editors notes winter 99

	The Balance Wheel
ACI home	Newsletters home	Winter 99 Issue

Editor's Notes

What Happened to "Sports Afield?"

By Gary Thomas

Have you seen a copy of "Sports Afield" Magazine lately? I grew up with the magazine and I'm used to seeing their covers showing jumping bass, big bucks and large bears. But the covers of the latest couple of issues of that magazine pictures mountain bikes and endurance runners. Has "Sports Afield" given up on hunting and fishing?
The answer: yes.
The "Wall Street Journal" reported in July that "Sports Afield" reporter Patrick Reilly says their new content policy claims "real men don't shoot guns, fool around with bows and arrows or hunt deer. They paddle kayaks, ride mountain bikes or run on back country trails."
That's the philosophy behind the overhaul of the 113-year-old hunting and fishing magazine owned by the Hearst Corp. Reilly continues: "...these days, many males in the target audience are more focused on exercise and non-ammo sports and they buy their venison at the supermarket. They have been influenced by environmental concerns and, more recently, a national call for gun control."
I don't paddle kayaks, ride mountain bikes or run back country trails, so I don't want to get into a discussion as to the definition of "real men." But I am wondering why "Sports Afield" made the change. Executives with the company say the move was made because of declining numbers of anglers and hunters. They say that participation in fishing dropped 8 percent and hunting 17percent from 1990 to 1998, while rock climbing rose 44 percent, backpacking increased 34 percent and mountain and road cycling showed 11 percent gains.
I've seen similar statistics in the past, and I'm sure you have as well. And while it's true that statistics don't lie, they don't always tell the entire story either. Yes, hunting license sales in the U.S. dropped off about 900,000 from 1990 to 1997, and fishing license sales declined about 130,000 during those same years.
But there are still 23 million hunters and more than 44 million anglers in the United States lots more than the "real men" who participate in rock climbing or kayaking, and even more than take part in tennis or golf for that matter. And that USFWS survey shows that total spending by anglers and hunters went up nearly 70 percent to $68 billion over the five year period ending in 1996.
So the question is not: "Where shall we hold the wake?" The question should be: "What can we do to increase the numbers?"
I used to blame the decline in hunting and fishing numbers on "urbanization." Today I'm not so sure.
I grew up in a little town in central Illinois in the 1950s. I was constantly complaining that there wasn't anything to do. And because there wasn't anything to do, I spent much of my summer months fishing and most of my winter months hunting. Then I went away to college, did a couple of years in the Army and moved to the city. But after 25 years of being away I returned to the small town where I was raised about 10 years ago.
Things had changed. Kids have televisions with a hundred channels and computers loaded with games and Internet connections. There are four or five places where you can rent movies and the city is within easy reach because most kids have a car in the driveway as soon as they reach age 16. What really surprised me was that you don't find many kids out fishing during the summer months, nor do you see a lot them hunting during the winter. And if kids living in rural areas aren't fishing and hunting, what chance do we have at attracting urban kids? Where lies the future of these sports?
Following are some statistics I gleaned from some outdoor writers' columns. I can't confirm them, but I have a feeling they are pretty close to being accurate:
* In California, a state with 33 million residents, they sold 154,000 deer tags last year and only 75,000 residents bought duck stamps. That works out to one deer hunter for every 214 residents, and one duck hunter for every 440 residents.
* New York estimates they have lost 20 to 25 percent of their big game hunters during the past 20 years and they predict there will be a 50 percent decline by the year 2010.
* Larry McSwain, the Assistant Director for Georgia's DNR, says that state sold 343,633 hunting licenses in 1986, but their sales have been dropping every year since. They predict that in 25 years their license sales will be at about 140,000 per year, a decline of almost 60 percent from 1986. What is particularly alarming is that the percentage of hunters under age 30 at that time will be only 10 percent of the hunters (about 14,000).
I'm not picking on those states. They just happen to be states where I found readily available statistics. I'm certain Illinois, and numerous other states, sport very similar statistics. The point is this: hunting and fishing numbers are declining if not in actual numbers, then in the percentage of participants to the general population. The question then is: What can we do about it?
Some states, "Illinois included" are holding youth hunts and youth fishing events to introduce youngsters to the sport. Are they working? Yes, but on a very limited scale. And the truth is, most of these youngsters come from families that already hunt and/or fish. I suspect many of these youngsters would be in the field with dad even if these hunts didn't exist.
There are also programs to get women interested in outdoor sports. This, too, is working on a limited scale. With single-parent families being somewhat commonplace, the real importance of the program might be that it counters anti-hunting and anti-fishing propaganda that seems to be proliferating as we become a more urbanized society. Whoops, there's that "urbanized" word again.
Arkansas Game and Fish Director Steve Wilson gave an excellent keynote address at this year's ACI Conference (excerpted elsewhere in this issue), the theme being that we have to do more to get our kids "and ourselves" into the out doors.
And if the outdoors is kayaking, mountain biking or running backcountry trails, that's okay too. Still, it's sad that a venerable, old publication like "Sports Afield" finds it necessary to switch directions. But I'm betting there's more to that switch than meets the eye.

