I think true wilderness hunting will decline a lot, but there may infact be more game to hunt. Everywhere you go most hunters are in their 50s+, very few younger people so there may be more opportunities for that generation.....

If you look at 50 years ago in the US, there was less game animals then there is today for the most part - I think!!!

I have a December, 1940 issue of Field and Stream with an article titled "More Deer Today Than Ever Before." This article tried to make the point that there were probably more deer in the USA at that time then before the country was settled.

The article made a big deal about the previous year's (1939) deer kill being a whopping 430,000. That was for the whole country. These days there are probably a half dozen states that top that figure annually. So much for the "Good Ol' Days." But I do enjoy looking at pictures of the old time deer camps. A way of life that has passed or is passing.

quote:

But I do enjoy looking at pictures of the old time deer camps. A way of life that has passed or is passing.

Camp life of roughly that type is still around for those who are interested in it. But it's something you have to create. Many of us know from doing it. But, I found there are certain phases in the camping life of a deer hunter. The first was going out there and camping out with a couple long time close friends in an actual tent. With the campfire burning, sitting up til late, sipping on something and sharing old memories. Stage two, was camping out in a pop-up camper vehicle. Stage three was one of those small pre-fab aluminum shacks for an overnight stay. Stage four was staying in a motel in the nearest town, and the final stage was hauling myself out of bed at 3:30 a.m. back home in the city for the meeting at the local donut shop and then the drive out to the farm. I'll still do some weekend camp hunts when others want to, but it's mostly memories.

If anyone wants a good reference of "how it used to be", Stephen Ambrose's book about the Lewis and Clark expedition has numerous references to journal entries by the pair describing the wildlife in detail. Lots of comments about vast herds of deer, elk, mulies and large numbers of brown bears lining the banks of the Missouri river from just north of St. Louis onward. There's even a short passage about the dogs going bonkers as "thousands" of squirrels swam across the river around them; supposedly migrating south for the winter. They must have been amazing sights.

The two favorite game foods were buffalo hump and beaver tail, both very fatty.

quote:

Originally posted
If you look at 50 years ago in the US, there was less game animals then there is today for the most part - I think!!!

With some game species, you are correct. I believe there are more white-tail deer by far these days. But when it comes to mule deer...I don't think so.

I know that eastern Oregon, most of Nevada, and of course certainly California and Arizona have significantly poorer mule deer hunting than they did when I was a kid 70 years ago.


Anyway, I think big game hunting will be far different 40 years from now. I suspect it will either be much less restricted, or completely banned. I have no idea which.

In forty years who knows what hunting will look like. It will be different.

Trouthunterdj
The greatest barrier to getting new young hunters hunting is the hunters safety requirement in many states. Many will disagree but I didn't learn to be a safe hunter/handler of firearms in the required class I took at age 12 (40 now). And to think that just because you sat in a class for x number of hours makes one a safe hunter is kidding themselves.

Take kids hunting sounds great and at first they should just "go along". But at some point the newbie needs the participate, but wait you have to take a class that is going to repeat all the things about hunting/fire arms safety that she/he has been getting on the "going along" sessions. Oh, and you live where I do and the class is offered in late Sept, "sorry can't hunt doves" and Oh! its Oct. so you have to wait a year.

And you enjoy shooting that bow. Well as soon as you take the required BOW HUNTING SAFETY class you can go hunting with it. Shouldn't HUNTERS SAFETY include the bow hunting too? It's hunting right?

My take is as follows -

1. Gun ownership will be a thing of the past. We will not own guns.

2. All sporting hunting will be done on preserves if at all.

3. Society will reject hunting as "sport" and people will quit going.

4. We will have to hunt in Canada or Africa, but all will be on a very controlled and extremely expensive basis.

Make no mistake- we hunters are in the minority and shrinking rapidly. No amount of money or talk will change societal trends. Should we get a "hunting" president in office for a couple of terms, it will delay the inevitable, but we will not be hunting in the next two generations.

Very sad, but that is where we are headed.

I base this on what is being taught in schools and universities about conservation and wildlife biology.

I hope I am wrong.

