Anyone willing to put forth a comment/opinion?

Social Media

Apathy

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
Apathy

When I read the title the word jumped into my brain.

The one thing that Wisconsin is struggling with is greed. The fear that someone will shoot 'their' deer or hunt in a manner that is not up to a certain standard. This alone has shut out a great deal of access to quality areas.

quote:

The one thing that Wisconsin is struggling with is greed. The fear that someone will shoot 'their' deer or hunt in a manner that is not up to a certain standard.

For Sure we have more deer then we had ever.

When I was younger with far fewer deer we hunted every bodies land they hunted ours.

Now it is stay the hell off. I have neighbors that have half the land I do.

When I approach them saying you can hunt mine if I can hunt yours they say no.

They think sitting in a box blind with a bait pile is the only way to hunt. They have no desire to walk around in the woods.

For Georgia anyway,

Loss of access to land.

The fear of a lawsuit has caused the average land owner to not want anyone on their property. Combine that with smaller and smaller tracts and its a lot harder to find somewhere to hunt.

Lack of ethics and sportsmanship.
Unethical or unfair methods, lack of funding for agencies, low price of resident permits and tags.

Lack of real proficiency training that demonstrates we can conduct ourselves ethically and legally in the field.

The mentality that hunting is a “right” and not an earned privilege granted by society and government.

High fenced hunting where the “trophy” is a certainty. Sooner rather than later, this will be prohibited by states.

Access to public lands will be blocked for hunting or consumptive uses.

The list is long and so far we are holding our own. However, sooner rather than later, we will be forced to clean up our practices and demonstrate fair chase and fair practices.

Cost
Lack of ability to get/draw tags
Young people not interested
Takeover of America by the libtards

Ten percent loss of hunting license sales nation wide from 2016 to 2017. Lot of this is because many of the baby boomers are starting to die. Great articles in Field and Stream and Covey Rise this month about this topic. Field and Steam got it right. Hunters tend to be greedy people and do not share their hunting spots. If people are reluctant to take younger huntersour sport will continue to decline.

Same as everywhere else. Too damn many humans.

quote:

High fenced hunting where the “trophy” is a certainty. Sooner rather than later, this will be prohibited by states.

Hunting on Public Land will end long befor hunting on private land, high fenced or not, simply because wildlife in each state is viewed as belonging to ALL the citizens of the state, look at England and Europe.

The only future, hunting in America has will be on Private High Fenced operations with the animals being owned by the operator and being classified as Privately Owned livestock.

quote:

Cost

Lack of ability to get/draw tags

Young people not interested

The above three, along with the aging and dying off of the older generations that grew up hunting are all contributing to the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
Same as everywhere else. Too damn many humans.

That goes for the whole planet, unfortunately .

Grizz

For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

Inability or lack of desire to recruit new hunters.
The application of emotion to what should be scientific management.

I also agree that social media will continue to contribute to a downturn in hunting and less support from the non-hunting public.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

I have to disagree with that comment Ted. All of the western states are selling out their available big game licenses to NRs even though the cost to NRs keeps going up while resident fees barely rise. Most NRs are now paying 10 times or more than what the resident fees are, but all the licenses keep getting sold.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

I have to disagree with that comment Ted. All of the western states are selling out their available big game licenses to NRs even though the cost to NRs keeps going up while resident fees barely rise. Most NRs are now paying 10 times or more than what the resident fees are, but all the licenses keep getting sold.

Not sure how you can disagree with Ted. 85% of the people who put in for various state lottery tags don't get one.

All valid points have been raised here.

I will point out that the trend of turning the state hunting regulating agencies into political bodies and turning them into parks/recreation organizations is to the detriment of hunting.

Suddenly we have trail bikers, hikers, and Cecil supporters getting a seat at the hunting decision making table. License money is getting diverted from hunting to urban parks, mountain biker trail development, and picnic areas in the 'burbs.

And of course the poiiticians go where the votes are and the numbers are not with the hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

I have to disagree with that comment Ted. All of the western states are selling out their available big game licenses to NRs even though the cost to NRs keeps going up while resident fees barely rise. Most NRs are now paying 10 times or more than what the resident fees are, but all the licenses keep getting sold.

