Published By:
The Fund for Animals
200 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
November 1997
Striking examples illustrate a nationwide campaign to promote sport hunting to children as young as two years old.
Hunters spend $21 billion annually on their sport. The biggest beneficiaries are the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of firearms, ammunition, and hunting paraphernalia.
State wildlife agencies are funded by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and by a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. This funding arrangement makes them allies of the hunting industry and encourages them to promote hunting, even to children.
Children are not becoming hunters in sufficient numbers to offset losses from death, old age, etc. Therefore, the number of hunters is declining so rapidly that the hunting industry's own statistics predict the demise of the sport within sixty years.
If most people are not desensitized to the suffering and death of animals at an early age, their consciences will never let them hunt. Therefore, men and women who do not become hunters by the time they graduate high school are unlikely ever to hunt.
Hunting industry strategists have mapped out a massive national campaign to save their $21 billion industry by proactively recruiting children and neutralizing public opposition.
Special hunts for children have become popular recruitment tools since Florida conducted the first one in 1985. Forty-two states now sponsor them. One state opens its children's hunts to eight year olds, while fourteen have no minimum age.
Several states are experimenting with programs that match children from non-hunting families with hunters who serve as mentors. The mentors encourage the children to hunt, teach them skills, and help them overcome their natural aversion to killing.
Hunter education classes often serve as a vehicle for recruiting children into sport hunting. In at least 29 states, these classes are presented in public schools on school time, turning the public schools into recruiters of new customers for the hunting industry.
The hunting industry has launched a massive campaign, partly financed with public money, to convince school children all across the country that sport hunting is legitimate and necessary. Often claiming to be "balanced" and presented under the heading of "conservation" or "wildlife management" education, these programs include sophisticated videos and curriculum units that are provided to teachers at nominal cost or free of charge.
Teaching children that it is morally acceptable to terrorize and kill beings who cannot defend themselves may have unforeseen consequences.
According to an old proverb, "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." For reasons that we shall examine shortly, no one believes this more than the hunting industry. And within that industry, the guru of twig bending is Guy Martin, touted as "The Sporting Dr. Spock." In December 1994, Sports Afield magazine published an article by Mr. Martin in which he urged hunters to desensitize their children to the suffering and death of animals at the earliest possible age. In these words, he described his success with his own daughter: "Eliza was two when she watched a hunting party in Texas take the hams and backstraps from a pair of deer we had shot -- blood running all over the tailgate of the jeep as she played in the rocks at our feet . . . She watched quite happily . . ."[1] Mr. Martin advises his readers that "you have to start them as soon as is practicable: after they've gotten some language . . . but before any fairy-tale-based fears or prejudices about the natural world have had a chance to set in."[2]
If this were just the personal philosophy of one individual, it might not be significant. But Mr. Martin's article in a large circulation hunting magazine coincided with a broader campaign to recruit children into recreational hunting, a campaign that is continuing and gaining momentum today. Consider these examples:
But even this is only a small part of the picture. In public schools, in state and national forests, even on federal lands designated as wildlife "refuges," children all across America are being recruited into recreational hunting by a politically powerful coalition that includes the hunting industry, state wildlife agencies, and agencies of the federal government. Funded by a combination of public and industry money, these initiatives are part of a campaign whose strategy is being mapped out by academics at prestigious universities and in private think tanks.
This massive effort to recruit children into recreational hunting is justified to the public with noble sounding phrases like "responsible wildlife management," "preserving American traditions," and "passing on family values." But there is another factor that is seldom mentioned -- money.
Killing animals for pleasure is big business. Very big business. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior, reports that in 1996 hunters spent $20.67 billion on their sport.[6] This is up from $14 billion in 1991.[7] Using this smaller number, Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing the shooting and hunting industries, has explained the size of the stakes in these terms:
"Lest anyone think that hunting is not big business in America, they need only be reminded that the $14 billion generated exceeds the annual sales of companies like Hewlett Packard, RJR-Nabisco, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Caterpillar Tractor, Johnson & Johnson, Anheuser Busch and Coca Cola. Batman II' made headlines when it grossed $43 million during its first weekend. Hunting grossed nearly $80 million that same weekend -- and the weekend before, and the weekend after. And every weekend since. The entire motion picture industry's gross revenue from theater admissions is about $5 billion annually compared to the $14 billion for hunting."[8]
The recipients of the $21 billion spent each year by hunters include the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of the full spectrum of hunting products, ranging from firearms and ammunition to archery equipment to outdoor clothing, camping gear, and related accessories. They also include hunting lodges and guides, as well as hotels, motels, and restaurants. Together, these make up "the hunting industry."
But there are other beneficiaries of the big bucks spent each year on recreational hunting, and they are important allies of the hunting industry: state wildlife agencies.
By the early twentieth century, many game species in the United States had been hunted nearly to extinction. The buffalo is only the best known example of a scandal that included deer, elk, waterfowl, upland game birds, and other species. Concerned about the imminence of an America without wildlife, men like Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and President Theodore Roosevelt created the conservation movement, aimed at maintaining America's herds and flocks of game species and the wilderness which provided their habitat. Avid hunters and outdoorsmen themselves, conservationists were not trying to preserve wild animals for their own sakes. They were trying to preserve the benefits that humans derive from wild animals, including the pleasure of hunting them.
One achievement of the conservation movement was the regulation of hunting by the states, including the establishment of limited seasons during which wildlife could be killed. As a means of financing conservation efforts, a mechanism was hit upon that became universal across the country. Licenses were required in order to hunt, and the fees were used to fund the agencies that regulated hunting. Even as this scheme was being enthusiastically adopted by state after state, some of the leaders of the early conservation movement had qualms about it, including Joseph Kalbfus of Pennsylvania and T. Gilbert Pearson of North Carolina. Their concern was that using hunting licenses to fund state wildlife agencies would turn these agencies into little more than game ranchers, trying to produce as many game animals as possible for their benefactors, the hunters, while ignoring other interests. (Pearson, for example, was an ardent bird watcher and leader in the Audubon Society.)[9]
In 1937, the federal government got into the act when Congress enacted The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly known, for its sponsors in the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, as the "Pittman-Robertson Act." This law placed an 11 percent federal excise tax on rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. In 1970, Congress included an excise tax on handguns and archery equipment. The monies raised by Pittman-Robertson are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior, and are used for activities deemed to be conservation related.