"The greatest barrier to getting new young hunters hunting is the hunters safety requirement in many states. Many will disagree but I didn't learn to be a safe hunter/handler of firearms in the required class I took at age 12 (40 now). And to think that just because you sat in a class for x number of hours makes one a safe hunter is kidding themselves."

We all agree that hunting in the future will not be easy. Tomorrow's hunters will have to be much more dedicated than earlier generations. Just bringing more warm bodies into the ranks of hunters will not be enough. If a prospective hunter isn't ready/willing/able to take a relatively simple course they are probably not interested or dedicate enough to overcome the many other obstacles that they will encounter in their hunting career.

You are absolutly correct that passing a hunter safety course does not guarantee that the person automatically becomes a safe hunter. Just look at how many college graduates can't count their balls (or tits) and come up with the right number twice in a row. I work with electrical engineers that can't successfully change a light bulb without assistance!

Statistics will absolutly bear out the value of hunter education. I read an issue of a local newspaper from November, 1957. The Wisconsin gun deer season was 5 days into its 9 day run. Something like 14 or 15 people had already been fatally shot. Back in the "good old days" 15 to 20 fatal hunting accidents were commonplace. When I started hunting in 1970 the death toll from accidental gunshots was still way up there compared today.

There are far fewer fatal hunting accidents these days. Two or three are the norm and there have been some recent years with no accidental fatalities. I don't have the exact figures but I don't believe that there has been a significant difference in the number of hunters afield then as compared to now. I do know that there are a lot more deer these days and a whole lot more of them are getting shot. So it's not like today's hunter has fewer shooting opportunities or takes fewer shots than previous generations. The statistics prove that more of the shots taken today are hitting deer and fewer are accidently hitting people. The biggest difference between 1957 and today in Wisconsin is mandatory hunter education for anyone born after 1973.

"Take kids hunting sounds great and at first they should just "go along". But at some point the newbie needs the participate, but wait you have to take a class that is going to repeat all the things about hunting/fire arms safety that she/he has been getting on the "going along" sessions. Oh, and you live where I do and the class is offered in late Sept, "sorry can't hunt doves" and Oh! its Oct. so you have to wait a year."

We can only HOPE that the new hunter is getting the right lessons on the "tag along" hunts. A responsible mentor will pass along skills (including safety) and ethics. If the mentor is careless or unethical the newbie hunter will get the wrong introduction. As for the timing of the courses the youngster does not have to wait until they are of legal hunting age to take the course. They can take the course and be good to go when they hit legal age. It all goes back to being ready, willing and able to overcome the first of many hurdles that will be encountered in a lifetime of hunting.

"And you enjoy shooting that bow. Well as soon as you take the required BOW HUNTING SAFETY class you can go hunting with it. Shouldn't HUNTERS SAFETY include the bow hunting too? It's hunting right?"

You have a good point. Maybe bowhunting should be taught in the regular hunting education course. The seperate courses are probably a compromise. Not everyone who takes up hunting will take up bowhunting. Splitting it up makes the genral course a little easier/faster.

A lot of people have mentioned the paucity of young hunters afield, and I thought it worth asking the older hunters if they hunt more or less now than they did in their twenties and thirties.

I'm in my mid-twenties and I like to hunt, but I am also busy trying to establish myself professionally, domestically and personally. I don't have a lot of free time, I don't have a lot of spare cash and things are often a bit of a struggle. I'm sure this was the same for many of you when you were starting out, and I suspect it plays a major part in keeping people in their twenties and thirties out of the field; and I have no doubt starting a family will make it worse!

I suspect that a lot of the older hunters get out more now than they did in their youth, as they are more established and able to afford it in terms of time and money. I have no doubt that as I get older I will (eventually!) be able to dedicate a bit more of myself to the things I enjoy rather than the things I have to do.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:
In forty years who knows what hunting will look like. It will be different.

Trouthunterdj
The greatest barrier to getting new young hunters hunting is the hunters safety requirement in many states. Many will disagree but I didn't learn to be a safe hunter/handler of firearms in the required class I took at age 12 (40 now). And to think that just because you sat in a class for x number of hours makes one a safe hunter is kidding themselves.

