One week into Kentucky's archery deer season, hunters have checked more than 1,150. Of the 120 counties, 105 have surrendered at least one. That's a good start.

Barring miserable weather during the November modern gun season, the state's 260,000 deer hunters will report killing more than 100,000 deer; three dozen or more will be Boone and Crockett-class animals.

If you're a Kentucky deer, things never have been better.

But a serious threat to the good times is forming, though it won't manifest itself next year or even a decade from now. The problem? Hunter numbers are dropping.

"Typically what we see is about a 2percent decline in hunter numbers every time there is a license (fee) increase," said Jonathan Day, large-game program coordinator for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. "In Kentucky we're actually pretty stable right now, but nationwide we know hunter numbers are declining."

This is important for several seasons. Deer numbers aren't going to decline. And though everyone loves seeing whitetails, no one likes watching them devour crops, gardens and residential landscaping and collide with cars.

Kentucky's herd totals around 900,000. If all deer hunting stopped tomorrow, in four years it would swell to 2million or more — and the non-hunting public would be livid about the problems that would cause.

The only way to keep deer numbers in check is by hunting. Animal-rights and anti-hunting activists occasionally parade what they consider lists of hunting alternatives, the most ridiculous of which is employing a deer contraceptive.

These ideas undoubtedly are offered in good faith. But fencing won't work, trapping and relocating deer won't work and contraceptives won't work.

Even increasing the whitetail bag limit won't help. Across half of Kentucky, hunters already can kill an unlimited number of antlerless deer, but the average hunter takes just 1.4 animals. It's all they want or need.

"If you lose hunters, you kill fewer deer," Day said. "And when the total harvest goes down, you lose the ability to manage your herd."

So as hunter numbers slide, Day wrestles with the problem he knows is coming.

"We're not talking about next year," he said. "We're talking about 20 years from now."

The reason for the decline in hunting is complex and probably hinges mostly on societal changes. Deer hunting is hard work and can be expensive. And for the generation whose attention span has been formed by computers and video games, it can be boring.

The solution, obviously, is to recruit and retain more hunters. The traditional approach, the one always promoted by wildlife officials and the outdoor media, is to get kids involved in hunting so they will become adult hunters.

This approach is somewhat limited. After all, kids can't hunt unless someone takes them. They can't purchase firearms and the other gear they need.

"It's very difficult to take a kid who is not from a hunting family and turn him or her into a hunter," Day said.

Day, who is 30 and recently became a father, suggests that his generation might become tomorrow's hunters if the sport is packaged for young adults hungry for something that hints of adventure.

"I didn't grow up hunting and fishing," he said. "I grew up with soccer and golf, and I don't see those particularly as bad things."

Hunting has something of an image problem. Fishing (particularly fly fishing), hiking, backpacking, canoeing and boating are used to sell everything from cars to cologne and are widely popular among Day's contemporaries. When was the last time you saw an ad for a Ford Explorer or Chevy Suburban (both popular among hunters) with a hunting theme?

"People my age, even if they've never hunted, are old enough to go on their own," Day said. "They're old enough to buy a firearm, and they usually have a little disposable income. They're interested in getting outdoors. They're interested in adventure. And if you get people my age hunting, they're more likely to teach my kids to hunt."

--Courier-Journal