPR.

Let’s back up just a little here. First, most agencies and organizations recognize the benefits of their current programs (e.g., youth programs, access programs, habitat programs, advertising, etc.), at the very least for positive public image. Unfortunately, we often do not know what they mean for R3. Just because an 8-year old participated in a fishing clinic or special hunt, does not mean that he or she will buy a license at 16 or keep participating at age 35 with his or her own family. In fact, this is one of the problems. If a parent takes a child to a youth event and the child absolutely loves it, but the parent isn’t dedicated to that activity, what are the chances the child will have more opportunities? Back to the point, though, is that a big push to evaluate programs is taking place. We need to more completely understand what programs are effective (and ineffective) at R3, who is missing from the equation, and why certain people choose to participate, others choose not to participate, and others go back and forth.

The Difficulties

(A 2017 youth event in Central Kansas. Photo courtesy of Abby Serpan.)

This is easier said than done. While agencies have records of license sales, and some have records of programs they administer, often it is difficult to tie everything together. Maybe little Jenny Jones participated in a youth hunt in 2000, and a different Jenny Jones participated in a fishing clinic. Now one Jennifer Jones buys a license. Which is it? Unless there is specific information that can easily identify the little Jenny Joneses from 18 years ago, it’s nearly impossible to tell without doing a lot of research and digging. In some cases, it might actually be impossible. In fact, in the above scenario, it could be a completely different Jennifer Jones. Now imagine that you don’t have access to all records of such events. What if you only took names? What if you allowed people to just walk into the event without recording any information? What if you helped a partner like Pheasants Forever or National Wild Turkey Federation, and they can’t give you the information (or didn’t record it)? Evaluating efforts in an efficient manner has been a recurring theme in the R3 circle. And this is just using license sales as an index. How do you measure agency acceptance and tie those back to R3 efforts? How do you measure outside conservation efforts (e.g., habitat work, organization participation) and funding and tie those back to R3 efforts? And what about public access programs? How do we determine if those truly increase participation? These are the difficult tasks on which professionals are trying to work.

Back to the problem at hand: Why are hunter percentages dropping and how can we reverse this trend? What are the issues that relate to these problems? (For simplicity, I will use hunter numbers as the variable of interest, even though I’m also talking about anglers and trappers.)

First, it’s important to look at this realistically. Whether it’s describing wildlife populations or hunter numbers, one must realize that there is likely more than one reason for the trend. This means that there is no one “silver bullet” when it comes to increasing numbers. Just as a wildlife population changes due to weather patterns, land-use changes, disease, hunting pressure, etc., hunter numbers change due to priority changes, land access, societal pressures, work and family obligations, mentoring opportunities, and so on.

Agencies and organizations attempt to work on each of these issues, but they have little to no control over many factors. State agencies cannot control anti-hunting lobbyists. Agencies and organizations can advertise and educate the public on the benefits of hunting, but they cannot force people to change their priorities. And try as they might, an agency can incentivize a landowner to allow public hunting access on his or her property, but there is almost always someone else who is willing to pay more.

Traditional R3

(Traditional R3: My dad and siblings... Nine years ago.)

In the various groups and communities of which I am a member, there has been a large push for mentorship. The reason is easy enough to understand. Historically, a family member or close friend took a young person hunting several times. Over time, they became independent and eventually developed into an experienced hunter. Many hunters feel the need to pass this on and love watching someone who is new to the activity learn and grow. So, the process continued. Unfortunately, at some point, this process broke. As stated above, this was likely due to several reasons: increasing urbanization, selfish hunters, societal pressure, other priorities. In this way, putting an emphasis on mentoring is a great idea; however, it poses some issues. How do we get non-hunting parents to allow their kids to hunt with a mentor? If their child enjoys it, will they allow them to continue? Who is willing to be a mentor? What about all the non-hunters (not anti-hunters) who aren’t children? How do we mentor adults and whole families? Why should a person want to hunt (also a hot topic, with several answers)? And one of the most important questions: Where are they going to hunt?