Editor's Notes
What Happened to "Sports Afield?"
By Gary Thomas
Have you seen a copy of "Sports Afield" Magazine lately? I grew up with the magazine and I'm used to seeing their covers showing jumping bass, big bucks and large bears. But the covers of the latest couple of issues of that magazine pictures mountain bikes and endurance runners. Has "Sports Afield" given up on hunting and fishing? The answer: yes. The "Wall Street Journal" reported in July that "Sports Afield" reporter Patrick Reilly says their new content policy claims "real men don't shoot guns, fool around with bows and arrows or hunt deer. They paddle kayaks, ride mountain bikes or run on back country trails." That's the philosophy behind the overhaul of the 113-year-old hunting and fishing magazine owned by the Hearst Corp. Reilly continues: "...these days, many males in the target audience are more focused on exercise and non-ammo sports and they buy their venison at the supermarket. They have been influenced by environmental concerns and, more recently, a national call for gun control." I don't paddle kayaks, ride mountain bikes or run back country trails, so I don't want to get into a discussion as to the definition of "real men." But I am wondering why "Sports Afield" made the change. Executives with the company say the move was made because of declining numbers of anglers and hunters. They say that participation in fishing dropped 8 percent and hunting 17percent from 1990 to 1998, while rock climbing rose 44 percent, backpacking increased 34 percent and mountain and road cycling showed 11 percent gains. I've seen similar statistics in the past, and I'm sure you have as well. And while it's true that statistics don't lie, they don't always tell the entire story either. Yes, hunting license sales in the U.S. dropped off about 900,000 from 1990 to 1997, and fishing license sales declined about 130,000 during those same years. But there are still 23 million hunters and more than 44 million anglers in the United States lots more than the "real men" who participate in rock climbing or kayaking, and even more than take part in tennis or golf for that matter. And that USFWS survey shows that total spending by anglers and hunters went up nearly 70 percent to $68 billion over the five year period ending in 1996. So the question is not: "Where shall we hold the wake?" The question should be: "What can we do to increase the numbers?" I used to blame the decline in hunting and fishing numbers on "urbanization." Today I'm not so sure. I grew up in a little town in central Illinois in the 1950s. I was constantly complaining that there wasn't anything to do. And because there wasn't anything to do, I spent much of my summer months fishing and most of my winter months hunting. Then I went away to college, did a couple of years in the Army and moved to the city. But after 25 years of being away I returned to the small town where I was raised about 10 years ago. Things had changed. Kids have televisions with a hundred channels and computers loaded with games and Internet connections. There are four or five places where you can rent movies and the city is within easy reach because most kids have a car in the driveway as soon as they reach age 16. What really surprised me was that you don't find many kids out fishing during the summer months, nor do you see a lot them hunting during the winter. And if kids living in rural areas aren't fishing and hunting, what chance do we have at attracting urban kids? Where lies the future of these sports? Following are some statistics I gleaned from some outdoor writers' columns. I can't confirm them, but I have a feeling they are pretty close to being accurate: * In California, a state with 33 million residents, they sold 154,000 deer tags last year and only 75,000 residents bought duck stamps. That works out to one deer hunter for every 214 residents, and one duck hunter for every 440 residents. * New York estimates they have lost 20 to 25 percent of their big game hunters during the past 20 years and they predict there will be a 50 percent decline by the year 2010. * Larry McSwain, the Assistant Director for Georgia's DNR, says that state sold 343,633 hunting licenses in 1986, but their sales have been dropping every year since. They predict that in 25 years their license sales will be at about 140,000 per year, a decline of almost 60 percent from 1986. What is particularly alarming is that the percentage of hunters under age 30 at that time will be only 10 percent of the hunters (about 14,000). I'm not picking on those states. They just happen to be states where I found readily available statistics. I'm certain Illinois, and numerous other states, sport very similar statistics. The point is this: hunting and fishing numbers are declining if not in actual numbers, then in the percentage of participants to the general population. The question then is: What can we do about it? Some states, "Illinois included" are holding youth hunts and youth fishing events to introduce youngsters to the sport. Are they working? Yes, but on a very limited scale. And the truth is, most of these youngsters come from families that already hunt and/or fish. I suspect many of these youngsters would be in the field with dad even if these hunts didn't exist. There are also programs to get women interested in outdoor sports. This, too, is working on a limited scale. With single-parent families being somewhat commonplace, the real importance of the program might be that it counters anti-hunting and anti-fishing propaganda that seems to be proliferating as we become a more urbanized society. Whoops, there's that "urbanized" word again. Arkansas Game and Fish Director Steve Wilson gave an excellent keynote address at this year's ACI Conference (excerpted elsewhere in this issue), the theme being that we have to do more to get our kids "and ourselves" into the out doors. And if the outdoors is kayaking, mountain biking or running backcountry trails, that's okay too. Still, it's sad that a venerable, old publication like "Sports Afield" finds it necessary to switch directions. But I'm betting there's more to that switch than meets the eye.