This includes primarily the acquisition and maintenance of habitat, the promotion and regulation of hunting and fishing, the presentation of hunter education classes, and the policing of public lands, including those used for hunting and fishing. The promotion of hunting is included under Pittman-Robertson because, as we just saw, the purpose of the conservation movement was to conserve wildlife for continued human use, including hunting. Among conservationists, it has become an article of faith that regulated hunting is essential to "responsible wildlife management." A detailed discussion of the circular reasoning that leads to this belief is beyond the scope of this report. We will simply reiterate here that it was hunting that endangered game species in the first place, and that the primary purpose of hunting regulations is to keep hunters from killing their own sport by slaughtering to extinction the animals that they use for targets, as they nearly did in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The primary concern of sport hunters is to preserve hunting, not wildlife. If there were no sport hunting, wildlife management would consist of little more than the acquisition and protection of habitat.
Most of the money raised by Pittman-Robertson is not spent directly by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but is apportioned by formula to the wildlife agencies of each of the 50 states on a matching basis, usually at a ratio of 3:1 (three Pittman-Robertson dollars for every dollar put up by the state). Most of the state matching money comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and related permits. It is estimated that nationwide, less than 10 percent of the budgets of state wildlife agencies comes from income taxes, general sales taxes or other forms of across-the-board taxation. A minuscule amount comes from donations, bequests, product sales, and other limited sources, while the remainder comes from Pittman-Robertson and license fees.[10]
As a direct result of this funding arrangement, the early fears of Kalbfus and Pearson materialized. From 1937 until 1970, the bulk of Pittman-Robertson taxes were, in fact, paid by hunters. During that time, state wildlife officials learned to think of the hunters and fishers who funded their agencies and paid their salaries as their primary constituencies, whose interests were to be served above all else. In effect, Pittman-Robertson had made it possible and legal for a small special interest to buy government agencies.
But when Congress covered handguns under Pittman-Robertson, that mindset should have changed dramatically. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1996, fewer than fourteen million Americans bought hunting licenses. According to both the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the National Rifle Association, approximately 65 million Americans own legal firearms, all of whom paid the Pittman-Robertson tax. For the past 27 years, only a small portion of the Pittman-Robertson tax has been paid by hunters. The majority has been paid by target shooters, collectors, and people who buy guns for protection. Although hunters still like to brag about paying their own way and bearing the burden of conservation, the fact is that for nearly 30 years, hunters have not paid their own way; they have hitched a free ride on the backs of gun owners who do not hunt.
But a full generation later, most state wildlife officials have still not caught up; they continue to think and act as if their agencies exist primarily to serve hunters, forcing the interests of the non-hunting public to compete at a severe disadvantage.
Commenting on this situation, Chris Madson, a conservationist and editor of Wyoming Wildlife, told the Second Annual Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage that because of the way they are funded, state wildlife agencies have come to view themselves as primarily game agencies. "While nearly every state wildlife agency in the nation was founded to manage all of the state's wildlife, the classic state approach to conservation has been skewed toward game species . . . Too often, we've allowed the welfare of nongame wildlife to drift into the background while we've strained to increase the harvest of our most popular game species."[11]
Mr. Madson's point was illustrated by a speaker at the Third Annual Symposium, where representatives of wildlife agencies from all across the country were told, "The effort to save our hunting heritage is also an effort to save our organizational lives . . . [State wildlife a]gencies must be aggressive about hunter recruitment and retention. Recruitment is not a dirty word. It means making certain that we fully understand our customers, hunters and prospective hunters."[12] In other words, state wildlife agencies should view themselves as part of the hunting industry whose "customers" are hunters, present and future.
Many state wildlife agencies are taking this message to heart. In a videotape issued in 1995, the National Shooting Sports Foundation tells its members that, "Many states are currently active in programs that are very much in line with these objectives [encouraging current hunters to keep hunting, and recruiting new hunters]. Based on our research, twenty-seven states have programs to retain current [hunting] license holders or to recruit new ones."[13] The Foundation's estimate was low when it was made, and the number has grown since then. In 1997, nearly all states have such programs.
Having said this, it is important to recognize two things: First, despite the financial, ideological and organizational pressures, not all employees of wildlife agencies share the orthodox view that their organizations exist to serve hunters. As a former Director of Wildlife and Fisheries at the U.S. Forest Service put it, "We even find some of our own newer professional employees have a philosophy more aligned with non-management approaches than compared with the multiple-use orientation . . . We must more aggressively communicate a philosophy to the public and to our own people that supports hunting and all its values."[14] This is a very encouraging sign that wildlife managers are questioning the consumptive party line, and members of the animal protection community should work to build bridges to officials and employees of wildlife agencies who are open to perspectives that differ from the traditional conservation philosophy.
Secondly, we are not suggesting that the officials and employees of wildlife agencies, state or federal, are in any sense corrupt or dishonest. In our experience, they are not. What we are suggesting is that the system is seriously distorted in favor of sport hunting, and a major systemic overhaul is needed. In every state in the nation, sport hunters are a small minority of the population, greatly outnumbered by people who enjoy wildlife without killing them. Nationwide in 1996, fewer than 14 million Americans sixteen and older hunted, while nearly five times that number, over 62 million, participated in wildlife watching.[15] Their dedicated sources of funding effectively insulate state wildlife agencies from the democratic process. A system of funding must be developed that makes them subject to the same political processes that guide other public policy decisions.
In the early 1990s, the strategists of the hunting industry took a hard look into the future and were shocked by what they saw. Daniel J. Decker, Jody W. Enck, and Tommy L. Brown of Cornell University's Department of Natural Resources' Human Dimensions Research Unit, are nationally recognized authorities on the future of hunting. Describing themselves as "playing dual roles of academic researchers and hunting advocates," they paint an austere picture:
"The future for hunting looks bleak given prevailing social values coupled with recent and projected trends in American demographics." [emphasis in original]"Nearly every published report of hunting trends indicates that the number of participants has declined during the decade of the 1980's and forecasts continued decline into the future." [emphasis in original]
They go on to quote two other leading authorities on the demographics and future of hunting, T.A. Heberlein and E.J. Thomas of the University of Wisconsin, who foresee a doomsday scenario for recreational hunting: "It is not out of the question that there will be no sport hunting, or a dramatic change in the character of sport hunting, in the United States by mid century."
Decker, Enck and Brown then recite the numbers that lead to this conclusion. ". . . the percentage of the American population 12 years of age or older that was hunting hovered around 9-11% for 25 years between 1955 and 1980. But a declining trend could be detected from 1975 to the present: 1975 - 9.9%, 1980 - 9.1%, 1985 - 8.4%, and 1991 - 7.5%."[16] In 1996, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 13,869,000 Americans sixteen and older hunted, representing 5.3% of the total U.S. population.[17]
But it is not just the raw numbers that frighten the hunting industry. It is the fact that the cadre of hunters is aging, and that young hunters are not coming along to replace them in sufficient numbers to sustain the sport. The numbers are dropping because since 1975 children have not been entering the sport at a rate that replaces older hunters who drop out because of death, old age, or other reasons.[18]
This brings us to the central truth that the hunting industry and the wildlife agencies have run up against in their struggle to recruit new hunters. Men and women who do not become hunters by the time they graduate from high school are unlikely ever to become hunters. Nationwide, over half of all hunters, 54 percent, began hunting before they turned thirteen, 69 percent began before they turned sixteen, and 83 percent before they turned nineteen.[19] This is not the case with other recreational sports, such as tennis, golf, and racquetball, which are regularly entered by adult men and women. It appears to be true of sports like baseball, softball and basketball only because these games are played by nearly all American children. Other nature sports, such as rock climbing, orienteering, and caving are regularly taken up for the first time by young adults.