Not sure how you can disagree with Ted. 85% of the people who put in for various state lottery tags don't get one.

Very simple! The fact that all the tags were sold and there was still a large number of people that didn't draw doesn't mean that we completely lost all those hunters, although they do have to find somewhere else to hunt even if it's only whitetails where they live. I also have no idea where or how you came up with that 85% figure because I don't believe it's anywhere near accurate other than for sheep, goats, and moose that are in short supply everywhere.

quote:

For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

From my own personal experience, those are probably the number one and two reasons why many hunters simply give up putting into the draws.

I have talked to some folks and read on AR and other sources, of people who simply gave up trying to draw a tag because it took so many points to draw in a choice unit.

Topgun sent Lora and I some good advice recently concerning antelope hunts in Wyoming, I have let the ball drop on that one, but not everyone would be willing to drive from Texas to Wyoming to shoot doe antelope.

My Doom & Gloom prediction is that those of us over 50 will be the last generations to have enjoyed hunting as it should be, I pray to God I am wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

For non resident hunters it is the rising cost of licences and the ability to obtain them.

From my own personal experience, those are probably the number one and two reasons why many hunters simply give up putting into the draws.

I have talked to some folks and read on AR and other sources, of people who simply gave up trying to draw a tag because it took so many points to draw in a choice unit.

I don't disagree with you at all on those comments CHC, but that has nothing to do with overall hunter numbers going down throughout the country and I believe that is what your question was about. Also, many have the attitude that they have to hunt the top tier units out west and that just isn't going to happen with the few tags offered and large number of people applying for those tags. I'm one that the experience is why I go out and I've hunted in Wyoming 20 straight years because I apply for where I can hunt every year and it might even be for a doe or cow, but I'm out there every year having fun even if I don't kill a big animal or even pull the trigger a lot of years.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
All valid points have been raised here.

I will point out that the trend of turning the state hunting regulating agencies into political bodies and turning them into parks/recreation organizations is to the detriment of hunting.



Suddenly we have trail bikers, hikers, and Cecil supporters getting a seat at the hunting decision making table. License money is getting diverted from hunting to urban parks, mountain biker trail development, and picnic areas in the 'burbs.

And of course the poiiticians go where the votes are and the numbers are not with the hunters.

I've heard the same detrimental comments about CO when they combined the two, but I don't know about other states and how they are regarding what you are mentioning.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Social Media

The most accurate / profound statement ever made on AR. I am guilty of it too....but it will be the death of our sport.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
All valid points have been raised here.

I will point out that the trend of turning the state hunting regulating agencies into political bodies and turning them into parks/recreation organizations is to the detriment of hunting.



Suddenly we have trail bikers, hikers, and Cecil supporters getting a seat at the hunting decision making table. License money is getting diverted from hunting to urban parks, mountain biker trail development, and picnic areas in the 'burbs.

And of course the poiiticians go where the votes are and the numbers are not with the hunters.

I've heard the same detrimental comments about CO when they combined the two, but I don't know about other states and how they are regarding what you are mentioning.

Top-Gun, good point on CO. Colorado did so because like all govt agencies the original Colorado Div of Wildlife was a financial train wreck!!! In the final 3 yrs before the merge with Colorado Parks, the DOW ran at an average loss of $7 million per year!!

We have by far the largest non-resident elk / deer hunting program in the west, with more elk than double that of the next closest state. Non-res hunting licenses is where the vast majority of the money raised comes from. But the state agency provides for and takes care of "people, and their jobs/salaries" long before they take care of the wildlife here. And they were doing outrageous programs like the Big Game Access Program (BGAP) where they were paying private landowners outrageous lease prices to turn their property into public hunting. That program alone ran for 3 yrs at an average loss of $80,000 per year - even though they were charging hunters $40 each for an access permit, if they had a tag for that unit.

I railed on the DOW to do away with the BGAP program....probably why they don't like me to be 100% honest!

Govt can only waste money....its all they know how to do - cause nobody is accountable!!!!

Disinterest on the part of young people.

