Skip site map

original citation: Hoecker, Steve. "When More is Less." Hunting Magazine, Dec. 1996. 26-28.

When More Is Less

How will 50 million people added to our population in the next 20 years affect hunting and your quality of life?

By Steve Hoecker

In the late 1800s, market hunting, the slaughter of egrets for feathers, few bag limits or closed seasons and hunting ducks during nesting season were all socially acceptable practices. Men and women of foresight saw the effects of these practices and where it would lead. They worked with the media to make the public aware of what was happening and mobilized public opinion. That shift in public opinion made it possible to pass laws that changed these practices and we have been enjoying the benefits of their efforts ever since.

Today, a subtle, even more powerful threat is taking its toll on wildlife populations, open space, the sport of hunting as we know it and our quality of life. So pervasive is this threat; so much a part of our history, economy and frontier culture; and so gradual is the change that we often don't even notice its day-to-day effects, That threat is population growth.

Each year the United States adds 2.5 million more people to its population base and the world adds 95 million (three people every second). In the United States, it is estimated to take nine acres of land to support one individual. That estimate takes into account land required for food, housing, transportation, energy and a host of other human needs. This translates into 23 million more acres of land needed every year, just in the United States, to support our increasing human population.

I work for a federal land management agency that manages 191 million acres of public land. Each year, my agency receives an increasing number of requests for places to hunt, fish, camp, hike and recreate. Each year, there is an increasing demand for timber and other natural resources. In the past 30 years, my agency's land base has remained about the same. In that same 30-year-period, we have added an additional 75 million people to the United States' population. There are limits to what an acre of land can produce.

It does no good to preach that we should not destroy habitat or that we should reserve more open space. When push comes to shove, we are going to clear more land to build houses, plant more acres to crops, build roads to carry an increased traffic load, create more jobs as well as a host of other habitat-destroying activities in order to provide for an ever-increasing number of people. Each year we convert more wildlands and open space to human-dominated landscapes to provide for human needs. It can be no other way as long as our populations continue to grow. We continue to attack the symptoms, not the underlying cause.

In our nation's brief 200-year history, our population has always grown larger, year after year -- always increasing. We are now a nation of 263 million people. According to Census Bureau projections, we will add another 50 million people to our population in the next 20 years.

To put this number into perspective, try relating 50 million people to the size of your hometown. Consider the space your town occupies for housing, roads, schools, parks and other land uses. Now think about the land that is needed to grow the food for the people in your town. In addition, consider the energy and other resource requirements of your town's people and the land required to meet those needs.

I live in a town of about 1600 people. In the span of just 20 years, the United States will see the equivalent of 30,000 such towns built to provide for the needs of an increasing population. Try to imagine how the landscape and quality of life in the United States would change under these conditions. How would it affect the quality of your life and the lives of your children?

One of the first casualties of population growth will be open-space-dependent activities such as hunting. There will simply be less open space and more folks competing for its use. In many densely populated countries, hunting as we know it is already a thing of the past. Where it does exist, it is a highly regulated, controlled, artificial and very expensive activity enjoyed by a privileged few. We are rapidly moving in that direction.

For those of you who have hunted for more than 10 years, answer these questions for yourselves:

Is hunting today more regulated than it was 10 years ago? As more people hunt on fewer acres, increased rules, regulation, permits, lotteries and the like are needed to stretch the shrinking resource base and minimize potential conflicts between competing users. Increased regulation, in turn, reduces individual freedom, choices, options, and ultimately, the quality of the hunt.

How about the cost of hunting? Has it increased, decreased or stayed about the same in the past 10 years? Don't just consider the wide array of new license fees, surcharges and special species stamps, but also the increased time and money needed to travel to good hunting areas. Costs will continue to rise as game managers intensify management on fewer available acres in order to produce more game per acre. Many hunters have already been "priced out of the market." I still believe hunting in America, today, is a real bargain, but will it continue to be in the future?