Take kids hunting sounds great and at first they should just "go along". But at some point the newbie needs the participate, but wait you have to take a class that is going to repeat all the things about hunting/fire arms safety that she/he has been getting on the "going along" sessions. Oh, and you live where I do and the class is offered in late Sept, "sorry can't hunt doves" and Oh! its Oct. so you have to wait a year.

And you enjoy shooting that bow. Well as soon as you take the required BOW HUNTING SAFETY class you can go hunting with it. Shouldn't HUNTERS SAFETY include the bow hunting too? It's hunting right?

I assume you living in NW Nebraska, things are similiar as they are here for me. When I grew up I handled guns alot before I took the hunters saftey class. Today many kids don't get the chance to see or handle guns. It is about exposure fellas.

My Pastor know that I have guns and asked me to do a childrens sermon on Church night "Wed" about the full armor of a christian and tie it into guns to keep their attention. I took 6 of my sons friends out hunting with me even though they can't carry a gun. Go for a few hours where they will see pheasants and see some shooting. I understand that because of where we live we all can't do this but I will continue to do so.

My point is if we as hunters who love this sport "give up" and quit talking and promoting our sport, we deserve to lose our rights to hunt. If everyone who reads this would try to show people they know responsible gun ownership and conservation through hunting, we could make a difference or at least feel better about ourselves.

Thanks,

ddj

Here is what I see down the road.

Public forest land will be for hiking and camping only with the posession of firearms being illegal is such areas. The only hunting available will be on high-fence game ranches. In many ways, the hunter is his own nemisis by demanding bigger bucks, privatizing the ownership of wildlife, treating deer like livestock, breeding and "managing" for record book animals, and creating a capital business off of such. Only the rich or upper-middle class will be able to afford to participate at these operations. This is precisely the sales pitch that will work on capital hill. Hunting means nothing if it can't be enjoyed by all. Since this situation means that it can't be for everyone, the government will jump at the opportunity to be in charge of it.

We need to do a better job now of creating a greater demand for hunting in general instead of conforming to the increasing demand for a record book animal regardless of the cost.

I see some other environmental movements or species recovery projects harming the sport in the future, but those are just speculation, so I won't elaborate on them in this thread.

quote:

3. Society will reject hunting as "sport" and people will quit going

Many problems, but in my opinion that's the biggest one and it exists now. As for 63's question about "older hunters", I "resemble that remark" so I guess that makes me qualified to take a stab at it.

It all depends on the exact age group. Teenage years are great especially if you live in farming country. But, if you're in college they keep you so regimented it's hard to find time to do anything. 20s have health and are unemcumbered, in many cases. I went a whole lot then. That's when you can really have fun.

30s are pretty good too but you may get a lot of hunts cancelled at the last minute because of being on call for work, etc. 40s you go but the weekend camp hunts are a thing of the past. You also call a buddy and ask if he wants to go this weekend, and he says he'll check with the "boss", and then you hear him say "honey, it's you know who and he wants to..." and then you overhear her interrupt and holler "NO".

50s is when the health problems set in, but at last you can finally afford that Win. Model 21 you always really wanted or maybe that very pricey exclusive duck club membership. But, you still impress the younger guys with your shooting ability..."Oh, the old guy killed ALL the ducks!". And you may get asked questions like "we were just wondering, how did they get around on hunts way back before they had four-wheelers?" You respond in your best down home way, "Well, Sonny, it weren't no problem...back in them days we all rode horses and mules..."

In your late 50s you join a gun club and take up trap and skeet...plenty of shooting without the getting up at 3:30 a.m. and the general botheration of the hunting club life. Comes a day you realize you're only spending 30 minutes shooting and 3 hours just sitting around jawing with others like yourself. Many great tales are swapped, but most are about hunts that truth be known occurred in the 1960s or 70s.

And when you're over 60?? You may still be a hunting club member but you never go. It's just comforting to know it's there. But it's now too far to drive and no way to do an overnighter. Besides you couldn't keep up with the drinking and no sleep and you're no longer interested in all night poker games. You just don't need to prove anything this late in the game. And you're starting to feel conspicuous amongst the youngsters.

To complicate things the eyes are failing and you need a cataract operation bad. You see three traffic lights when others see one...same with ducks...so you just kinda shoot up there amongst them. But you can read OK and type. So you follow a lot of gun message boards and magazines. You still attend gun shows and maybe consider yourself a collector.

