Decline In Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays For Conservation

[Curran]

Just wanted to share this article as it does a really good job of explaining an extremely complex topic. Bottom line is that if we want hunting to continue, things need to change. Hunters need to change and get more involved than ever before. We need everybody working together to not only recruit new hunters, but to be involved in public policy around hunting. The days of just buying your hunting license being enough for conservation are long gone.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation

 

[giles]

Upsetting

 

[bowhunter1023]

I'll go ahead and say it: I'd rather pay more and recruit less (other than my family). IMO, there are too many people hunting today for the available hunting grounds and quarry, and many only do it because it's the "in" thing to do. I'm not a fan of recruiting more people if I'm being honest. I would much prefer to open my wallet and support conversation with additional funds than encourage more people to overrun the dwindling amount of hunting land we have. Much of the content being produced that encourages people to hunt is junk and by default, recruits junk hunters. I'd rather take a quality over quantity approach to recruiting. My vision of success would be 10 hunters who'd spend $100/head on conservation, over 100 hunters who'd spend $10/head. But that's just me.

 

[giles]

The problem is everyone is out for themselves now. I don’t remember the exact quote from this article, but it talks about him sitting in a stand by himself reflecting on the hunting parties that used to be. What happens at Strouds is what used to happen multiple times a year when I was a kid. Not only deer camp either. We’d do this for small game hunting and that’s what got me hooked as a kid.

 

[bowhunter1023]

I agree with that and that's coming from a guy who just made a post that sounds like I'm out for myself. However, my perspective on this comes from the view of "carrying capacity" and the belief that quality over quantity is the appropriate focus, not "more is better". More money for conservation is definitely better, but getting that via too many hunters is not the correct approach IMO.

 

[giles]

I agree with that and that's coming from a guy who just made a post that sounds like I'm out for myself. However, my perspective on this comes from the view of "carrying capacity" and the belief that quality over quantity is the appropriate focus, not "more is better". More money for conservation is definitely better, but getting that via too many hunters is not the correct approach IMO.

I wasn’t directing that towards you, just saying. I understand what you’re saying and agree. A lot of the hunters we get these days aren’t hunting for the same reasons people did 15-30 years ago. Sadly, I don’t see either of our views changing a thing. It’s all about that buck these days. (Both male deer with antlers and dollar.)

 

[Jamie]

all the non-consumptive users should have to pay to play just like we do. hikers, bikers, bird watchers, climbers, horse riders, cross-country skiers often utilize the same ground that we do, and in some cases displace hunters and trappers because of safety. it's total bullshit that these folks don't have to pay one thin dime beyond their state and federal taxes to support the management and acquisition of public land. sportsmen have always paid the lions share for conservation on public ground (both state and federal) while the granola eating tree huggers are kicking us in the nuts for killing bambi and thumper. pisses me off.

 

["J"]

I’ve always thought that non sportsman should have to buy a users permit equal to a hunting/fishing license fee when utilizing public land for any reason....
When I lived out in Southern California back in the late 80’s if you wanted to enter a state park, it cost you $5 for the day. If you went for a week it’d be $35....

 

[Wmiller07]

all the non-consumptive users should have to pay to play just like we do. hikers, bikers, bird watchers, climbers, horse riders, cross-country skiers often utilize the same ground that we do, and in some cases displace hunters and trappers because of safety. it's total bullshit that these folks don't have to pay one thin dime beyond their state and federal taxes to support the management and acquisition of public land. sportsmen have always paid the lions share for conservation on public ground (both state and federal) while the granola eating tree huggers are kicking us in the nuts for killing bambi and thumper. pisses me off.

That's a really good point. And I'm with bowhunter. Id rather pay more and have less people. I think that way the quality of hunter stays high. At the same time I think the apprentice liscense is a good idea so people can try it out.

 

[Jackalope]

Hunting will by in large be a past time in the next 100 years. Look at the massive expanse in population in just the last 100 years. The population has gone from 106 million in 1920 to 291 million today. In 1920 51% of America lived in rural environments, today only 19% of the population lives in a rural location. This is not due in large to the increase in urban populations, but rather the expanse of urban populations in to what used to be rural areas. The American hunter, outdoorsman, and woodsman is disappearing as their rural areas are being gobbled up by ever expanding urban areas and the mentalities that accompany them. With the efficiency of vehicles today people can live further from cities and reach stores and employment quite easily. This was not so 100 or even 50 years ago. In my travels all over this state i have seen few areas that i would consider truly rural. In most areas that aren't a national forrests or state park you can't walk a half mile in any direction witout hitting blacktop. Even in what is called "the country" you can't go a half mile on many roads without at least a couple houses. We have paved roads every which way here and there and built houses galore. Understandable when your countries population has grown over 3000% in the last 200 years. If current trends hold, less than 3% of the population will live in rural areas by 2060.

Wyatt Earp died in Los Angeles in 1929, less than 90 years ago, the wild west gun slinging lawman passed at age 80 some 50 years after the famous shootout at the OK corral. I often wonder what he thought as he sat on the rural outskirts of LA watching the country grow, remembering a time when the west was truly wild. Was he disgusted, did he feel lost and swallowed up by what most call progress. Did he feel as though he was a small forgotten old man in a world that had changed so much that it was barely recognizable to him. Imagine if he could see it today. Hunting today is going the way of Wyatt Earp. Slowly fading away.