Finally, we come to the issue of hunting quality. What direction have we gone in the past last 10 years? While there has certainly been some notable success stories in terms of intensified habitat management increasing per-acre game yields, the fact remains that there is less open space than there was 10 years ago and more people, not just hunters, wanting to use it. The net result is increased crowding, hunting in a more artificial environment, generally less game per hunter and increased regulation.

Our fish and game managers are in a tough spot. They have been dealt a losing hand and are playing it as best they can. Habitat management, fish and game regulations, stocking and a host of other management techniques are only stopgap measures. As long as human population continues to increase, our land managers will continue to fight a losing, rearguard action.

It doesn't have to be this way. Our culture has been heavily influenced by our frontier roots. In a largely unpopulated and resource-rich land, population growth was seen as a good thing; something to be encouraged and promoted. Our country's tax and social policies encouraged population growth. Over time, as certain areas of the country became more crowded, people moved west.

Now people from the Pacific Coast states, particularly from California, are moving to less densely populated western states of Idaho, Montana and Arizona seeking a better quality of life.

We have been conditioned by our culture and heritage to expect population growth and to see it as something desirable. At one point in our country's history, that may have been the case, but it no longer holds true. Conditions and the environment around us have changed and a strategy of growth must give way to one of sustainability and equilibrium if we are to survive as a species and have a decent quality of life. Our culture of growth must change.

That cultural change is already under way. People are questioning the wisdom of perpetual growth in a finite world, where it will lead and how it will affect our quality of life. Groups as diverse as the League of Women Voters with their Population Coalition, Zero Population Growth, Carrying Capacity Network, Negative Population Growth, Federation for Immigration Reform, Planned Parenthood and the National Wildlife Federation are working diligently to stabilize both the United States and world population. The membership roles of these organizations are made up of common, everyday folks like yourself working for positive change. Their efforts are paying off! It is estimated by the Population Reference Bureau that family planning efforts to date have reduced the world population by 400 million people over what it would have been had these programs not been in place. Birth rates are also declining.

Our population is currently growing by nearly 100 million people each year -- about three people every second! Unless this growth curve is brought under control, the impact on land use, simply to sustain mankind's food needs, will seriously impact wildlife habitat, and ultimately, hunting as we know it today.

If you care anything at all about fishing and hunting, wild places, open space, solitude and a better quality of life for all, then I urge you to take an active role in this cultural change. Lead by personal example. Commit to a small family; stop at two children and be supportive of others that wish to do the same. Become more informed about population issues and effects by joining one of the many population action groups that are working to stabilize population. Become more aware of the effects of population growth on your quality of life and point out those effects to friends and neighbors in the course of your everyday conversations. Organize and align your conservation clubs and organizations with other groups that are working to stabilize population. Small, incremental actions such as these persistently pursued over time produce dramatic results.

As a wildlife biologist, I personally look forward to the day when I will attend a Ducks Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society or Pheasants Forever fundraising banquet where part of the proceeds are earmarked to population stabilization. It will be a landmark that signals a change in our thinking to begin treating the underlying causes of the problem as well as the symptoms. It will take courage, conviction and foresight, but I have no doubt that the day is coming.

The magnitude of the task at hand may, at times, seem overwhelming and cause some people to turn away or deny the issue. I will leave you with a favorite story of Aldo Leopold's, father of game management, that applies here. Leopold had an English setter named Gus that he wanted to train as a quail dog. Gus learned through experience that most of the quail were found in dense thickets where the going was tough. He also learned that if he stuck to the open, grassy areas, he could easily flush meadowlarks. Meadowlarks looked and smelled a lot like success and Gus soon abandoned his search for quail contenting himself with chasing meadowlarks. Leopold compared Gus' behavior to organizations and people that duck the tough issues where the going is rough but where real progress can be made and prefer instead to "chase meadowlarks."

There is a wide array of legitimate and important conservation issues such as habitat improvement, conservation easements, species regulation, biodiversity, forest fragmentation, urban sprawl and our consumer-driven economy that need to be addressed. However, it is my contention that if, in the long run, we do not include population stabilization in this list and give it a high priority, then we are just chasing meadowlarks.