And you still go on opening day dove shoots if lucky enough to be invited, maybe a few trips to a commercial quail shooting preserve, maybe go duck hunting a couple times a season with a guide who does all the "heavy lifting" and an opening day deer hunt. Your bad and/or broken back says forget about riding horses or 4 wheelers, tugging strings of decoys, pulling boats over levees, breaking ice to get to open water, dragging dead deer, bending over to clean them or hiking from dawn to dusk on those endless corn fields in pheasant country.

You also devote time to figuring out eventual retirement living arrangements, caring for elderly parents, spending time with the grandkids, taking the grandson out to the farm when his parents will allow it, making sure the wife gets to do the travelling she always wanted and worrying over what in the world to do with the gun collection in a few more years.

None of which is really all that bad, except for the physical pains and limitations. The best part is the memories. They're never far. But, such are the phases in a life afield as seen by one of us.

63, you and Shack both bting out some really good points in your posts about the situation.

The main reason I started up my guide business and the reason I work for folks running hunting operations, is simply because I get to hunt a lot, it is just the fact that I ain't the one doing the shooting.

In a way, I have the best of both worlds. I get to use my skills and experience to find game, and then my skills and knowledge in preparing the meat and trophies for shipment, and I am getting paid for it.

In my case it is a trade off.

Horns/antlers have never been that important to me, I have always wanted a good representative speciman.

But to be able to guide someone, adult or youth to an animal, that for whatever may be a Once in A Life Time experience for them, is the ultimate 'High" for me.

Despite my negative attitude on this subject, I really hope hunting is something that is never out of the reach of the average person.

When that happens, if it happens, a c ertain part of the human condition will die along with it. JMO.

Bigasanelk- I am not against hunter ed. It is a barrier to entry in the sport though.

I wonder if hunter orange is the reason for the reduction in fatal hunting accidents.

Crazyhorseconsulting:

I posted earlier that I thought the sheer press of humanity would end hunting as I and other older types knew it. I should have added that all the people who exert influence in our modern society (educational, academic, TV "talking heads", so called "environmentalists", to name a few) keep up a daily drumbeat against sport hunting. Small wonder that generations are coming along to whom the idea of hunting is alien. (Who was it who wrote -"It is not all of hunting to kill"? - a concept unknown to the anti-hunting types. They preen themselves for their "love of nature". In my life I have met more true lovers of animals and nature among devoted hunters -but then that can't be explained to anyone other than a hunter)

Very true statements , especially the last one.

Very depressing reading.This sounds like NZ 20 odd years ago when animal numbers were low and political correctness was at its peak. The only comments you saw in the media re hunting were negative and public opinion seemed so as well.
Now we have prime time hunting shows on the main tv channels, cheifs making shows where they activly go out and kill Deer,birds, fish etc, and cook them on camera, and even an all female hunting show. Now the majoriety of media coverage is positive, hunter numbers and new licences are increasing and people are starting to realise that one of the best things you can do for yourself is get out and hunt your own,clean organicly grown lean meat.This was all done by dedicated individuals and organisations constantly putting across positive images and messages, and not letting the antis win. If you give up though, they will win, and the only legal reason you will have for owning a gun is to sit at home and defend yourselve from crimminals.

There is a BIG difference between giving up, and making the best of a bad situation as long as possible.

On it's worst day, New Zealand is no where near as screwed up as the U.S..

We don't have the numbers, and neither does NZ.

At 307 + million in the U.S,, the majiority either anti hunting or having no real background in hunting, versus 4 million plus that are in actuality a rural or suburban population.

Facts are facts, and how long is it going to be before the way things are being done in Austrailia bleeds over into New Zealand?

Yep, there are some major differance's,But the kind of people that hunt are very similar world wide. Capeable, patient, Confident of our own abilities. As a general rule, i havn't met a hunter yet who dosn't have the ability to teach another,or stand their ground and put across a valid argument for hunting. You might have a mass of anti hunters, but you also have the strongest pro gun lobby in the world and are one of the few nations that give its citizens the right to carry a weapon. Its somehing to be envious of.
As for Australia, The've managed to get hunters elected into parliament, which is something we've not acheived. And Aussie ways bleeding over into NZ? lets hope it will be the other way around (were allready changing their accent).

