You can also break down demographics (age gender etc) and see low hunter numbers. You can wack 50% of the population of right at the beginning by excluding women. Not trying to besmirch the women that do hunt, but reality is you make up a fraction of a % of US women so statistically you are irrelevent (don't take it personal). Now of the 50% remaining, you can knock off about about 20% of those men that are either too old or too young to hunt (lets say over 70 and under 8). Please realize these are generalizations, you 6 year old son or 80 year old granddad are statistical anomolies and are even more irrelevent % wise then women hunters. Now of the 30% of the population that is left which is made up of boomers, GenXers and GenYers, better then 50% (especially GneX and GenY) grew up without father figures that are crucial towards the development of lifelong hunters. So now we are down to 15% of the population that even have a fighting chance to become hunters (statistically). AsI said earlier the population dynamics based on elections is about 50/50 rural to city. As we know, city folk are generaly not hunters so wipe out those guys and now you have 7.5% of the population that can fall into the realm of being called hunters (for statistical reasons). Of that 7.5% you would be lucky if 1/2 of them are actual hunters, so now the population of hunters in the US is now down to about 4%. Now if you put in the statisical deviants like women, youngan, seniors and the occassional city feller, you would get a few more %points closer to say 7%.

Pretty sad when you look at it that way.