Texas is lucky, because the members of the TP&W commission, are all Land Owners/Sportsmen and are appointed by the Governor!

If I remember correctly, in Colorado their commisioners are voted on by the citizens of the state and only one is an actual hunter/fisherman.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Texas is lucky, because the members of the TP&W commission, are all Land Owners/Sportsmen and are appointed by the Governor!

If I remember correctly, in Colorado their commisioners are voted on by the citizens of the state and only one is an actual hunter/fisherman.

I didn't know the answer to your CO statement, so I just looked it up and found that they are appointed by the Governor just like Texas. Here is a C/P from their website:

About the Commission
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a citizen board, appointed by the Governor, which sets regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs.

The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportsmen or sportswomen, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to re​present all parks and wildlife related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.

The Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Agriculture also serve on the commission as ex-officio members.​​​​

I stand corrected, but in reality hunters especially are a minority in that set up.

Also whose best interests will an outfitter be representing?

Yes, that is a harsh/biased assessment, but wouldn't an outfitter/guide have their own interests in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
Apathy

+1. Hunters are a tone deaf and largely inert group.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
Apathy

When I read the title the word jumped into my brain.

Leave it to Diana Rupp to shine some light on my dismal opinion and brighten the day. Thank you Huntress Diana.

I received this serendipitous article this morning.



http://sportsafield.com/telling-our-story/

Telling Our Story

By: Diana Rupp

Hunters in two states are funding pro-hunting public relations campaigns in an effort to beat the antis at their own game.

Back in the 1990s, hunters in Colorado were smarting from a series of anti-hunting ballot initiatives that had recently passed in their state, including one that banned spring bear hunting. A few of them realized that the majority of the voting public didn’t know squat about hunting’s contributions to wildlife management and conservation, nor about the positive impact that hunting has on the economy.

They saw that public sentiment was being shaped by media campaigns run by well-funded anti-hunters and decided it was time to strike back with a PR campaign of their own. These sportsmen banded together with a mission to develop an ongoing media-based program to educate the urban, non-hunting public about the scientific, economic, and conservation benefits of hunting and fishing.


In a recent article, I wrote about what those forward-thinking Coloradoans came up with—legislation establishing a Wildlife Council with a long-term funding mechanism, via a license surcharge, fully dedicated to a pro-hunting mass-media campaign. This resulted in the “Hug a Hunter” ads you might have seen if you’ve been in Colorado recently—friendly, pro-hunting ads geared toward the non-hunting public that run on regular TV and radio channels and appear on billboards (watch them at https://hugahunter.com/watch-our-videos)

This proactive public education program has transformed the hunting landscape in Colorado. Since the “Hug a Hunter” campaign has been running, surveys show that seven out of ten people say they would vote against any new hunting restrictions—a huge change from the 1990s. Further, 30 percent of non-hunters say they are more supportive of sportsmen than they were before they saw the ads. And perhaps most important, since the campaign started, not a single anti-hunting ballot measure has been introduced in Colorado.

Alan Taylor of Michigan, a successful businessman and avid hunter, heard about the Colorado program and thought it was such a good idea he decided to launch a similar initiative in his home state. He formed a group called The Nimrod Society to do just that, and they were successful. In 2013, Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed legislation establishing a surcharge of $1 per hunting and fishing license as a dedicated fund for a PR campaign aimed at educating Michigan’s urban, non-sporting public about the benefits of hunting, fishing, and wildlife management. The Council hired a professional ad agency and launched its own pro-sportsman PR campaign (see it at https://hereformioutdoors.org/
“That’s two states down, forty-eight more to go,” said Taylor.

Think about it: If hunters and anglers could get pro-hunting PR campaigns like Colorado’s and Michigan’s started in every state, it could make a huge difference in ensuring the future of wildlife populations and our hunting heritage. Best of all, there is now a proven model in place, and The Nimrod Society is eager to help sportsmen in other states start a program of their own. Learn more at https://nimrodsociety.org/

Demographics are the problem. Lack of recruiting new hunters into the sport and lack of exposure to hunters in the family.

