In the current issue of Washington Monthly, Christina Larson examines why hunting has diminished in popularity over the last decade. (Larson, "The End of Hunting?," Washington Monthly, January/February 2006). In some states, like Iowa, the number of hunters has declined by as much as 25 percent. Nationally, over the past two decades, the percentage of American "sportsmen"--men and women who hunt or fish--has tumbled from 26 percent to 18 percent; the absolute number of sportsmen has fallen from 50 million to 38 million.Larson identifies land access, or lack there-of, as the primary reason for the decline: a combination of suburban sprawl and heightened suspicion of gun owners have made it more difficult for hunters to find land to hunt on, and that has animated a number of them to hang up their guns. In passing, she also mentions the growth of NASCAR, and observes that it has grown precipitously at the same time hunting has declined. I should be clear: Larson does not posit the growth of NASCAR as a reason for the decline of hunting. Just the opposite, actually, she characterizes NASCAR's surging popularity as a possible reason why hunting won't become extinct (with the presumption, I guess, that hunters and NASCAR fans are often the same or have much in common).
But I wonder if the contemporaneous decline of hunting and rise of NASCAR are somehow connected? Do persons who would have previously gone hunting now find watching NASCAR to be the more enjoyable leisure activity, or are these two sports sufficently unrelated? And are NASCAR fans really the same guys (and gals) who go hunting, or is that a classic case of Northern bias?