Fishing license sales down 10%

If we were losing trout fishermen at over twice the rate as the rest of the fishermen as we are losing deer hunters over twice as fast as the rest of the hunters you might have a point. The sales bounce around a bit but are gradually decreasing. Must be the fishermen drop out as the number of fish decrease just as the deer hunters drop as the number of deer decrease. The steelhead pressure sure dropped off when folks realized the fish were not there last year.

Pennsylvania Fishing License Sales
1919 to Present
Stamps & Permits, 1991 to Present on bottom of this page


License
Year Resident Senior
Resident Senior
Lifetime 1-Day
Resident Guard/
Reserve Non-
resident 7-Day Tourist 3-Day Tourist* 1-Day Tourist**** Free Totals Sales
%
Change
$ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units $ Units Revenue Units
2010 727,907 17,031 13,250 3,239 923 40,377 6,833 24,871 5,136 - $19,224,109.30 839,567 -4.19%
2009 758,434 18,587 14,494 3,259 741 41,259 7,382 25,934 5,670 - $20,063,864.00 875,760 4.32%
2008 719,544 18,138 15,341 3,328 537 39,760 7,168 24,864 6,156 - $19,132,475.00 834,836 -1.87%
2007 739,314 17,413 11,052 3,530 726 39,990 6,911 25,205 6,468 104 $19,347,728.00 850,713 1.96%
2006 729,738 16,387 9,523 2,922 683 38,812 6,467 23,890 5,612 298 $18,924,794.00 834,332 1.36%
2005 719,147 16,084 8,392 3,633 6 39,368 6,083 29,088 1,018 356 $18,654,56400 823,175 -9.46%
2004 786,269 17,118 13,355 - - 50,709 3,299 36,684 - 294 $15,418,098.00 909,140 1.58%
2003 777,089 16,851 11,651 - - 49,957 3,349 35,778 - 363 $15,178,961.75 895,038 -3.26%
2002 804,122 16,570 11,770 - - 51,362 3,326 37,677 - 369 $15,693,658.75 925,196 -3.64%
2001 839,488 17,211 11,132 - - 51,044 3,348 37,596 - 340 $16,249,307.75 960,159 1.33%
2000 832,038 16,574 11,202 - - 48,408 3,242 35,698 - 409 $16,006,812.50 947,571 -0.65%
1999 844,094 16,401 10,725 - - 46,907 2,833 32,404 - 429 $16,084,574.00 953,793 -2.49%
1998 865,673 16,676 11,851 - - 47,555 2,880 32,824 - 703 $16,482,851.75 978,162 0.49%
1997 861,003 17,687 11,956 - - 47,281 2,766 31,486 - 1,226 $16,380,065.75 973,405 -0.25%
1996 864,989 18,097 12,047 - - 48,356 2,766 28,406 - 1,188 $16,440,487.25 975,849 -8.69%
1995 948,004 20,641 16,297 - - 68,007 - 14,563 - 1,186 $13,571,735.00 1,068,698 1.72%
1994 933,036 21,597 13,951 - - 66,513 - 14,372 - 1,183 $13,329,401.00 1,050,652 -2.18%
1993 950,588 24,833 15,769 - - 67,502 - 14,155 - 1,265 $13,585,062.00 1,074,112 -1.12%
1992 952,936 26,359 16,989 - - 69,548 - 19,150 - 1,267 $13,336,050.00 1,086,249 1.07%
1991 943,017 28,079 14,075 - - 69,226 - 19,111 - 1,266 $13,184,297.00 1,074,774 -7.65%
1990 1,015,134 35,059 18,645 - - 73,893 - 19,700 - 1,327 $14,211,536.00 1,163,758 2.13%
1989 995,963 39,357 14,745 - - 69,151 - 18,788 - 1,440 $13,842,560.00 1,139,444 1.18%
1988 987,797 42,111 12,621 - - 64,976 - 17,120 - 1537 $13,620,316.00 1,126,162 1.83%
1987 971,720 43,730 12,432 - - 59,959 - 16,371 - 1,674 $13,317,165.00 1,105,886 2.53%
1986 932,075 48,612 13,075 - - 54,870 - 15,516 - 1,758 $12,916,706.00 1,078,561 1.54%
1985 932,075 48,612 13,075 - - 51,501 - 14,927 - 1,980 $12,666,799.00 1,062,170 2.48%
1984 908,313 51,457 11,773 - - 48,550 - 14,187 - 2,150 $12,304,205.00 1,036,430

Pretty good post i think, fron another board that may have some merit:

"Licenses down9.2%..... maybe because trout stockings been down 1/3??? Many streams that got multiple stockings have had some get dropped, plus lack of size seems to be an issue when I talk to other anglers."