What makes hunting different from other sports? Why do most people start as children or not at all? Mark Damian Duda, a respected pro-hunting researcher and wildlife author, summarizing the work of other researchers, answers the question this way: "Potential hunters decide not to hunt for one or both of two reasons: affiliative reasons and reasons related to killing of game."[20]
Reasons related to killing of game. That is what is different about hunting. To be a hunter one has to kill living beings. Many people choose not to hunt because they find killing animals for recreation offensive. If most people are not desensitized to the suffering and death of animals at an early age, their consciences will never let them hunt. And the researchers are not talking about some mythical Perrier drinking, tofu eating, city-bred animal rights activists. They are talking about people whom they regard as "potential hunters," which means primarily young white men who live in rural areas or small cities where there are convenient opportunities to hunt. Confirming these conclusions, Mr. Duda and his associate Kira C. Young published a study in February, 1997, which found that " . . . about 15% of U.S. youth [aged 13-20] are very interested in hunting while over half (52%) have no interest at all in hunting. Of the youth who are not interested in hunting, the main reasons given for the lack of interest are against killing animals' (52%) and animals have a right to live' (13%)."[21]
Nor is that the end of it. It is so difficult to desensitize children to the cruelty of sport hunting that it must not only be done as early as possible, it must be done in a particular way. This is where the affiliative reasons come into play.
The hunting industry, and its academic cohort, talk a great deal about the "affiliative aspects" of hunting, which is sociological jargon for the camaraderie and mutual encouragement -- the "male bonding," to use the term of Decker, Enck, and Brown -- that their research shows are important factors in initiating people into hunting and retaining them in the sport.[22] When Mr. Duda speaks here of "affiliative reasons," he specifically means, and the research supports him, that if young people are to become lifelong hunters, it is important that they be introduced to the sport by close friends or family members such as fathers, uncles or older brothers.[23]
The problem, from the point of view of the hunting industry and the state wildlife agencies, is that for the past fifteen years, fewer and fewer fathers, uncles, and older brothers have been taking children hunting and thereby desensitizing them at an early age to the recreational killing of animals. Different researchers emphasize different reasons for this, but there is a rough consensus on the following factors:
Since none of the researchers predict a change in these trends during the coming decades -- except that they may accelerate -- the challenge facing the hunting industry is how to recruit children into sport hunting in spite of them. At issue is $21 billion a year.
The researchers who diagnosed American sport hunting as suffering from a potentially terminal illness also prescribed a cure. More precisely, they prescribed two cures. First, programs must be developed and implemented to proactively recruit children into hunting; and secondly, "social values" must be changed so that the non-hunting public views sport hunting favorably, or at least does not oppose it.
Hunting industry strategists from Cornell University sounded the call to battle at the Second Annual Governor's Symposium. "Slowing the trends in hunting participation will require the most creative and energetic among us to focus on the task. It will cost big money, not just millions of dollars, but hundreds of millions. It will take big time commitments, not hundreds of person-years of effort, but thousands."[26]
The hunting industry, state wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service have taken the challenge seriously. They are applying their creativity and energy, they are spending the big money, and they are making the big time commitments. There is now underway a national campaign to recruit children into sport hunting and to neutralize public opposition to hunting. Since it would be beyond the scope of this report to describe all of the many initiatives that are being undertaken to achieve these objectives, we shall focus only on those that directly affect children.
Sponsored by state wildlife agencies, children's hunts have become a popular recruitment tool since Florida sponsored the first one in 1985. At the end of the first decade of children's hunts, the 1995-96 hunting season, 31 states were conducting these events.[27] For the 1996-97 season, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which regulates the hunting of migratory birds pursuant to international treaties, issued regulations which allowed states to hold special children's hunts for waterfowl, called National Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day. This contributed to a further increase in states sponsoring children's hunts, from 31 to 42.
The format of children's hunts varies from state to state, but a few generalizations are widely applicable. Usually, children from ten or twelve years of age through fifteen years of age are eligible to participate. But as we noted earlier, twelve states have no minimum age, while Florida's hunts are open to children as young as eight. The hunts are held on public land, usually state owned wildlife management areas or comparable tracts, such as National Forests administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As an admitted purpose is to give the children a better chance to kill an animal and thus a feeling of accomplishment, these hunts either take place before the start of a regular hunting season or on days when the sites are closed to other hunters. New Jersey's Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, for example, has this to say about the Garden State's 1997 Take a Kid Pheasant Hunt: "This experience will increase the youth hunter's opportunity for harvesting a pheasant . . ."[28]
The state wildlife agency typically plans and manages the hunt, establishing the dates, locations and regulations, issuing licenses, and policing the sites. During California's more than 50 children's pheasant hunts, the exotic birds (who are not native anywhere in North America) are released in the direct vicinity of the children to make it easier for them to kill the birds.
Most states limit the number of participants in each hunt and issue licenses on a first-come, first-served basis or by a lottery. Other states, however, place no limit on the number of participants. In 1996, North Dakota issued 2,199 permits for children's deer hunts, but still came in third behind neighboring South Dakota, which issued 2,270, and Iowa, which issued 2,500. In those three states alone, children under sixteen years of age killed more than 3,900 deer.
A list of states that sponsored children's hunts for the 1996-97 hunting season is included as Appendix C to this report, which is based on a survey conducted by The Fund for Animals in August, 1997, of state wildlife agencies. The schedule and rules for these hunts are contained in each state's hunting regulations, which are published in the spring or summer of each year. More detailed information is also available from The Fund for Animals' national campaign office in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Despite some doubters who suggest that most of the participants in youth hunts are children who would have become hunters anyway, many state wildlife agencies believe that children's hunts are a valuable contribution to the recruitment of children into sport hunting. Berdette Zastrow, Commissioner of the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, put it this way. "My compliments to the Conservation Officer in my county who designed our South Dakota statewide Youth Deer Hunt. It's been extremely successful . . . We need more of these youth hunts!"[29] The front cover of New Jersey's 1997 hunting regulations, which include an application form for New Jersey's Take a Kid Pheasant Hunt, carries the motto: "Continue the Tradition, Take a Kid Hunting."[30]
In a variation on the youth hunt theme, an increasing number of states, such as Colorado and Ohio, have set aside specific tracts of land as "youth hunting areas" for the entire hunting season. Again, the idea is that by not having to compete for game with more experienced adult hunters, the children will have a greater chance of killing an animal.