Access

This gets to the point of my article. Though there are various factors that influence hunting participation, one that is strikingly obvious in my area (Central/Eastern Kansas) is access to land. A fellow biologist approached me one day after I gave an R3 update at a meeting. He inquired about how we planned to create an action plan. His concern was that many plans he had seen from other agencies in the past were not specific enough. Yes, we want to increase participation. But by how much? And his next question really got me: “Where are we going to put them?” He gave the example of waterfowl hunters. Some states are nearly completely leased up by private outfitters, groups, or individuals. This means that the leftover hunters in that area who do not pay a lease must travel. In today’s world with trailers, and heaps of decoys, and ATVs, and cell phones, and land information at your fingertips, a hunter can be very mobile. So, the waterfowlers find some public land in another state or they find a cheap lease on private land. There’s not necessarily an issue with this; however, if enough hunters (resident and nonresident alike) travel to the same areas (which they seem to be doing) the area becomes saturated. When an area becomes saturated, you are dealing with other people constantly around you and high competition for sites and game. Most people are trying to get away from crowds, and the feeling of being surrounded while hunting can be unpleasant and unsafe. Additionally, if local landowners see such pressure, they might become a little wary of letting anyone on their land. Many residents will tout, “Don’t let in nonresidents.” While I think it would be beneficial to focus on residents (these are the people who live in, work in, breathe in, and ultimately sustain the state), the fact is, many nonresidents are just looking for a place to hunt. Put yourself in their shoes (maybe you have already), and you’ll understand they aren’t trying to congregate in certain areas and cause problems; those are just the only places to hunt… Finally, imagine you are a new hunter. Do you want to drive to another state because yours is filled up? Do you want to put yourself in the middle of what seems like a war zone of hunters? As a new hunter, you need somewhere close and with decent opportunities.

Before I move forward, I need to note a couple of things. First, access is not the only issue. We’ve already established this, but it’s worth repeating. Motivations and priorities are quite different now compared to 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Second, not every state lacks hunting access. In many western states, there are gobs of public hunting areas and generally lower human populations. Even in states like Kansas, where 97% of the land is privately owned, there are still ample hunting opportunities. There are approximately one million acres of privately owned land that is leased to the state for public hunting access (WIHA) and there are about a million more acres of public land. Could we use more? Absolutely. But the fact is, some of the current areas are rarely used because most people do not want to walk that far to hunt. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the truth.

Carrying Capacity

There is a reason I chose to talk about access for this article even though I’m interested in most aspects of this phenomenon. It deals with the actual numbers. When you talk about wildlife population trends, it is critical to talk about carrying capacity. Briefly, carrying capacity is the number of individuals in a population that a specified area can sustain. This number is influenced by precipitation, vegetation growth, etc. When a population exceeds the carrying capacity, it typically dips back below the capacity, and eventually stabilizes, assuming there are no major changes in the environment (a sudden drought would lower the carrying capacity). When you look at the number of individual license holders since the 1980’s, it appears as though hunters are just declining. When you look at the same numbers since 1958, you notice that, for such a long period of time, the number of hunters has remained relatively stable. This same trend is probably similar in many individual states.

Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned. Again, the population of the U.S. continues to grow, but the number of hunters does not. This will cause issues. But, when you look at these graphs, you start to notice that there are likely some limiting factors involved. Is hunting access the only one? Probably not. But it is a major one. With an increase in private leases and a lack of quality access near populated areas, many people just don’t have anywhere to go. A shooting or fishing clinic might get a child, or even an adult excited to get into the field, but actually getting them out there can be a challenge if they don’t know where to go.

Conclusion

Even though I could write about R3 all day, I’ll finish this up. In my title I also reference ethics. What does that have to do with anything? First of all, unethical hunters (and anglers and trappers) give us all a bad name. This further distances us from the non-hunting public, even those who might not normally have any issues with hunting. Secondly, it reduces our ability to mentor new hunters. How many people will want to continue hunting or fishing if they see their mentor behaving immorally? Third, it reduces our access. I grew up never needing a lease. We had permission to hunt on private land for years. Many of those same areas are now leased and we do not have access to them. Times might change, but I hope to never have to directly pay for a lease. That being said, I have no problems with people making money on their land. So what’s the best option? In my opinion, programs like the Walk-in Hunting Access program are win-win. The landowner gets the money, law enforcement, and doesn’t take liability for hunting accidents, while the state provides hunting access for the public. Hunters, new and experienced, can continue their pursuit of wild things. But how likely are landowners and operators to allow hunting, either privately or through a public access program, if hunters are shooting buildings, leaving trash, creating ruts, and blocking entrances? They aren’t. Be ethical.

Want more R3 discussion? Let me know!

(R3 at its finest: New anglers, "lapsed" anglers, avid anglers, male, female, youth, college students, young adults, and mentors all in one area...)