In 2006 ,Ok had a hunter replacement ratio of 1.1 and the ratio was even better in MO. Compare that to PA where during the same time frame where we lost 200+K deer hunters in from 2000 to 2008.

"Ohio hunting is driven by whitetail deer"

Perhaps the difference is that some states actual 'GET IT'.

All good examples of a few highlights in a downtrend trend nationally.  For those that look at issues objectively, the point of the post was to point out how complex the issue of falling license sales is.  Fishing license sales fell substantially this year, thus far.  Probably for a variety of reasons including those that are truly passionate about the outdoor sports are dwindling in numbers nationally.
 
For sales to drop 10%, there are many folks that really don't care much if the fish this year or the next. 

It is all about Ohio having the rich fertile soil to produce large racks while Pennsylvania is mostly made up of poor soil with heavily forested areas that has trouble even supporting deer let alone producing the large racked bucks that motivates hunters to travel to other states to hunt."

Interesting that you blame the poor soil now but in 2000-2001 when the poor soil was pointed out as the reason for poor regeneration the official spin was there is nothing wrong with our soil and it was all the deers fault.

Also interesting that when Alt was selling this AR/HR he made many statements that we would have WORLD CLASS deer hunting and would be enevied throughout the country for the size of our antlered deer. Amazing how the stories change.

Remember----Hunters will see MORE and LARGER bucks than they have ever seen before.

PGC Press Release, 115-002-result in the greatest increase in NUMBER and SIZE of bucks in Pa's population in more than a century.

PGC Press Release, 019-01- Make Pennsylvania deer hunting the BEST IN THE NATION.

Your not suggesting we were misled back then are you?

S-10 gotta disagree on the Steelhead pressure getting less.
That zoo is more crowded than ever.

Now on the other hand the trout streams seem to have lost quite a bit of pressure. Almost no one there once the yellow rope brigade can't catch their limit anymore and stay home.

The PGC and PFBC must be reading from the same book.
Less but bigger....

SORRY GUY ==== but our aging population is also beginning to really show up in the fishing sales too...

As I have said a million times.. as people get older they stop doing things they did at an earlier age..

I no longer travel to the thick and rough areas where the big bucks head when pressured for example. I do not spend half a day walking hunting rabbits/pheasants/grouse -- I LOVE sitting watching for squirrels though ...and I also no longer travel more than about 100 yards along a trout stream.... I'm more into sitting/standing on a rock or wading maybe 50 yards...

I fish/hunt close to the roads, near the bridges, etc.. no more backpacking and long walks into the "wilds".

and hopefully will be able to do that for a few more years, but I even know guys who have stopped fishing because they can not do it like they used to and find "still fishing" is too boring to them...

I see the younger "kids" (toddlers to pre-teens) still fishing and loving it but I also see the teen-agers thinking it's "STUPID" .. "they're just dumb fish".. "it's boring".. "we don't eat fish" ..etc

But I'm not too excited about this years decline YET... around here the economy is driving everything down.. we have not even had to make a second trip to get live bait yet... last year I was packing bait every week-end in mid-April and in May, not so this year AT All...

I have spent more time "freshening up" the bait I did two weeks ago type work than packing new bait from the supplier...

My fishing trips have been cut in half because of weather and high water, and the Smallmouth appear to just now be starting to "hit". Usually I have many by June, this year only TWO....

Sure is peaceful up there in Dec and Jan..



Getting to be so it's not worth my time here around home.

Quit running my cameras, missed archery last year, and went fishing for most of rifle season.
Deer numbers here at home are down so much there is just no reward for the amount of time I used to put into it.

Doc busts me about taking no deer pics. Come find a deer up here to take a photo of.

It's always been that way, a larger percentage of the population is located in the cities where hunting is frowned upon

Excellent point s10.

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"Ohio hunting is driven by whitetail deer"

Perhaps the difference is that some states actual 'GET IT'.

The difference between Ohio and Pennsylvania doesn’t have one single thing to do with deer management though. It is all about Ohio having the rich fertile soil to produce large racks while Pennsylvania is mostly made up of poor soil with heavily forested areas that has trouble even supporting deer let alone producing the large racked bucks that motivates hunters to travel to other states to hunt.
 