A number of state wildlife agencies are experimenting with programs to provide the "affiliative" component of sport hunting to children who are growing up in families that do not hunt, such as children living in cities or in single parent households.
A pioneer in this area was New York state, under the leadership of social scientists at Cornell University. New York's Apprentice Hunter Program was designed by its architects "to be a 1-year-long experience which matched adult mentors, who had at least 7 years of hunting experience, with youth aged 12 to 17 who were interested in hunting but were not likely to continue hunting . . . [T]hese pairs were to meet a minimum of 15 times, and the mentors were to help the apprentices learn hunting skills and knowledges. The mentors also were to help build a positive social support network for the apprentice."[31]
Potential apprentices are recruited by means such as distribution of brochures at county fairs and local high schools, letters from the state wildlife agency urging mentors to recruit apprentices actively, and "contacts through a Coalition For Youth' involving [more than] 25 groups devoted to helping youth better understand conservation issues."[32]
As we might expect, a key component of the program is using the mentor as a moral authority figure who accustoms the apprentices to the killing of animals. As Jody W. Enck of Cornell University put it, "Persons who have limited hunting experience often do not accept well the immediate responsibility associated with killing a live animal if they have never been exposed to death before."[33]
Although not officially discontinued, the program has not had the success for which its creators had hoped. Problems in recruiting and retaining mentors have proven difficult to overcome. Wildlife agencies may also be learning what the business world learned a decade earlier, when formal mentoring programs were thought to be a way to accelerate the advancement of women. A successful mentor/protege relationship depends upon the relationship of trust that develops between the two parties; and that relationship cannot be created on command.
In light of experiences like New York's, some states, such as New Jersey, are experimenting with less ambitious mentoring programs that match the child with a mentor only for the day of the state's children's hunt.[34]
In December 1994, Mississippi conducted a trial of just this type of mentoring program, but with a few added flourishes. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks joined with the Greasy Creek Hunting Club to take "a contingent of young people from several children's homes and single parent families" on a holiday deer hunting trip which featured "Christmas presents" for the children, things like hunter orange vests, seat cushions for deer stands, and deer grunt calls. Each child was paired with an adult mentor, and state conservation officers taught classes in hunting skills and the use of firearms. Then the children were taken into the woods to kill deer.
Even as he rhapsodized about bringing joy into the lives of children, David L. Watts, editor of Mississippi Outdoors, the magazine of the state's Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, was frank about the purpose of the event:
"The efforts by Greasy Creek Hunting Club are examples of sportsmen concerned for the future of hunting and the shooting sports. For the past few years, nationwide figures show that hunting license sales have sagged. Hunters have to be concerned if their children and future generations are going to experience the outdoor shooting and hunting opportunities enjoyed by so many today. Greasy Creek members and others believe that providing opportunities for youngsters to experience a high-quality hunting opportunity is a good step for the future of hunting in the Magnolia State."[35]
For its 1997 children's hunt, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks is actively working to translate the Greasy Creek model into a statewide program. Mentors recruited from rod and gun clubs around the state are being matched with children from inner cities, single parent households, and welfare institutions. The mentors will coach the children in hunting skills and accompany them on Mississippi's children's deer hunt, which will take place statewide on private lands on November 15 and 16.[36]
A creative variation on mentoring is the Becoming an Outdoors Woman (BOW) program. Developed at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point College of Natural Resources, BOW programs are now available in most states, usually with the support of the state wildlife agency. The BOW program consists of a weekend of workshops on various outdoor recreational topics. Although BOW's creators claim "the core of the curriculum is a balanced program that provides hunting/shooting, fishing, and non-consumptive activities," they nevertheless admit they "have opted to provide activities in the third category that are not too far removed from activities in the first two"[37] [emphasis added]. Although one obvious aim of BOW is to increase the number of women who engage in outdoor recreation, both consumptive and non-consumptive, there is also another, more subtle agenda at work here. As we noted above, in the Section titled "Initiation in Blood," more women than men head single parent households, and women are more likely than men to object to their children taking up hunting. Also, more women than men disapprove of hunting in general, and women are more likely than men to vote in favor of ballot measures that restrict hunting. By creating a cadre of women who support, or at least tolerate, hunting, BOW hopes to increase overall public acceptance of hunting and make it easier to introduce hunting to children.
Nearly all states require that anyone born after a certain date successfully complete a hunter education class before he or she can obtain a hunting license. Designed and sponsored by the state wildlife agency, these classes, which are typically ten to twelve hours in length, are taught by volunteer instructors whom the agency has certified. With only a few exceptions, state wildlife agencies use highly standardized hunter education manuals purchased from a private corporation, Outdoor Empire, located in Seattle, Washington. Montana uses a manual published by Falcon Press, a Montana based firm, while a handful of other states develop their own.
Hunter education classes are often publicized as "Safety Courses," as if firearm safety were the only subject covered. In fact, they cover a much wider range. A typical hunter education class includes an orientation to firearms, including gun safety and instructions on how to load, aim and fire; the identification of game species; basic hunting and orienteering practices; an overview of the state's hunting regulations; and the importance of hunting for "responsible wildlife management," while some even include a section on how to debate with animal rights advocates.
For public consumption, state wildlife agencies and other representatives of the hunting industry often maintain that hunter education classes are not recruitment tools. But talking among themselves, representatives of state wildlife agencies sometimes tell a different story. Listen to David M. Johnson, Hunter Services Coordinator for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game addressing the Third Annual Governor's Symposium. "We believe that Hunter Education can play a positive role in hunter initiation, a positive role in hunter development, and a positive role in maintaining participation."[38] Or, as Mr. Johnson's colleague, David G. Kelleyhouse, Director of Alaska's Division of Wildlife Conservation, stated to the same gathering, "Many potential new hunters never have the opportunity to learn about hunting. Therefore, state wildlife agencies and today's hunters must lend a helping hand if we are to halt the erosion in hunting participation. Hunter education," Mr. Kelleyhouse went on to assert, "remains the backbone."[39]
The most egregious example of hunter safety education classes being used to recruit children into sport hunting is the presentation of these classes in public schools, a practice followed in at least 29 states. Typically, individual school districts, or even individual schools, usually in rural areas, coordinate with volunteer instructors to present hunter education courses. The state department of education is not directly involved. In fact, many state education departments have told The Fund for Animals that they do not know whether hunter education is taught in schools in their state, and consider it a local matter that is not an appropriate subject for their concern.
Individual school districts or individual schools, again primarily in rural areas, sometimes teach hunter education as part of the vocational agriculture, physical education, or vocational arts program. In these cases, the class is taught by a public school teacher who has been certified by the state's wildlife agency as a hunter education instructor. Children who do not want to take the class may be allowed to opt out.