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:

quote:

Originally posted by wingnut:
Almost as low-cost as Alabama TODAY!!

A resident pays $24 for a state-wide, ALL-game license.

If I purchase that license, and hunt ONLY in my home county, and limit out each day of the open season for each species, I can legally take:

Deer - Bucks 109 (yes, one hundred nine)

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You take that many deer now, and you will go to jail. Got this straight out of the Alabama Hunting Reqs today:

"WHITE-TAILED BUCK LIMIT – three during all combined seasons. One of the three must have at least 4 antler points 1” or longer on one antler (except for Barbour County). A point is an antler projection of at least one inch in length from base to tip. Main beam tip shall be counted as a point regardless of length. BARBOUR COUNTY ANTLER RESTRICTION –white-tailed deer bucks must have a minimum of three points on one side, (except on the statewide special youth deer hunting date)."

The glory days of nearly unlimited Alabama deer hunting are over. You can still take a lot of does, but they are proud of their bucks. Also, I'm a little curious as to how you are hunting with an Alabama resident hunting license when your signature line says you are from La.

I'd guess his LA is "Lower Alabama". He is not correct in he #'s. There is a 3 buck limit, one of which must have 4 points on one side. We also have to keep a log/form for the bucks killed that must be on our person and completed while the buck is in our possesion. This has been in effect for a few years now, so wingnut needs to make sure he follows this....or the 40 year worries will become RIGHT NOW worries for him.

JCM

JCM

Relative to 40 years ago in the United States, today we have significantly greater abundance of some game -- such as pronghorn antelope, whitetailed deer, turkey, and others. Thus, our hunting today is much improved, at least in some places and for some species, than 40 years ago.

Looking forwards, there are some things to give you pause. The population keeps going up. In 40 years will we be a nation of 600 million people? If so, does this suggest double the hunting pressure or twice the level of difficulty of securing licenses? What is the long term picture for access to hunting land? I would expect the number of private properties that give hunters free access to decline, the numbers of private properties that sell leases to increase, and the dollar value of leases to increase. With reference to public hunting land, what if the federal government takes to divesting itself of publically owned lands, such as the large expanses of public land in the west such as Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc? What about the picture of firearms ownership? The picture is rather cloudy, it seems to me.

One thing to bear in mind is that hunting is a cost effective way for states to manage game populations. Unrestricted deer populations are a problem. People don't like busting up their cars running into deer or experiencing bodily harm. Too many elk become a problem as wintering elk pack down onto farms, ranches, and publically funded refuges. I don't suppose some species require population controls -- ducks? turkey? bear? -- but some species definitely do need to be controlled. Additionally, the moneys the states derive from hunting provide important revenues to states for managing wildlife conservation programs. The business value of hunting is quite significant. These are all factors that suggest that hunting will not go away. But, of course, there are other factors that have the opposite effect, I do not deny that.

Hunters are almost invariably characterized in media (movies, news) as of low intelligence, low social status, and low income. The general public that has never had any contact with hunting or guns have the most ill-founded ideas about these things. Even those (thinking of one of my sisters) who grew up around guns and hunting in a rural environment have feeble appreciation for guns and/or hunting. I'm 53 years old and think things will be largely OK for me for the rest of my life (I live in Texas and hunt in Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado), but I wonder what my son's experience will be.

Like a boulder rolling down hill, change has a habit of accelerating.

'Things', by which I mean the mundane which our parents and, to a lesser extent, ourselves took for granted will change beyond recognition over the next 20 to 50 years.

I agree with those who pointed out that human population levels, depletion of drinking water and soil quality degradation will cause serious problems.

In my country, a subtle, sometimes none too subtle Government and NGO 'Think Tank' whispering campaign is re-ordering societal attitudes. From things like private motor vehicle ownership to the number of children people should have, we are being 'talked at'.

Recently, a government advisory group here in the UK stated couples should only have one child in order to cut the UK's population.
This would all be just dandy if the jump in the UK'S population to 61 million, from circa 50 -54 million when I was young, at University etc, was due to indigenous people breeding. However, something like 70% of the live births in London are due to mothers born outside the UK. I understand this pattern is repeated in places like Holland and Italy too.

The infrastructure of England cannot cope: not enough homes, school places, hospitals and drinking water / waste treatment. Our population is considerably higher than France, with a much smaller land area and we have much higher population densities than even Germany.

In light of this, I cannot see anyone who is not a member of Government forces being allowed an air rifle, let alone a non descript, telescopically sighted bolt action .30-06. And there will not be the open places left outside of National Parks - preserved designated, forcibly depopulated Wildnerness Areas to go hunting in. Oh, and that will not be allowed, in order to preserve the free range zoo population of animals.

The prevailing attitude is one of control. The elite have known for ages the party was over, and it is no longer possible to hide the contradictions from the ordinary working people. And the masses are getting restless...

Like Pandora, all you have is hope.

quote:

However, something like 70% of the live births in London are due to mothers born outside the UK. I understand this pattern is repeated in places like Holland and Italy too.

The "masses" however continue to vote for it. They continue to do like their news media tells them and vote for the parties in whatever country that thought up open borders.

I'm in the U.S. and the time I tried complaining to a liberal school teacher about the language barrier now found daily at every turn, she announces proudly "We're ALL immigrants!!". They're real hung up on that phrase. You get nowhere by responding with something like "there's no more room, the boat's full" or "we'd at least like some say so about who gets invited in" or "polls show the vast majority would like to shut down all immigration, legal and otherwise". They almost visibly shrink back from those kinds of statements. Apparently it sets off alarms that they're in the presence of someone they are not supposed to like.

Loki:

I am a generation ahead of you, a lifelong New Yorker who read your thoughtful comments with interest. I do believe that hunting in the American West will endure for some generations - because you folks seem to be more self reliant and independent so that you don't elect politicians who get to pull the strings to make laws against possession of firearms and encourage anti-hunting propaganda. (all the while that their voters complain about deer damage right on suburban streets)

Here in Canada, there is still lots of space and a fair amount of wildlife, however, while one of the previous posters stated that he thought that ...we...will have to hunt in Canada and Africa, I seriously doubt that this will be allowed.

The situation in the U.K. is replicated here in Canada, with hordes of non-traditional immigrants pouring in, breeding rapidly and DEMANDING that THEIR "cultures" take precedence over our traditions. The politicians from these groups, East Indians, for example, are TOTALLY opposed to private gun ownership and they have a level of "clout" all out of proportion to their numbers...."white guilt", "the Sixties", "multiculturalism" and the death of true democracy..........yup, it IS happening, NOW!!!!

Hunting in Canada, will be "reserved" for aboriginals, private motor vehicles and single-family homes for wealthy Asians and a FEW "elite" Canadian traitors and WE whose people built this country will be "second class citizens" in our own land....AND, it's OUR fault!!!

I doubt that crossing the border for Canucks and Yanks will be worthwhile, due to state control, the hiring of minorities who will ruthlessly enforce fascist laws, which is WHY they have been allowed to swarm into both nations and most of us will simply give up....King Obama will be happy!!!!

quote:

One thing to bear in mind is that hunting is a cost effective way for states to manage game populations.

Only if the game department in any state can get their hunters to shoot the prescribed limits.

Loki, I do not see it listed as to what state you are from, but as an example, here in Texas, hunters are refusing to shoot does, they only want to kill one, trophy buck yearly.

That clearly and emphastically goes totalkly against managing the deer herd as a whole.

No one can force anyone to shoot something they do not want, but at some point some of these Arm Chair geniuses, will realise that leaving a steadily increasing number of does out there alive is not managing the herd ot the habitat responsibly.

The handwriting is on the wall. I was lisening to Sean Hannity yesterday while running errands and he was saying that some guy is going up for confirmation in the senate next week who will have the power to BAN ALL HUNTING in this country by regulatory fiat. I missed the first part of that segment as I was out of the vehicle and only came in at the tail end. I didn't catch his name or what position he was selected for, but it don't look good.
If hunting is illegal, then what do we need our guns for? Guess we'll just have to turn them all in. Sounds like a back door gun control scheme to me by the HNIC. I don't doubt that PETA and all the other ecofreaks are all writing their Senators to confirm that son of a bitch poste haste. There was some hag from the HSUS on the news last night pushing to stop hunting. Nice to know our fair and balanced media is looking out for us, right?
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

One thing to bear in mind is that hunting is a cost effective way for states to manage game populations.

Only if the game department in any state can get their hunters to shoot the prescribed limits.

Loki, I do not see it listed as to what state you are from, but as an example, here in Texas, hunters are refusing to shoot does, they only want to kill one, trophy buck yearly.

That clearly and emphastically goes totalkly against managing the deer herd as a whole.

No one can force anyone to shoot something they do not want, but at some point some of these Arm Chair geniuses, will realise that leaving a steadily increasing number of does out there alive is not managing the herd ot the habitat responsibly.

Crazyhorse,
I'm one of those who don't want to shoot a doe. I'm a horn hunter - not a meat hunter per se.
Your comment has some merit but what I find laughable is what some ranch owners want in terms of dollars for having someone to shoot just a doe. If it's an issue, reduce the price.
It also amazes me that ranchers can sell pig hunts. With the amount of wild pigs running loose and the ranchers sqwauking about them you'd think they'd offer freebies.

It will be better in some parts, worse in others.

Forty years ago in Nebraska, there were very little deer hunting. No deer.

Now they are opening up all kinds of doe seasons to get the numbers down.

Iowa was similar.

quote:

[B] what I find laughable is what some ranch owners want in terms of dollars for having someone to shoot just a doe./B]

It is not laughable, it is pathetic and the bad part is, that there are folks that will pay the prices.

I think many landowners/outfitters/guides, miss the boat completely on managing their properties, by not offering reduced price hunts for does.

As far as selling pig hunts, let me ask you one thing and please give an honest answer.

If you were a landowner with deer and hogs in good numbers on your property, how many folks would you allow to hunt for free?

This is a really simple question, and I own a total of 5 acres.

When did it become a crime for Landowners to make some income from their property?

Can you answer that with out jumping off into ?

I see Australia in our future. For the most part Australia is forty years behind in their thinking. Some of that is nice; the USA in the 70s, but when it comes to game management, they are the future.

For the most part Australians don't care and have turned over the welfare of their wild game, along with their guns, to the government. The people making laws are not hunters, and see no reason to preserve hunting. Wild game that may cause a traffic accident become a liability. Get rid of the wildlife.

Predators are dangerous, and kill domestic livestock; get rid of predators. Game numbers continue to increase, because there are no predators, cull all wildlife to keep them in check. Hunting is not part of the equation. Government will take care of that.

The start of this cycle is beginning in the U.S. There are few hunters in government and are marginalized.

Migratory waterfowl, just a danger to air travel; cull them, destroy habitat, and nesting areas to drive them away, or into extinction.

Wolves, kill them all. Bears, kill them all. Mountain lions are just a danger to bikers and hikers, kill them all. Coyotes, a terror to domestic pets in new housing developments, kill them all.

No, I'm not optimistic. My guns will end up in a garage sale, pawn shop, or government collection point once I'm gone. If I'm lucky maybe a trophy or two will hang over a bar in some yuppie version of an "authentic" western tavern.

I've offered free African, Canadian, and Alaskan hunts to my son for twenty-five years. I've not been taken up on it yet. I'll offer a free Alaskan hunt to my son-in-law next year. I suspect the answer will be the same. Spend ten days in the bush, why?

Right now 75% of the "hunts" I read even on this website, aren't hunts, they're "shoots". Few people have time or opportunity to learn to hunt, and then practice that skill. I don't hunt much now myself. I pay someone to provide access to the game, and the shot. I pull the trigger, but a lot of good people make that possible.

I miss hunting. I like looking at a mountain and figuring out where that buck or bull might hide, make a plan, work the plan, go to Plan-B, set an ambush, come up empty, re-figure where they went, catch a glimpse of hair, cut them off, drop and get the cross-hairs on them, wait, count, will him to stop in an opening,hold my breath, squeeze, feel that stock back into my shoulder, the shot echo across the canyon, and watch him drop. That's living, that's life, but one that is coming to an end.