​By J.R. Mason, B&C Club Professional Member

State Wildlife Councils Can Help Sway the Public's Opinion on Hunting

Persistent and seemingly irreversible declines in hunter numbers have led state agencies to spend ever-increasing amounts of slowly diminishing resources on hunter recruitment, reactivation, and retention (R3). Bag liberalizations, changes to season structure and legal weapons categories, and a variety of innovative mentoring schemes for ‘adult-onset’ hunters and underrepresented groups are all examples of these efforts.  

Unfortunately, there’s little evidence that R3 effectively moves the needle. Almost 50 percent of those who complete hunter education stop buying hunting licenses within two years. Today, only 4.6 percent of Americans self-identify as hunters. 

According to the demographers, American cultural and recreational preferences are shifting, and the evidence now strongly suggests that R3 isn’t likely to produce much course correction. New strategies to protect hunting, trapping, and angling are needed, and the Nimrod Society and Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation are taking a different approach. 

Overall, these organizations aim to change the way that the non-hunting/trapping/angling public thinks and feels about these activities instead of trying to increase participation. At Hillsdale College, the Nimrod Society has established the Nimrod Education Center, where the over-arching theme is the essential importance of conservation, what Gifford Pinchot defined as "the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest period of time." 

The Hillsdale Center offers coursework and scholarships tied to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and its legal framework. The center is also exploring the development of relevant coursework for the Hillsdale network of K-12 Classical Charter Schools and a free online course on the history of conservation and the importance of the North American Model.

Even more important, the Nimrod Society, in partnership with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, is prioritizing the establishment of state-based wildlife councils that develop marketing strategies to influence the opinions and attitudes of those that will never hunt, trap, or fish.

A 2023 national survey by Responsive Management and the Outdoor Stewards of Conservation Foundation reports that public disapproval of legal, regulated hunting is accelerating. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, support for deer hunting dropped 8.5 percent.

Although the reasons aren’t clear, the survey's authors speculate that steep declines in public support for hunting reflect the broader political climate that pits stereotypes of "anti-gun, anti-hunting" urban and suburban voters against "gun-loving, pro-hunting" rural voters. If this explanation is true, then there’s reason to be optimistic. Michigan, a battleground state, is pursuing a nonpartisan approach that seems to be bearing fruit.  

First, a little background. To wit, in Michigan, the Democratic party gained control of the Executive and both chambers of the legislature in 2022 for the first time in 40 years. Most residents agree that Michigan is (at least a little) polarized. Yet public support for hunting is high. One reason for this not just stable but increasing support for hunting is the Michigan Wildlife Council (MWC). 

 

The MWC is a nine-member group appointed by the governor and funded with one dollar from the sale of every base hunting and all-species fishing license. The sole purpose of the council is strategic marketing, education, and outreach to the non-hunting, non-fishing, non-trapping public about:

1. The value of hunting, trapping, and fishing as wildlife management tools, 
2. The essential importance of license dollars to habitat, wildlife, and conservation work,
3. The contributions of consumptive recreation to Michigan’s economy,
4. The roles that hunting, trapping, and fishing play as parts of Michigan’s cultural heritage.

MWC was established in 2013. When the group and its contractor, Gud Marketing, conducted its first statewide baseline survey in 2015, 62 percent of Michiganders indicated that they approved of hunting for food to protect agricultural production, manage populations, or safeguard human health or safety.

However, there were a number of other stats worth noting: 

• 39 percent didn’t think hunters were responsible people.
• 42 percent didn’t think or didn’t know whether hunters followed regulations.
• 61 percent didn’t think or didn’t know whether management was important for healthy wildlife populations.
• 44 percent believed or didn’t know whether legal regulated hunting led to species extinctions.

In response, the MWC initiated targeted marketing campaigns in selected markets where disapproval and/or misinformation were measurably the greatest.

Today, 84 percent of Michiganders approve of hunting, 67 percent have favorable opinions about hunters, and 89 percent agree that hunting is important to Michigan’s culture. Eighty-seven percent agree that hunting is a valuable management tool, and 78 percent agree that wildlife and habitat work are largely funded through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.
 

 

The Colorado Wildlife Council has experienced similar success. Today, 80 percent of registered voters support legal, regulated hunting and fishing, 90 percent agree it's ok for others to hunt in accordance with Colorado hunting laws and regulations, and 90 percent say hunting and fishing should be legal. 

Looping back to the national perspective, it wouldn’t be surprising if the first impulse of some would be to resist public marketing decoupled from R3. Undoubtedly, there will be concerns that wildlife councils will become just another way for new constituencies and stakeholders to make requests of an already over-tasked fish and wildlife workforce. 

Nonetheless, 95.4 percent (the percentage of the public that doesn't hunt) is a bigger number than 4.6 percent (those who hunt), and that means that the future of hunting depends more on the attitudes of an increasingly diverse and non-rural public than on the attitudes of hunters.

Public opinion matters when it comes to legislation and referenda. Nationally, public attitudes toward consumptive use aren’t improving. To maintain traditions and keep hunting available to everyone, it’s past time to consider new approaches with measurable benefits that include more positive public attitudes toward the conservation benefits of hunting for wildlife and for outdoor recreation in general. Wildlife councils are one way to accomplish this increasingly important goal.