In August 1997, The Fund for Animals conducted a survey of state wildlife agencies to determine which states conduct hunter education classes in public schools. Our survey includes only programs that were specifically identified by state wildlife agencies as "hunter education." It does not include "conservation" programs, even though these may include a biased curriculum that utilizes pro-hunting materials. It also does not include hunter education courses that are taught in public school buildings, but outside of normal school hours. Survey results are given in Appendix D to this report.
The hunting industry is making a concerted effort to reach children where they can most readily be found in an environment that predisposes them to believe what they are told -- school. The goal of this phase of their campaign is not to recruit children into sport hunting, but to neutralize the public's opposition to hunting. By teaching the next generation of Americans that hunting is a legitimate and necessary activity, the hunting industry hopes to avert the fate that their own researchers have predicted.
Because sport hunting is a controversial subject and these programs are designed for urban and suburban, as well as rural, children, they are usually low key in their approach and profess to be evenhanded in their treatment of the issue.
One especially ambitious undertaking is a set of three videotapes and affiliated teacher guides produced by the "Council for Wildlife Conservation and Education, Inc.," an organization that has the same address and telephone number as the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a major trade association for the firearms and hunting industries. Two of the videotapes, "Wildlife for Tomorrow" and "The Unendangered Species" are similar in content but directed at different age groups, children in grades 4-7 in the first instance and grades 7-12 in the second. The message of both tapes is that "scientific wildlife management," of which sport hunting is an essential part, is responsible for saving a number of game species from extinction and for maintaining the herds and flocks at "healthy" levels. The third tape, "What They Say About Hunting," targeted at grades 7-12, purports to be an objective consideration of arguments that are made against sport hunting, primarily by animal protection groups.
All three tapes use subtle persuaders to assure that their young audience reaches a pro-hunting conclusion. Most notably, those who speak against hunting are shown in urban or office backgrounds, or express themselves in ways that detract from their credibility. One young woman, for example, prefaces her objection to hunting by saying that she doesn't really know anything about it except what she has seen on television. In contrast, the defenders of hunting appear in sylvan or rustic settings and speak confidently from first hand knowledge. The narrator, a thoughtful looking man in early middle age wears crisply pressed khaki slacks and shirt, and is shown out of doors. Although he is not exactly in a uniform, his attire could give children the impression that he is some sort of ranger. Arguments against hunting are stated accurately, but left largely unsupported, while arguments for hunting are bolstered by an array of statistics and other information.
Funded by $330,000 in Pittman-Robertson grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is aggressively promoting the videos to public schools.[40] According to a published news report referring to the videos described above, " . . . the National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched a program to place pro-hunting materials in 40,000 schools this year [1994], and 100,000 by the end of 1996. If NSSF is successful, 18 million students could view the materials . . . The NSSF makes the programs available, free, to any educator who expresses an interest in using them, and who agrees to have them filed in the school's audio-visual library."[41]
In the spring of 1997, The Fund for Animals applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Pittman-Robertson grant of $142,000 to put its own educational materials into the schools. Pointing out that by funding the National Shooting Sports Foundation videos, the Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the federal government, had taken sides in an important public policy debate, The Fund called upon the Service to approve the grant in the interests of fair and open debate, and the obligation of government agencies to grant all citizens the equal protection of the laws. The Fish and Wildlife Service rejected the application, claiming that anti-hunting activities were not eligible for Pittman-Robertson support.
An effort by the American Animal Welfare Foundation, which bills itself as "A National Organization Promoting the Humane Use of Animals," is a curriculum unit for high school classes. As described in an accompanying teachers' guide, "People, Animals and the Environment" is a role-playing exercise that "takes the form of a Congressional hearing on the topic of animal use in the United States." Several students are assigned the role of members of a Congressional committee, while others provide testimony representing the viewpoints of industry, agriculture, conservationists, environmentalists and animal rights advocates. The testimony is based on fact sheets that are included in the curriculum unit.
Ostensibly, "People, Animals and the Environment" presents all viewpoints fairly and allows the students to make up their own minds. As Marsha Kelly, the Foundation's Executive Vice President, states in a cover letter that accompanies the curriculum unit, "The animal rights perspective is also included, both as a matter of academic balance and to provide students with a clear understanding of the true nature and goals of the animal rights movement. It has been our experience that, once students are exposed to this extreme agenda, they tend to reject it in favor of a more reasonable approach." She then goes on to say that, "The goal of People, Animals and the Environment' is to teach students about the many benefits of responsible animal use, and to promote tolerance of diverse points of view on the topic." Obviously, as long as "diverse points of view" are tolerated by society, the exploitation of animals will continue. In most areas of life tolerance for diverse points of view is a virtue. But not in all. No civilized person, for example, would suggest that society should tolerate diverse points of view on racism or genocide. Neither should society tolerate diverse points of view on cruelty to animals. To tolerate cruelty is to become an accomplice to it.
It should be apparent that a presentation by someone who is a partisan of one side or the other is not truly balanced. To be balanced, either both sides of the issue must be presented by someone who is entirely neutral, using materials provided by both sides, or each side of the issue must be presented by someone who is an adherent of the point of view that he or she is representing.
According to a press report, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources sponsored the distribution of "People, Animals and the Environment" to "all of Illinois' 4,300 junior and senior high schools."[42] Teachers were paid a $90 stipend to attend workshops where they learned how to present the program effectively.
Using the famous OREO cookie logo (with permission of Nabisco), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department is undertaking an ambitious outreach effort into the public schools. Known as Outdoor Recreation Education Opportunities (OREO), this program includes twelve Instructional Units, or modules, of which three relate to hunting: Hunter Education, which is Wyoming's mandatory twelve-hour hunter education program; Hunter Skills, which includes trapping and falconry; and Shooting Sports, which includes "hunting with rifles, shotguns, pistols, black powder, and archery . . ." One module, Aquatic Activities, includes fishing and "hunting from a boat"; while the remaining eight modules teach non-lethal forms of outdoor recreation, such as Wildlife Photography and Backpacking.[43] Public school teachers may use the modules separately or in any combination they choose.
Teachers from four pilot schools were given OREO training during the summer of 1995, and the program was initiated in the pilot schools at the beginning of the school year. In the fall of 1996, OREO was made available statewide. At present, no statistics are available, but the Wyoming Fish and Game Department is currently assessing the program and expects to issue a report in the spring of 1998.[44]
Although children's hunts are intended to attract children before they even enter their teens, the word "children" is almost never used in describing them. Instead, these events are called "Junior Hunts," "Youth Hunts" or, more bureaucratically, "Special Hunting Opportunities for Young People." An official of one state wildlife agency, who completed The Fund for Animals' 1995 survey on the subject of children's hunts, scratched out the word "Children's" on the questionnaire and wrote in "Youth." Just a few lines farther on, he indicated that the minimum age for participation is eleven years old. Perhaps he was right in a sense that he did not intend. Children kill the animals, but the people who have lured them into blood sport have killed the innocence and purity of their childhood.