You guys can take all the jabs at Pennsylvania hunting and management you like but no one can change the realist facts of the soil and habitat differences between those two states. It is that difference that makes the difference whether you are willing to admit it or not.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

LOL Have you hunted both states close to the Pa OH border? I'm talking from WV to Erie. While the soil and forests are nearly identical you would swear that some one built a wall to separate the two as far as hunting goes. Many have climbed over that wall and aren't coming back. Nice try but I and many ain't buying what your selling !

"LOL Have you hunted both states close to the Pa OH border? I'm talking from WV to Erie. While the soil and forests are nearly identical you would swear that some one built a wall to separate the two as far as hunting goes. Many have climbed over that wall and aren't coming back. Nice try but I and many ain't buying what your selling !"

I can attest to that as well. I have hunted and spent alot of time through the years past scouting in some southeastern ohio counties, and have relatives in Northeastern Ohio and have spent some time up that way as well through the years.

You guys can take all the jabs at Pennsylvania hunting and management you like but no one can change the realist facts of the soil and habitat differences between those two states. It is that difference that makes the difference whether you are willing to admit it or not.
 

The best soils in both PA and OH are those that are currently being farmed and farmers in both states insure that their land will support the crops they plan by fertilizing and liming their fields. For the past 30 years the PGC has dismissed the added carrying capacity of mixed farm land and forests and have assigned zero habitat value to farmland.

After 10 yrs of HR and the loss of 200+K deer hunters the only thing we have learned is that HR has not had any significant effect on forest regeneration even though that was the primary goal for reducing the herd.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"For the past 30 years the PGC has dismissed the added carrying capacity of mixed farm land and forests and have assigned zero habitat value to farmland."

Nor should they. Those farmers don't fertilize, and lime their fields to create deer habitat. The carrying capacity is ( or should be ) what the surrounding forest can sustain WITHOUT being heavily supplemented by farmer Brown's crops.

 
That is exactly correct. The Game Commission never dismissed the value of farmland or farm crops toward being a tremendous benefit to deer and higher deer populations. But, since farmers generally don’t want to support a large deer population instead of harvesting a cash crop there was a time when farmland did get subtracted from the total land suitable as deer habitat.
 
With the current deer management plan all of the various habitats and land uses do contribute to the deer management plan. As long as the deer are healthy and the forest habitats are adequate to feed them and support that level or even more deer in the future then even the cropland gets considered in the management plan. But, there is also a socially acceptable dimension built into the current plan so anytime there are excessive landowner or other public complaints about deer the plan also calls for reducing the deer population below the natural carrying capacity.
 
The only real difference between the old and current deer management plan is that the current deer management plan is more based on what the deer and their food supply have to say about how the deer are affecting their own future.
 
Some people just don’t understand nature and how it all works in harmony or fails from a lack of harmony though so they reject the current plan out of a basic ignorance of reality.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn           

ORIGINAL: deerfly

ith the current deer management plan all of the various habitats and land uses do contribute to the deer management plan. As long as the deer are healthy and the forest habitats are adequate to feed them and support that level or even more deer in the future then even the cropland gets considered in the management plan. But, there is also a socially acceptable dimension built into the current plan so anytime there are excessive landowner or other public complaints about deer the plan also calls for reducing the deer population below the natural carrying capacity.
 

That is an absolutely false and misleading claim. The forest health in 5C is rated as the worst in the state,but in 2010 it produced the highest harvest PSM of any WMU in the state with 15.39 DPSM. if the herd in 5C was managed based on forest health it would have a harvest rate lower than 2G, where the harvest rate was only 2.53 DPSM.

 
You Sir simply have no idea how deer management is intended to work or what you are talking about.
 
In 5C the habitat that is supporting the large deer herd is mostly found in someone’s back yard or farm fields where high deer populations are not socially acceptable to anyone but hunters. The deer are also harming the future for them selves with the forested habitats that should support deer in the future. That is why they have been issuing more and more antlerless licenses for the unit each year as they try to keep the deer populations in that unit from destroying the habitat to the point deer have no place to find food except in yards, gardens and farm fields. That over population of deer, that currently allows for high deer harvests, is also why unit 5C now has some of the poorest forest habitat in the state. But, if they don’t continue to keep the harvests that high it will only result in a more rapid degradation of the food supply and eventually a naturally declining deer population.
 
That failure over past decades to keep the deer herd from damaging their future food supply is a large part of the reason unit 2G has so few deer and such low deer harvest today.
 
You have never understood even the most basic concepts of how deer fit into a natural balance with the existing habitat and I certainly don’t expect that you ever will understand it now or anytime in the future.
 
But the fact of the matter is; this is all way to far off the original topic to even be a subject worth further discussion. We have done your argument over and over again and there is simply no reason to do it again. You simply don’t get it and never will.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn