Even though the 2011-2012 hunting seasons around America are rolling right along, we can't forget the threats that still exist that could eventually end those yearly rituals.

Question:
What do you feel is the biggest threat to the future of hunting.

Choices:
Anti-Hunting/Animal Rights Activists?
Increasing costs/declining opportunities?
Declining recruitment of new hunters?
Increasing age, natural mortality of existing hunters numbers?

 

I voted declining opportunities. We are in trouble here in NM

Something we agree on, mark that down on the calendar!

None of the above!

The real threats are:
1. Human population increase
2. Habitat loss
3. Oil, fossil fuel and non-green energy consumption
4. Global warming
5. Urbanization/lack of wildlife knowledge by people in cities
6. Poaching


Youa have it all wrong- it's the above that's the real problem.

You are wewlcome to your opinion, but I think if you will do a little more research, the things you listed, with the exception of one are all tied in to what islisted in one way or another.

I have to admit while I do love hunting I my interest is deminishing with the increase in cost and the fact that how big an animal you kill is determined by the size of your pocketbook. State legislation and rules do not help such as the preference point system adopted by many states which is an absolute joke.

Increasing costs/declining opportunities

With better access to a quality hunting experience, all of the other problems will take care of themselves. The urge to hunt is deep-seated and probably coded in our genes. Recruiting and retaining the next generation of hunters would not be a problem if there were more and better opportunities available. Avid hunters who are optimistc about the future of thier lifestyle will stay with it and be a formidable force against the animal rights movement. But it's hard to maintain one's optimism while quality hunting opportunities are eithr priced out of range or lost entirely.

Special youth hunts miss the mark becuse most of the youngsters will get the chance to hunt during the regular season anyway. What happens when the kids get older and it isn't so easy? Will they stick with it when Grandpa sells the farm and there's nowhere to hunt?

Cost is an issue but it's secondary. Cigarettes, alcohol and dope are all expensive. So are new boats, Harleys and pickup trucks but those who want them are somehow able to find the money.

I would say that far and away that the biggest threat to future hunting is cost. I would also say that while cost and declining opportunities are both threats to hunting that they are two separate and distinct issues. I would bet that cost far outweighs all other reasons combined. It will be interesting to see what the results of your poll are.

All of the above is the answer.

The reason I listed cost and declining opportunities together, is simply because that as the prices to hunt in various states or locations rise, the opportunities to hunt in those locations decline. There is a direct correlation between the two.

It does not mean that places to hunt are lossed in actuality, but are lost to people that can no longer afford to hunt such places. Example: Bull Elk tags in Colorado cost $500.00+. A person that had been able to afford a bull elk tag when it was $250.00 has effectively "Lost" the opportunity to hunt bull elk in Colorado because of the price increase.

Same thing with the various states placing percentage limits on Non-Resident hunters especially with draw type permits/tags. If a state limits the number of tags issued to Non-Residents to 40%, that means that many Non-Residents have lost an opportunity to hunt, even if they can afford the tags.

in washington we are being force-fed wolves, which our hunter dollars are paying for, new fees (discover pass) are being imposed, license and tag fees have gone up again this year, seasons have been shortened, antlerless harvest is being reduced (in the NE corner-4 point minimum across the board)...

DEFINITELY Increasing costs/declining opportunities

quote:

Originally posted by Hunter54:

The real threats are:
2. Habitat loss

I have to agree with Hunter54 here. Habitat loss is the single biggest problem for the future of hunting. The reason that costs are increasing and opportunities are decreasing is that there is less habitat to support the game that we want to hunt.

I read an article somewhere that claimed that the whitetail deer population in the US is about the same as it was during the Lewis and Clark expedition but they are living on 1 percent of the original habitat. Now that's great for a species like whitetails who have adapted well to marginal areas in close proximity to people. But it doesn't provide much hope for animals such as mule deer, elk, moose, and caribou.

It also just about sets the current whitetail deer numbers as the maximum we can ever hope to achieve on our current habitat in the US.

Crazy- I applaud you for persistently asking some tough questions here on AR in the last few weeks. I think we all want to believe that there is a bright future for our children and grandchildren to pursue the love of hunting like we all have.