It has long been recognized that children who are cruel to animals often grow up to be adults who practice violence on other human beings. As children, serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer frequently have a history of torturing and mistreating animals. It has often been assumed that the significant aspect of this phenomenon is not the cruelty itself, but the deliberate violation of social taboos. In other words, it was assumed on the basis of no evidence and in contravention of common sense that acts of animal cruelty that do not draw the opprobrium of society -- such as sport hunting -- are not significant for the moral and social development of the child.
Now evidence is beginning to appear that contradicts this comfortable but baseless assumption. In 1994, Merritt Clifton, a respected journalist and animal protection advocate, published in the periodical Animal People the results of two studies, one in New York and the other in Ohio, which found a high positive correlation between the level of hunting activity and the level of reported instances of domestic violence. Attempts to find an equal or higher correlation between domestic violence and other factors, such as income levels, failed.[45]
It is a truism of statistical science that correlation is not causation. But correlation tells one where to look for causation, and there is a crying need (literally) for objective, scientific research into the links between sport hunting and other forms of violence, particularly violence against women and children.
Violence against animals, violence against women, and violence against children are all facets of the same prism. The animal protection movement and the child protection movement in America began together. In 1884, Henry Bergh, the founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, brought about the first prosecution for child abuse in New York, using animal cruelty laws as his vehicle.[46] It is time for us to recall that as we sow, so shall we reap, and the suffering that we cause animals in the name of sport, tradition, wildlife management, and the other masks which hide the guilty pleasure that we take in killing, may rebound on us in ways that we never foresaw.
1. Martin, Guy; "Bringing Up Baby"; Sports Afield; December 1994; pg. 97.
2. ibid; pg. 94.
3. Colorado Hunting and Fishing: New Opportunities for Youth; Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Denver; 1995. In 1997, this one dollar license is still being offered. See 1997 Waterfowl: Colorado Hunting Season Information; Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Denver; 1997; p. 3.
4. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Digest: A Summary of Rules and Management Information; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife; Trenton; 1997; pg. 4.
5. Hunting and Trapping in Virginia: 1997-1998 Regulations; Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Richmond; 1997; pg. 8.
6. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: State Overview: Preliminary Findings; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior: Washington, D.C.; August 1997; pg. 24.
7. Southwick, Rob; "The Economics of Hunting: How to Use Economic Data and Highlights of the 1991 Economic Benefits of Hunting"; in Second Annual Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage Proceedings; North American Hunter, North American Hunting Club, and Wildlife Forever; Minnetonka, MN; undated; pg. 124.
Begun in 1991, the Governor's Symposia have brought together leaders and strategists of the hunting industry, including state wildlife and federal government agencies, to pursue objectives that include "promot[ing] the history of hunters as conservationists," "discuss[ing] contemporary issues that can influence the future of hunting," and "work[ing] together for the future survival of North America's hunting heritage." (I Symposium; 5) Henceforth, the proceedings of the first symposium (1991) will be cited as I Symposium, the second (1992) as II Symposium, etc., followed by a page number. (continued) (continued) All of the Proceedings are published by the consortium cited above.
8. Delfay, Robert T.; "The Economic Value of Hunting: A Heritage That Fuels Local and National Economies"; I Symposium; pg. 160.
9. Madson, Chris; "State Wildlife Agencies and the Future of Hunting"; II Symposium; pg. 64-65.
10. Higginbotham, Billy, and Don W. Steinbach; "Things May Get Worse Before They Get Worser: A Look at the Past, Present and Future of Hunting and Wildlife Management in America"; III Symposium; pg. 219-220.
"Use the Schools: How Federal Tax Dollars Are Spent to Market Guns to Kids"; Violence Policy Center; Washington, D.C.; 1994; pg. 4, n. 5.
11. Madson; loc cit; pg. 65.
12. Wentz, Jim; "Customizing Hunter Education to Meet the Demands of a Changing Society"; III Symposium; pg. 203, 205. Italics in original.
13. A Strategic Analysis of the Shooting Sports Industry: Targeting Growth: Phase One' Report; The National Shooting Sports Foundation and The Strategic Planning Institute; Newtown, Connecticut; 1995. This is an industrial videotape produced for distribution to the Foundation's members and other persons and organizations with an interest in the shooting sports. The basis of the video is a survey and strategic analysis conducted by The Strategic Planning Institute of Boston, Massachusetts. The quotation is spoken by a narrator identified as Max Brown of the Strategic Planning Institute.
14. Nelson, Robert D.; "On Wildlife Conservation and Hunting"; II Symposium; pg. 119-120.
15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; op cit; pg. 20, 25.
16. Decker, Daniel J., Jody W. Enck, and Tommy L. Brown; "The Future of Hunting -- Will We Pass On the Heritage?"; II Symposium; pg. 25-27.
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; op cit; pg. 20.
18. Decker et al.; loc cit.
19. Duda, Mark Damian; Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing Participation in the United States; Fish and Wildlife Reference Service; Bethesda, MD; 1993; pg. 34.
20. Duda; op cit; pg. 45.
21. Duda, Mark Damian and Kira C. Young; The Effects of Mandatory Basic Hunter Education and Advanced Hunter Training on Hunter Recruitment Satisfaction and Retention: Executive Summary; Responsive Management; Harrisonburg, VA; 1997; pg. 8.
22. Since roughly 92 percent of hunters are men, the research focuses primarily on men. The principle applies equally to women, however.
23. Duda; pg. 40-45.
24. "Creatures Great and -- Equal?"; John Balzar; Los Angeles Times; December 25, 1993.
25. Decker, et al; pg. 32.
26. Decker, et al; pg. 38.
27. Based on a survey of state wildlife agencies conducted by The Fund for Animals in August 1995.
28. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Digest: A Summary of Rules and Management Information; State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife; Trenton, 1997; pg. 15.
29. Zastrow, Berdette, "Change As A Part of Growing and Succeeding"; II Symposium, pg. 86. Italics in original.
30. New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife; op cit.
31. Enck, Jody W.; "New York's Hunter Apprentice Program: Overcoming Impediments to Youth Participation in Hunting"; III Symposium; pg. 66-67.
32. ibid; pg. 67. 33. ibid; pg. 64. 34. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Digest: A Summary of Rules and Management Information: 1997-1998 Hunting Issue; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife; Trenton; 1997; pg. 15.