Here is where Wyatt Earps house is today. At the time that he moved there in 1920 the population was 577k. Roughly 60% the size of Columbus is today. As of 2010 LA is about 7x that.

 

[jagermeister]

all the non-consumptive users should have to pay to play just like we do. hikers, bikers, bird watchers, climbers, horse riders, cross-country skiers often utilize the same ground that we do, and in some cases displace hunters and trappers because of safety. it's total bullshit that these folks don't have to pay one thin dime beyond their state and federal taxes to support the management and acquisition of public land. sportsmen have always paid the lions share for conservation on public ground (both state and federal) while the granola eating tree huggers are kicking us in the nuts for killing bambi and thumper. pisses me off.

I’ve always thought that non sportsman should have to buy a users permit equal to a hunting/fishing license fee when utilizing public land for any reason....
When I lived out in Southern California back in the late 80’s if you wanted to enter a state park, it cost you $5 for the day. If you went for a week it’d be $35....

Be careful what you wish for. I agree, it's not "fair" that these folks take advantage of lands paid for and managed by sportsmans' dollars. But if you start requiring them to pay a user fee just like hunters and fishermen, be ready to start letting those same "bunny huggers" have their say in the decision making processes. You can't have one without the other. You have to remember that not all non-hunters have anti-hunting mindsets. Actually I think the majority of them either approve of hunting or have no opinion at all. Those are the people we need to recruit into the traditions of hunting and fishing, and if free, somewhat-limited access to natural areas paid for by sportsman is what keeps them interested or brings them to our side then I'm all for it.

Can you guys imagine a society where hunting and fishing is a distant memory?... a blip on the radar of history? There would be a total disconnection with all things natural and wild. The idea of conservation would be non-existent. It's some scary and sad shit to think about. Are we heading that direction whether we like it or not? More than likely. But is that any reason to give up trying? Absolutely not. To "pay more and recruit less" would only speed up the inevitable. It's what's already going on around us today with rampant leasing and outfitters. It's a selfish and short-term action with long-term consequences.

 

[giles]

Haven’t you guys seen that commercial with the kids on electronics and the mom telling them to “look at the wildlife”...

 

[Jamie]

let them have their say. I don't think their say will have any more influence than ours ever has or ever will. we haven't really had any influence for decades and we've always paid for all of it. then again, I have to wonder what any additional monies added from other users would do besides pay the wages for a few more interns who pick up trash in the summer and bolster the salaries of the bureaucrats that run the government agencies that manage public lands. I'm a little cynical. there are too many people on this rock, and it's getting worse by the minute. homo sapiens are not supposed to live like ants on an ant hill.

 

[Geezer II]

I started hunting in Ohio in 1947 - you could hunt most anywhere you wanted to - very little posted land - license was $1.25 - no permission slips - most started as a family tradition - no big box stores sell n all the shit hunters need tday - most all respected private property - most property owners would let ya hunt if ya asked - Ohio was a pheasant - rabbit - skewrl - quail - mostly state - no deer to speak of - deer hunters went to Pa - never saw a game warden till the 90's - now every one wants their own way and exclusive rights - awh screw it - i don't have much sand left in my hour glass - sure hope you all get ta hunt as long as i have -

 

[Jackalope]

I started hunting in Ohio in 1947 - you could hunt most anywhere you wanted to - very little posted land - license was $1.25 - no permission slips - most started as a family tradition - no big box stores sell n all the shit hunters need tday - most all respected private property - most property owners would let ya hunt if ya asked - Ohio was a pheasant - rabbit - skewrl - quail - mostly state - no deer to speak of - deer hunters went to Pa - never saw a game warden till the 90's - now every one wants their own way and exclusive rights - awh screw it - i don't have much sand left in my hour glass - sure hope you all get ta hunt as long as i have -

If there was ever a post that I wished I could like 1000 times this would be it.. Well said geezer.

 

[Geezer II]

Kids could walk thru town with their shotguns or rifles - no one even looked - cops just drove by - took guns to school and put them in the principals office and hunted on the way home from school

 

[Wmiller07]

Kids could walk thru town with their shotguns or rifles - no one even looked - cops just drove by - took guns to school and put them in the principals office and hunted on the way home from school

I grew up in the wrong era...

 

[Jamie]

me, too. it's damn near painful to drive around the east of Columbus where I went to high school. all of the places we hunted, trapped, fished, gigged frogs are nothing but cheap apartments, expensive homes, fast food joints and shopping malls today. it really is scary how much we've lost in this state just in the last 30 years, in my lifetime. I can't bear to think of what it will look like 30 years from now. I shoulda went west when I was a younger man. not sure I have the courage or ambition to do it now, but it is the only hope of escaping the onslaught of urban sprawl.

 

[giles]

Even as far west as you can go this is happening. The human population is outgrowing the land. Learning a trade has always been steady work and I don’t see that slowing down in my lifetime.