People are disconnected to the land and do not know anyone who hunts. Add to this exposure to negative image of hunters in the press and you have declining hunter participation.

Accelerating the decline is lack of decent places to hunt in many areas. In the future it will be managed, bought or "I know a guy" hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I stand corrected, but in reality hunters especially are a minority in that set up.

Also whose best interests will an outfitter be representing?

Yes, that is a harsh/biased assessment, but wouldn't an outfitter/guide have their own interests in mind?

I was in a hurry last night when I posted that, but thought the exact same things you mentioned in your post. 3 out of 11 sucks and with one of the 3 being an outfitter that always have their own agenda I believe CO sure isn't set up for the best interests of hunters. That setup probably tickles the heck out of the Libs along the I-25 corridor that now run that state!

I don't think I'm the only western hunter choosing to not hunt as much simply because the level of bullshit involved.
1. Too many hunters on public land unless it is a very limited tag.
2. Too many idiots are also hunters so more and more it's embarassing around neutral non hunters and its unpleasant to be around some hunters. On TV, in person or at shows, hunters seem to be intentionally trying to have a worse reputation than lawyers. It's much easier to find someone to enjoy a fishing trip with than a hunting trip. Don't understand how that came about.

I choose to not go gentle into that good night. I'm not going on a "hunt" unless it involves actual hunting. That means physically searching for my game, period. When they are gone, I am done. Right now in the US it means less big game hunting and more hiking after the wild chukar.
Unfortunately hunting is being redefined in my life time to include the sweat free potting of some animal from a man made rest. I guess if we all agree the sky is green and not blue, then it's green.

The future of hunting in the US is Europe. Embrace the suck my fellow searchers.

quote:

What is the biggest threat to hunting in America?

Fudds....

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Texas is lucky, because the members of the TP&W commission, are all Land Owners/Sportsmen and are appointed by the Governor!

If I remember correctly, in Colorado their commisioners are voted on by the citizens of the state and only one is an actual hunter/fisherman.

Nope...appointed by the governor!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Texas is lucky, because the members of the TP&W commission, are all Land Owners/Sportsmen and are appointed by the Governor!

If I remember correctly, in Colorado their commisioners are voted on by the citizens of the state and only one is an actual hunter/fisherman.

Nope...appointed by the governor!

And for the past 15 yrs or so, a very liberal governor at that! Cause we all know....there's no room for corruption when folks are "appointed" by those they work for, with, benefit from, etc, etc.

I was wrong with my comment concerning how the Colorado Game Commission, and I honestly thought that at one time the members were elected by the voters.

Wouldn't it be simple if it were "social media" that's like blaming guns for gun violence. Guns don't shoot people and social media does not "send/post" itself.

I have a son who is 11 and thinks himself a hunter. He watches videos of people who kill animals on the youtube and on the "hunting" channels on tv. First of all he has had a hard time understanding one does not kill something every time one goes "hunting." Also imagine that it takes more than a few minutes to actually bag an animal. On the shows there is never a dull moment.

And blaming the Government would be easy also but we are the government. That is true it might be a slow process but it is true. Do you vote for your elected officials on there stance on taxes, abortion, voting rights, or items that advance hunting? The 2nd amendment is not hunting.

Most voter live where public land is limited so their incentive to support hunting is lessened. "If I can't hunt than who cares if others can hunt."

I could go on but the big issue is this thing called CHANGE. Will hunting be like the days when Jack O' just went down to Mexico and killed sheep and couse deer by just paying someone or not it was bum fuck mexico for god sake. Or going afield and knocking on a door to ask permission, "oh I am just a farm/ranch hand and the owner lives in another universe."

Like everything in the universe things change if you have a good hunting gig going enjoy it, it won't last forever.

The bright side is in the not to distant future one will be able to put on virtual reality headset and suit and you will be able to hunt any animal in any conditions you want.

And it will be just as real. No shit.

More truth in those comments than many want to admit to.

Increasing costs of the tags, and ridiculously complicated hunting regulations.

I live in Colorado so there is plenty of land to hunt, but the regulations keep getting more and more complicated. I sometimes wonder if PETA members have infiltrated the Parks and Recreation staff.

BH63