35. Watts, David L.; "Doe Day -- A Youth Hunt"; Mississippi Outdoors, March-April 1995, pg. 15.
36. Telephone conversation on September 29, 1997 with a representative of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks.
37. Thomas, Christine L., and others. The "Becoming an Outdoors-Woman" Planning Guide; 1993; pg. 6-1.
38. Johnson, David M.; "Alaska's Hunter Services Program: Attracting (and Keeping) New Hunters"; III Symposium; pg. 101.
39. Kelleyhouse, David G.; "Attracting New Hunters in Alaska"; III Symposium; pg. 107.
40. "Use the Schools" How Federal Tax Dollars Are Spent to Market Guns to Kids; Violence Policy Center; Washington, D.C.; 1994. pg. 3.
41. Weidensaul, Scott; "A pro-hunting effort in schools"; Sunday Patriot-News; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; October 23, 1994; pg. C-14.
42. Husar, John; "State hunting for teachers to debunk environmental myths"; Chicago Tribune; Chicago, Illinois; September, 10, 1995.
43. OREO; Wyoming Game and Fish Department; undated; pg. 8.
44. Telephone interview with a representative of the Wyoming Fish and Game Department.
45. Clifton, Merritt; "Ohio data confirms hunting/child abuse link"; Animal People: News for People Who Care About Animals; Shushan, N.Y.; Volume 3, No. 9; November 1994.
46. Ryder, Richard; Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Toward Speciesism; Basil Blackwell, Inc.; Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1989; pg. 174.
We have seen the researchers and strategists of the hunting industry predict the demise of sport hunting unless massive interventions are undertaken to reverse current trends. We have seen that the interventions they are calling for focus on the recruitment of children into sport hunting and the neutralization of public attitudes opposed to it. And we have seen that the hunting industry and their allies in the wildlife agencies, both state and federal, have begun to take action on a large scale. It is vital that the wildlife protection movement act to counter these initiatives.
Given the resources available to a $21 billion industry, this might seem like a hopeless task. But in fact, it is not. Where sport hunting is concerned, public opinion, demographic trends, and participation rates are all on the side of the animals. It is the hunting industry that is facing the mammoth task. Our job is the more limited one of blunting the thrust of their offensive. It is still a big challenge, but it is achievable.
1. Information is the key to success. Learn as much as you can about your state wildlife agency, the make-up of its governing commission, its budget and its activities. Monitor their programs, so that you are aware of what your state wildlife agency is doing. This way you will know where to focus your energy, and you will be credible when you speak out.
2. Through letters to the editor, radio call-in shows, and other means, speak out publicly against sport hunting, and against efforts to recruit children into it. Do not be afraid to show emotion. The slaughter of innocent animals for pleasure is an issue that should engender emotion. But also be knowledgeable, and stay focused on the issues. Do not engage, here or in any other context, in personal attacks, name calling, or unsubstantiated charges. To a large extent, the public will judge your issue according to how they perceive you. If you come across as reasonable, knowledgeable, and sincere, they will be favorably disposed to your message. If you come across as hostile or mean-spirited, they will respond with hostility to your message.
3. Conduct tablings or informational pickets to get your message out to the public. Be sure to comply with any regulations regarding demonstrations or tablings. The issue that is presented to the public should be the animals, not the failure to get a permit that would have been readily obtainable.
4. Make your voice heard at the state legislature, the governor's office, and the agency itself. Let them know, in a polite and businesslike manner, that you believe your state wildlife agency has an obligation to look after the interests of all citizens, not simply the minority who hunt. In every state in the nation, hunters are greatly outnumbered by people who enjoy wildlife and the outdoors without killing. Insist that the agency's resources and activities serve their needs in proportion to their numbers.
5. Make the point, to the public and the state government, that wildlife agencies should not be in the business of recruiting new hunters. So long as hunting remains legal, state wildlife agencies have an obligation to regulate hunting, provide classes for all hunters on hunting regulations and safety, and enforce game and safety laws, but they should not be promoting the sport. In many states, promoting hunting is written into the agency's charter. Familiarize yourself with that charter, and campaign to have it changed. Until it is, lobby to have the agency's activities that promote hunting reduced and the resources that are freed up dedicated to non-lethal pastimes.
6. Campaign for change in the way state wildlife agencies are funded. As long as officials of these agencies perceive that hunters are paying their salaries, hunting will continue to receive favored treatment. One proposal that deserves consideration is known as the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative or, as it is sometimes called, Teaming With Wildlife. It would place a small Pittman-Robertson type tax on supplies and equipment that are used in outdoor recreational activities other than hunting and fishing: e.g. tents, binoculars, backpacks, etc. Missouri and Arkansas use a small portion of the state sales tax to supplement Pittman-Robertson and license sales, thereby giving the states' non-hunting majority a direct financial stake in the activities of their wildlife agencies.
7. Many state wildlife agencies operate under policies and priorities established by a Board or Commission, usually appointed by the governor. Typically, the membership of these boards is predominantly, or exclusively, comprised of hunters or persons who are known to be pro-hunting. In some states, only licensed hunters can serve. Campaign to have the non-hunting public -- and the animal protection community -- adequately represented on these boards.
8. Conduct informational demonstrations at youth hunts. Distribute literature, such as The Fund for Animals' booklet "Think Like the Animal," to the young hunters and other interested persons. Talk with the people in attendance about the animal protection viewpoint on sport hunting. Note: before engaging in an activity, be sure you are aware of the laws and regulations governing demonstrations on public land.
9. For further information about youth hunts in your state, please contact our national campaign office at:
The Fund for Animals
World Building
8121 Georgia Avenue, Suite 301
Silver Spring, MD 20910-4933Telephone: (301) 585-2591
Fax: (301) 585-2595
E-mail: fund4animals@fund.org
1. Once again, information is the key to success. Learn as much as you can about activities in your local school district, and neighboring districts, that are designed to recruit children to sport hunting or neutralize public opposition to hunting. This would include hunter education classes, many (although not all; you must analyze the content of each program on a case by case basis) "conservation" or "wildlife management" programs, and some (although again not all) activities by groups like the Boy Scouts and 4-H.
2. If hunter education classes are conducted on school time in schools in your area, campaign to have them terminated. The public schools should not be in the business of recruiting children into sport hunting. There is plenty of time for the classes to be conducted on evenings and weekends. Contact your local Board of Education, your local superintendent of schools, and your local high school or junior high principal. Organize call-in and letter writing campaigns to them. Get the issue in front of parents and the public at PTA meetings and through letters to the editor and radio call-in shows. Here again, as in all cases, stay focused on the issues, and do not engage in personal attacks, name calling, or unsubstantiated charges. Be respectful, polite, businesslike -- and persistent.