For me personally here in MN I feel like there will be readily accessible whitetail hunting for at least several more generations but I feel moose hunting will end in 2-5 years and bear hunting will end in my lifetime. I know that in your state of TX things are much different. I have been trying unsuccessfully to get my 3 nephews involved in hunting for the last 5 years. They all live in central TX and every time I talk to my brother-in-laws about it they tell me that they just can't afford the cost of a land lease. So for those families hunting as a family tradition has ended one generation ago.

The reason I did not include habitat loss in my list, is simply because it is the one thing that nothing can be done about.

Until or unless human population control is addressed by everyone, the human need for living places/factories to manufacture the goods we need, etc. etc., we will continue to lose habitat, our wildlife will always be the loser on that issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
The reason I did not include habitat loss in my list, is simply because it is the one thing that nothing can be done about.

I am a little more optimistic about this. I think that there are some things that can be done and some hard choices that can be made. I think that the Conservation Reserve Program has a proven track record of providing habitat for wildlife up here in the midwest farm country. Here in MN we have started a new Walk in Access program this year as well to allow hunters access to private agricultural land. We also have a landowner permit in which if you own land and allow public hunting you don't have to buy a hunting license to hunt on your property. I think these are a start and there is more we can do if we work at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
The reason I listed cost and declining opportunities together, is simply because that as the prices to hunt in various states or locations rise, the opportunities to hunt in those locations decline. There is a direct correlation between the two.

It does not mean that places to hunt are lossed in actuality, but are lost to people that can no longer afford to hunt such places. Example: Bull Elk tags in Colorado cost $500.00+. A person that had been able to afford a bull elk tag when it was $250.00 has effectively "Lost" the opportunity to hunt bull elk in Colorado because of the price increase.

Same thing with the various states placing percentage limits on Non-Resident hunters especially with draw type permits/tags. If a state limits the number of tags issued to Non-Residents to 40%, that means that many Non-Residents have lost an opportunity to hunt, even if they can afford the tags.

I can see where you’re coming from, but given the scenario of the price increase for Elk tags in Colorado that you use as an example, the opportunity is still there only I can’t afford it anymore (hence cost).

However, there is a real decline in opportunity (not price related) that exists and is a real threat to the future of hunting and that is the loss of habitat. Regardless of whether or not anything can be done about it; it is a real problem.

You’re correct and I agree with you when you say that as the price rises the opportunity for those people who can’t afford it declines, but again the opportunity is still there for those who can.

quote:

I am a little more optimistic about this. I think that there are some things that can be done and some hard choices that can be made.

As with anything, there are always some bright spots, but they are not on a large enough scale to make any real difference in the overall picture.

You use your state as an example of what can be done, I will use my state, Texas, as an example of what happens when politicians decide that Public Hunting Opportunities are not all that important. The funding for the 2011-2012 Public Hunting Programs in Texas was cut, meaning that fewer areas were available for the people that take advantage of the program.

I am not optomistic for several reasons.

On the concept of Loss Of Opportunities for hunters, yes, people can break it down into smaller categories, but in the overall scheme of things, whether it is due to rising costs/loss of habitat, etc. etc., the end result is the same, Loss Of Opportunity.

As costs continue to rise and our economy continues to decline, more folks are going to be faced with having to make harder and harder decisions as to where their discretionary or disposabal income will be spent.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamulia:
I voted declining opportunities. We are in trouble here in NM

Especially for non-residents like me who have NM as our "hunting home." Starting next year we'll have powerball lottery odds of getting drawn.

quote:

Originally posted by

On the concept of Loss Of Opportunities for hunters, yes, people can break it down into smaller categories, but in the overall scheme of things, whether it is due to rising costs/loss of habitat, etc. etc., the end result is the same, Loss Of Opportunity.

Crazy- you hit the nail on the head on this one. All it takes is one generation of a family that can't afford a land lease or big game tags or even can't get drawn for hunts and that family's hunting traditions and lifestyle are most likely lost for all future generations.

