I like to think of fishing’s “popularity” as one of the great enigmas of the outdoors. State fish and game agencies have been complaining for the last ten years that their revenues – mostly derived from fishing and hunting license sales – are dwindling. There are fewer and fewer people in the woods and on the water and conservation programs, enforcement and education are all taking a hit because of it.
But put that sad state of affairs up against some tackle industry marketing buzz that there are more fishermen than ever, or, say, that fly fishing is the fastest growing you-name-it in the country.
I hear things like that and tend to think that may be true based on the fact that some of my favorite places of just ten years ago seem to be drawing a lot more anglers these days. So, why do we want more outdoorsmen?
There are some strong numbers to back up the sky-is-falling conservation argument, but only viewed through the prism of license sales and revenue. Too many people are looking at this as just a funding issue. From the Associated Press:
-Arkansas hunting license sales dropped from about 345,000 in 1999 to about 319,000 in 2003.
-Pennsylvania sold about 946,000 hunting licenses in 2006, down from just over a million in 1999, and a peak of 1.3 million in 1981.
-Oregon had 100,000 fewer licensed anglers last year than in 1987, and 70,000 fewer licensed hunters.
-West Virginia sold 154,763 resident hunting permits in 2006, a 17 percent decrease from 1997.
The federally backed Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation runs the “Take Me Fishing” advertising and PR campaign to recruit anglers and get parents to take their kids outdoors. Some states are considering laws to use tax proceeds for conservation programs (good idea, IMO), while others want to put more fishing and hunting education into schools to get kids interested at a young age (also not a problem, if the funding is public). It seems daunting to me to wean the upcoming generation off their Xboxes and Wii consoles, but I applaud the effort. [Also, Can we put a little blame on Cabela's for wanting to have it both ways by peddling every conceivable fishing and hunting item while also selling a hit series of video games?]
I personally think pegging conservation programs to license revenues is the wrong way to go. Environmental education, cracking down on poachers and similar efforts are in the interest of every citizen, not just the hunters and fishermen. Take the money from sales or income taxes rather than try to build up your base of revenue among a disinterested younger generation.
At least the streams in the future will be less crowded. That is, if they are still fishable.
Posted by gjhaze 
