Stastically, the numbers have shown hunting to be one of the safest of all recreational activities, incuding the likes of tennis and even cheerleading.

Hunter safety is an obsessive concern for those organizations and individuals who oppose relaxing minimum hunting age and hunter education requirements. In spite of overly publicized mishaps, like Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident, over the past ten years hunting-related shooting incidents have declined by 31 percent. Youth hunters who are supervised by adults are statistically safer than all other hunters.

Among popular youth sporting activities, hunting is toward the bottom of the list in terms of injuries per 100 participants. Tackle football players are the most accident-prone, with 18.8 injuries per 100 participants, followed closely by ice hockey players, with 15.9 injuries. Soccer has a 9.3 injury score, and even competitive cheerleading has a 9. Way down the list, below basketball, baseball, volleyball and tennis, is hunting, with 1.3 injuries per 100 participants.

States that enforce minimum hunting ages are actually somewhat less safe than states with no minimum age requirements. In 2002, states with minimum hunting ages experienced 0.0535 incidents per 1,000 hunters. States with no minimum age requirements had 0.0483 incidents per 1,000 hunters. Granted, both figures are nearly infinitesimal, but they demonstrate the overall safety of hunting and the irrelevance of minimum hunting age requirements.

To illustrate the chilling effect of minimum hunting ages and hunter education requirements on new hunter recruitment, the Families Afield Program divided the states into three categories: Very restrictive, somewhat restrictive and least restrictive. In “very restrictive” states, hunters generally must be at least twelve years old and must complete a hunter education course to obtain a license. There are twenty states in this category, 80 percent of which fall below the national average Hunter Replacement Ratio of 0.69.

However, five of these states, California, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin are considering the abolition of minimum hunting ages and the issuance of apprentice hunting licenses. “Somewhat restrictive” states have no minimum hunting age, but require a hunter education certificate in order to purchase a hunting license. Of the thirteen states in this category, 38 percent have HRR numbers below the national average. There are seventeen “least restrictive” states, which have no minimum hunting age and allow mentored apprentice hunting for one year without a hunter education certificate. Of these states, only four have HRR figures that fall below the national average.

Research conducted for the FAP by Silvertip Productions and Southwick Associates revealed that 45.8 percent of current hunters are in the 35- to 54-year-old age group. The FAP calls this demographic the “teaching class,” because they are most likely to have children who are potential hunters. The teaching class is considered essential to the future of hunting in America.

There is little that the FAP or any other individual organization can do to slow the frantic pace of modern life, or create more accessible, productive hunting land. However, Families Afield has already proven, in the space of only three years, that relaxing the minimum hunting age and hunter education requirements can produce thousands of new hunters in just a handful of states.

The primal hunting instinct still courses through our veins, 400 years after the first Englishmen landed at Jamestown. It only requires the removal of some useless bureaucratic impediments for the latent spirit of the hunter to come alive. Judging by its success thus far, the Families Afield Program could very well prove to be a significant factor in the salvation of America’s historic hunting tradition.