About a million nationwide and over a hundred thousand from the Pacific Northwest-
The Pacific Wolf Coalition, composed of 29 wildlife conservation, education and protection organizations in California, Oregon and Washington has issued a news release saying they have submitted “101,416 comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today favoring continued wolf protections.” In others words, these comments were opposed to the Obama rule delisting wolves nationwide. The Coalition said, [These] “join 1 million comments collected nationwide expressing Americans’ strong disapproval of the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to remove federal protections from gray wolves across most of the continental United States.”
The Coalition did not report how many comments were submitted in support of the Administration’s wolf delisting rule.
In the news release, they linked to this survey as additional evidence that those in California, Oregon, and Washington support wolf restoration. The survey was based on a sample of 500 from California, 300 from Oregon and 300 from Washington. Those selected were registered voters.
The Pacific Wolf Coalition has put up a new website, www.pacificwolves.org, to promote wolf restoration and to combat misinformation about wolf recovery.
The Western Watersheds Project is one of the groups in the Coalition.
Comments
Only 4% of our beef comes from cattle grazed on our public lands like National Forests. Only 4% of the US population are active hunters. And yet, it is this tiny minority who are driving the Obama Administration to “delist” the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act protections. If there is a conflict between wildlife and private cattle on our pubic lands, it is the cattle that should be removed, not the wildlife — including bison and wolves.
I would like a link to a paper or study that shows only 4% of the population are hunters, all of the reports I have read the last year has shown an increase in hunters in the US. Preferably a report that actually breaks the numbers down by state.
unbelievable! someone makes a statement and of course people have to accuse them immediately of incorrect #s. well, the 2011 data from the USFWS showed 13.7 million hunters with a national population of 311 million. oops, 4.4%, he’s a damn liar! just because some states have 50% doesn’t mean the rest of the country is the same.
oh, here’s the link since you don’t believe anyone when it’s contrary to your personally held beliefs
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm
here’s a link to the 82 page report for Montana, 2011. I’m sure the numbers are off though
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-mt.pdf
Mad,
Who accused anybody of being wrong, I was simply wanting to see the information he was basing his statements on, because it is in conflict with the information I have been reading. Don’t get your panties in an uproar.
I didn’t say he was a liar, let alone a damn liar, what the hell is your problem, and by the way, I ask the original poster for a link to the information he was quoting, not you.
Hello Donald, this URL will give you easiest access to the FHWARs: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html
The highly touted 9% growth in hunters from the 2006 to 2011 survey is a bit of smoke. The percentage of hunters in the population has dropped from a high of 11.2% in 1960 to 5% in the 2006 survey, increasing to 6%, about the same as the 2001 survey, and lower than all previous years, except for 2006. 2001 had 13,034,000 hunters vs 2011’s 13,674,000.
If we look at the age 16+ total population change from 2001 to 2011, FHWAR shows an increase of 27 Million, while hunting recruitment was 640,000 ‘new’ hunters, or about 2.4% recruitment. So, while the 16+ population increased 12.7%, the hunting population increased only 4.9% during the 10-year period. In absolute numbers, there are 400,000 fewer hunters today than in 1991. Hence, I say there’s smoke in the ‘growth’.
Because of budget limitations, the 2011 FHWAR survey has wider confidence intervals than previous years–USFWS could not survey as many people. However, it’s the best data we have available.
Thank you, I look forward to reading it and comparing to the other information I have on this particular subject.
…and exactly what, is your point Bob?
Well, Jeff E, Donald wanted a reference source, as he has seen differing numbers regarding hunter participation. I provided that. I believe that the opening & closing of my statement makes my point:
“The highly touted 9% growth in hunters from the 2006 to 2011 survey is a bit of smoke. … In absolute numbers, there are 400,000 fewer hunters today than in 1991. Hence, I say there’s smoke in the ‘growth’.”
Was this a rhetorical question? The statistics speak for themselves, hunters are way over-represented in legislatures and in F&W agencies.