3. The Fund for Animals believes that free and open discussion of all sides of an issue is essential to the functioning of a democracy. So long as the pro-hunting message is being presented in public schools, it is essential to get the animal protection message into public schools on an equal basis. We are confident that we will win any fair debate on the issue of sport hunting. Conversely, if our message is not allowed into a public school, then the traditional "conservation" message should not be allowed in either. Campaign, with the school board, the local superintendent of schools, and administrators at individual schools, kindergarten through high school, to let you or other animal protection spokespeople come into the school and present the animal protection viewpoint. Bring the issue before parents and the public through PTAs, church groups, letters to the editor and radio call-in shows. If pro-hunting materials are being presented in classes or in clubs affiliated with the school, insist on equal time and equal opportunity to present the animal protection viewpoint. Five hours of activity are not balanced by thirty minutes of response. Fair and open discussion, not censorship of any kind, is the way to win our campaign against sport hunting.
States Conducting Children's Hunts: 42
States with No Minimum Age: 14
States with a Minimum Age of Ten or Younger: 11
Most Commonly Hunted Species:
deer: 24 states
waterfowl: 20 states
birds[1]: 19 states
Number of Children Participating: 14,186 in the 20 states that responded to this portion of the survey. The Fund for Animals estimates that the total number of children participating in children's hunts in all 42 states that sponsored them was between 30,000 and 35,000.
Number of Deer Killed: 15,406 in the 14 states that responded to this portion of the survey. The Fund for Animals estimates that the total number of deer killed in the 24 states that conducted children's deer hunts was approximately 20,000.
Number of Waterfowl and Birds Killed: States did not report sufficient data to estimate these numbers.
States Where Hunter Education is Taught in Public Schools: 29
Footnote:
1. Here and in Appendix C, "birds" means one or more species of non-waterfowl game birds, including doves, francolin, quail, pheasants, turkeys, and other species.
Note: Eight states -- Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia -- did not sponsor children's hunts in 1996.
Alabama
Minimum Age: 10ArizonaSpecies: deer
Children: 709
Animals Killed: 75Species: ducks
Children: ?[1]
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 10ArkansasSpecies: elk
Children: 173
Animals Killed: 103Species: deer
Children: 649
Animals Killed: 199Species: javelina
Children: 191
Animals Killed: 65
Minimum Age: noneCaliforniaSpecies: turkeys
Children: 115
Animals Killed: 15
Minimum Age: noneColoradoSpecies: pheasant
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: none[2]ConnecticutSpecies: big game
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12DelawareSpecies: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12FloridaSpecies: deer
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 8GeorgiaSpecies: deer
Children: 26
Animals Killed: 30Species: wild hogs
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 8
Minimum Age: 10HawaiiSpecies: deer
Children: 911
Animals Killed: 253Species: quail, turkeys, waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Mimimum Age: noneIdahoSpecies: birds
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12IllinoisSpecies: pheasant
Children: 85
Animals Killed: 20
Minimum Age: 10IndianaSpecies: deer, ducks, geese, pheasant
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: noneIowaSpecies: doves
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12Species: deer
Children: 2500
Animals Killed: 1100
Kentucky
Minimum Age: 10LouisianaSpecies: deer
Children: 1138
Animals Killed: 456
Minimum Age: 10MarylandSpecies: deer, doves, ducks
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: noneMassachusettsSpecies: deer
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 1355Species: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12MichiganSpecies: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum age: 12MinnesotaSpecies: deer
Children: 34
Animals Killed: 15Species: waterfowl
Children: 600
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 11[3]MississippiSpecies: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 10MissouriSpecies: deer
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 85Species: doves
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 24Species: squirrels
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 200
Minimum Age: 11Species: deer, doves, waterfowl
Children: 200 total
Animals Killed: ?
Nebraska
Minimum Age: 12NevadaSpecies: deer, pheasant
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12New JerseySpecies: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 10Species: ducks, pheasant
Children: 500 total
Animals Killed: ?
New Mexico
Minimum Age: noneSpecies: antelope
Children: 222
Animals Killed: 206Species: elk
Children: 10
Animals Killed: 8
New York
Minimum Age: 12North CarolinaSpecies: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12North DakotaSpecies: deer
Children: 30
Animals Killed: ?Species: waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 14 (deer), none (ducks)OhioSpecies: deer
Children: 2199
Animals Killed: 1400Species: ducks
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: noneOklahomaSpecies: deer, birds, waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12OregonSpecies: deer
Children: 233
Animals Killed: 75Species: turkeys
Children: 20
Animals Killed: 6
Minimum Age: 12PennsylvaniaSpecies: deer
Children: 641
Animals Killed: 324Species: elk
Children: 198
Animals Killed: 85
Minimum Age: 12South CarolinaSpecies: squirrels, waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 10South DakotaSpecies: deer
Children: 34
Animals Killed: 9Species: doves
Children: 152
Animals Killed: 423Species: raccoons
Children: 35
Animals Killed: 0Species: turkeys
Children: 24
Animals Killed: 7Species: waterfowl
Children: 95
Animals Killed: 106
Minimum Age: noneTennesseeSpecies: deer
Children: 2270
Animals Killed: 1442
Minimum Age: 10Texas[4]Species: deer
Children: ?
Animals Killed: 8588Species: turkeys, waterfowl
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: none
Vermont
Minimum Age: none[5]Species: waterfowl
Children: 27
Animals Killed: ?
Virginia
Minimum Age: noneWashingtonSpecies: deer
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: noneWisconsinSpecies: deer, pheasant
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12WyomingSpecies: pheasant
Children: ?
Animals Killed: ?
Minimum Age: 12Species: pheasant
Children: 165
Animals Killed: ?[6]
1. A question mark (?) indicates that the state wildlife agency either did not collect this information or failed to respond to inquiries.
2. Fourteen for big game.
3. Twelve for big game.
4. In Texas, children's hunts are conducted on private land and usually are officially sponsored by rod and gun clubs and similar organizations. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department may provide certain kinds of logistical support, such as processing applications and issuing licenses, but is generally able to claim that they do not "sponsor" the events and do not maintain statistics on them.
5. Vermont sponsored three children's hunts in 1996. Two of these had a minimum age of twelve, while the third had no minimum age.
6. Hunts were held at two locations, at only one of which statistics were kept. At that location, 65 hunters killed 131 pheasant.
This list includes only states in which the state wildlife agency was aware that hunter education was taught in at least some public schools on school time. Since these arrangements are typically made on a local basis (district by district or even school by school), with no centralized control or record keeping, there are undoubtedly additional states in which hunter education is taught in schools, but the state wildlife agency employees who responded to our survey were simply not aware of it.
1. Reported "yes" in The Fund for Animals' 1995 survey; reported "unknown" in the 1997 survey.
2. Reported "yes" to the 1995 survey; failed to respond in 1997.
3. See note 1.
4. See note 1.
5. See note 2.
6. See note 2.