Perhaps The New York Times should have contacted someone in Michigan. The bottom line of the article would be very different if it had.
In the Upper Peninsula, where I am from, hunting remains a powerful tradition and sometimes inescapable part of life.

I can recall sitting in near-empty high school classrooms where the teachers, realizing it was the first day of deer season, not only overlooked the absent hunters but excused them.

I’m not here to discuss the moral implications of hunting. I do not come from a family of hunters. But the vast majority of people I grew up with do, and they’ve spent years of their adolescence crouched in blinds — camouflage hunting tents — slipping hand warmers into their gloves and bonding with their parents.

Where I’m from, there’s an entire culture that surrounds the activity of hunting. The first day of deer season is viewed almost as a national holiday. The approach of deer season means an increase in the amount of camouflage and hunter’s orange worn to school. Hunters take extended weekends away from work and from school to set up the deer blind in the perfect spot.

It has more than a temporary meaning. Traditionally, hunting is a family activity. Generations spend time together in the deer blind, sharing stories, close calls, techniques and tips with one another. Hunters frequently cite the peace and closeness to nature they feel as a powerful draw.

Much of hunting is waiting, but the waiting is valued as much as — or more than — the first big kill. A friend of mine, an avid hunter, admitted that his fondest memory to date is the first day his father allowed him to hunt on his own.

According to a report released by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, or DNRE, 725,190 people purchased a deer hunting license in Michigan in 2009. Of that number, 9 percent were under the age of 17.

The report also said that “the number of people buying a (deer hunting) license in 2009 was nearly unchanged from 2008.” From 2007-08, the number of people purchasing a license actually increased (albeit by only 1 percent). The percentage of license purchases for teenagers remained the same.

Those numbers don’t include the teenagers who don’t purchase a license, but still participate in the hunting culture. They might go out to the blinds with their families. They might practice hunting techniques at home. They might learn how to properly skin the animal and prepare it for meals.

Granted, this is only a small slice of the data. But the Times article said in Colorado, “fewer hunting licenses were sold … in 2008 than in any other year since 1979.”

It appears that trend does not exist here.

Michigan is a state that sustains itself, to a large degree, through tourism. Hunting is certainly a draw for tourists. There already are hunters in Michigan willing to travel upwards of seven hours for a picturesque weekend in the woods of northern Michigan, waiting for the elusive
30-point buck.

There is a silver lining for Michigan if other states also are seeing these trends. The tourism industry easily could capitalize on the lure of hunting. Hunting might not be on a dramatic rise, but neither is it experiencing the same decline as Colorado.

For Michiganders, the hunting culture remains as present, and consistent, as ever.

Laura Fosmire is a State News staff writer. Reach her at fosmirel@msu.edu.