Bob,
You will find that most Game depts in the west are going to continue to cater to the hunters, due to the fact that many game depts are pretty much funded by the hunters.
so an increase from a nadir, albeit a relativly small one, is “a bit of smoke, and to make that point, you had to add another 15 yrs into the equation.
hmmm
++The statistics speak for themselves, hunters are way over-represented in legislatures and in F&W agencies.++
I guess that depends on whether you roll up the data that gives a summary percent which includes population in states which have incredibly large populations and no, or very little, hunting opportunity (say NY, DE, CT, NJ, or metro areas within states that have no opportunity but huge urban strips like LA, NYC, Miami). I will also bet there are a lot of folks in Watts/East LA, Harlem, and East St. Louis, or even Lower Manhatten who could give a rat’s ass about what goes on anywhere in rural America, or anywhere policy is made by state wildlife agencies.
Each state ought to be evaluated on its own merits as respects influence on legislatures and wildlife agencies. It is back of the napkin analyses and statements like yours, BobMc, that make me cringe and have less respect for your advocacy.
I thought of this in a maybe different context.
The absolute maximum of vegans in the population is ~8%. That means that the other ~92% of us consume meat products in varying degrees of frequency and amounts.
I find it particularly disingenuous that those of us that make up a subgroup of that ~92% of the population who prefer to have our meat consumption consist of 100% organic, no antibiotics, no growth hormones, and do the work and spend the money to achieve; be subjected to continuous attacks on our choice of a healthy, sustainable lifestyle on this website.
Wolves should be protected. They are a vital part of our ecosytems. you should stop listening to the ranchers and hunters. The great majorityj of people in the western US want wolves in our forests.
Who are you talking to Ken? Donald J. Jackson is me. Somehow my postings from one computer to another is screwing up. I am very familiar with the issues involving wolves.
Once again folks, the real number that matters is that hunters contribute a majority of the conservation funds thru fees, P-R taxes and conservation organization contributions. Just like every other politcal debate in this country…you have to buy a seat at the table…might not be right, but its the way it is…
I hunt and fish and I don’t like the way we buy that seat. Citizens should extract the money from us (and the mountain bikers etc), like a sin tax, and then give it to the agencies via general funds, like Saint Leopold taught us to do. Maybe P-R, and how the funds are redistributed, are partly to blame. We weren’t given control of state NR departments, but we’ve captured them.
” We weren’t given control of state NR departments, but we’ve captured them.”
+1
My favorite hunting subset are the guys that just want to take a week away from the wife and kids to get drunk, and do very little harm to the wildlife while they’re gone, but yet still contribute to the hunting funds.
snarky, snarky.
as usual, no real input.
That was a little too snarky, wasn’t it. New Year’s Resolution: Less snarky comments!
To sb who I know his name now. You are very smart and very analytical to be sure. You are correct most people from the east do not care about wolves only real animal lovers. My point is while Pythons over run Florida and killer bees are moving up North the wildlife agencies are worried about wolves. SB the ranchers have a lot to do with this, you do agree with this . To change the law in this environment is almost impossible. I mean for the first in I think 25 years we have two horse slaughter plants. My Governor sucks I am glad he is in a mess now he lets the bear hunt go full force. Obama turns his back on wildlife he had done nothing to me made things worse. He had choices for secretary of Interior good ones. I thought about this and I think Howard Dean would have been best to be president. He started the grass roots movement, and Obama pushed him aside. As for wolves they are hunted to an extreme so are coyotes and bears are in the mix now. Only the pacific northwest has a heart politics are different their, so it comes down to the people in office. P.S. Nice to hear from you
opps for the first time in 25 years we have two horse slaughter houses, I know we shipped them out to other countries to do the slaughter. Even a Kentucky Derby winner was sold and brought to Japan while his owner got tired of him and put him in a slaughter house. I do not like horse racing they race them too young for speed but they have a greater chance of getting hurt. WE do everything for the love of money. I like the movie Rush it’s men in machines it’s their lives hurting only themselves for the sake of a win to compete that’s o.k. with me. They are taking their own lives in their hands that is brave to me not hunters and I said this already I know.
Men who hunt have little risk of really getting hurt that is my point.
What did I say wrong my full name
I think wolves are being hunted in a cruel fashion, while pythons run wild in Florida and I do not hear animal control getting on top of that, also killer bees who is doing anything about that. I this political environment it will be very hard if not impossible to change the west, but the pacific northwest is more liberal for sure so they have a more open mind on wildlife on a whole. They are not perfect but better than Montana , Idaho, and Wyoming. For the first time in I think 25 years we have two horse slaughter hoses in our country, and they are taking wild horses like crazy. Also the Buffalo is being slaughter this is a bad environment for wildlife bears too all wildlife except the ones the hunters want to track easy kill.
ops houses