Most parents of children born between 1946 and 1964 — baby boomers — didn't worry about whether their kids would hunt or fish. Of course they would. Or, at least, many would. These outdoor traditions dated to the nation's founding, and had long been embedded in Americans' aggregate recreational lifestyle.
Yet whether hunting and fishing can catch on in significant numbers with more recent generations of Americans is an open question, particularly with the cohort known as millennials, who are now age 19 to 35, give or take.
The issue is important for a number of reasons.
Foremost is that, while multiple "gateway" activities exist to get people introduced to the outdoors (e.g., hiking, biking, climbing), traditional pastimes such as hunting and fishing have proved to engender long-term, passionate allegiance among participants — and a willingness to support that allegiance with money.
It can be fairly said, in fact, that stewardship and conservation of the nation's natural resources are largely dependent on funds provided by hunters and anglers. Some of this money accrues from license sales. Some is raised by the nation's vast web of species-specific wildlife groups such as Ducks Unlimited, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Trout Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, as well as more broad-based groups such as the Izaak Walton League and the National Wildlife Federation.
What's more, hunters and anglers voted eagerly last century to add federal excise taxes on equipment they buy.
These funds in turn support state and federal fish and wildlife agencies and the conservation management they provide.
But what happens if millennials, who have recently passed baby boomers as the largest living American generation, choose not to hunt and fish in relative proportion to their forebears?