Having lived all of my life in a liberal state I voted "Declining number of new hunters". Think about it, if you have enough new hunters coming along, you have the votes to solve most of the other problems. We have been railroaded in every aspect of hunting and shooting in California simply because most folks live in urban areas where they have no exposure to hunting and their only exposure to guns is either gangs in their neighborhood or the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of guns on TV and movies.

Don't forget about WOLVES.

Every deer or Elk they eat is one less avaliable for us hunters.

Declining numbers is one of the problems, but it is caused by many factors.

Some of them, hunters are not going to want to hear about or admit too, because they are hunter generated.

Because at some point in the past, hunting and fishing got labeled as being "Sports" and as such hunters started trying to turn them into Competitive Sports.

Don't believe me, look at how many guides/outfitters here in America especially, and this includes me, describe white tail deer in terms of Boone & Crockett or Pope and Young scores. Add to that restrictipons implemented by state Game and Fish agencies such as the 13" inch rule here in Texas, add in human egos, and you have a situation where our young hunter end up setting in a stand day after day watching and not shooting trying to fulfill a frustrated parents own personal desires.

After so many of those cold unsuccessful mornings/afternoons setting for hours to only be told why a certain animal needs to be let walk, most of those kids are going to say screw it and make plans to do something more enjoyable for the rest of th season.

I see way too many younger Dad's that have forgotten that when they first started hunting they were allowed to shoot rhe first legal deer they saw, and now with rtheir own kid, they are wanting that kid to hold out for that wall hanger, and then wonder why the kid lost interet after going a half dozen times and seeing deer , but none that fit into "Dad's" idea of what should be shot.

My observations:

1) For youth, its technology. Playstations, xbox, smartphones, computers, etc. I don't see much kids riding on bicycles, toting bb / pellet guns, or fishing rods out on roads anymore (This is in the country).

2) Used to have about 6,000 acres to hunt on, now only have about 1,650 acres to hunt on. The reason is landowners want money if you want to hunt on their land. Also, landowners sell their properties to realtors which in turn make the land into subdivisions.

3) States that implement antler restrictions or Quality Deer Management. They may encourage the taking of does (some states require a doe before an antlered deer). I believe this limits a youth's desire to hunt when he is restricted to what he can kill. Fortunately, I didn't grow up under this, and have killed many small bucks and in many cases those small bucks were more fun than the big ones I've killed. However I try to put myself in the shoes of a youth who cannot kill small bucks and I think that would be detrimental to a desire to hunt.

That being said, I still don't think hunting opportunities will be a problem for several generations.

I disagree with the options. Here is what I vote for as the ultimate cause of both the decline and future end of wildlife and thereby hunting.

Too damn many Humans!

If we had half the global population we would be golden.

That issue was addressed, but not as one of the options.

quote:

Until or unless human population control is addressed by everyone, the human need for living places/factories to manufacture the goods we need, etc. etc., we will continue to lose habitat, our wildlife will always be the loser on that issue.

In the industrialized world, human population control is already taken care of as the birth rate is at below replacement levels. I think our population in the US would actually be in decline without immigration.

The real problem, at least from the perspective of conservation and preservation of wildlife populations and hunting is our consumption-driven economy. Even if our population declines, we still have to keep using ever more resources or our economy will cease to function.

Take the growth patterns of cities as an example; city centers are dead, nobody lives there, yet the size of the city is ever-expanding with new buildings at the edges. We abandon the old in favor of new buildings in what used to be relatively wild areas, but the old areas are also more or less uninhabitable by wildlife and certainly unsuitable for hunting use.

I have seen a real decline in opportunities over the last thirty to forty years. It really slapped me in the face as I move to Virginia. The company my wife works for has moved there. In PA, the loss of bird hunting and the closing of farms to hunting in the central part of the state has been a complete turnaround. There is, however, lots of public land, with opportunities for other types of hunting,and a strong hunting/gun culture. I've found a very different situation where I'm moving to. Little public land open to hunting, and a very limited gun/hunting culture. Hunt clubs control large tracts of land. The one's I've been involved with are rank with in club politics and not open to 'come heres'. After the Virginia Tech shootings, the public range here was closed to handgunners, and closed for six months of the year. Other rifle ranges are non existent or have very limited membership (someone needs to die for a new member to be allowed in). I've spoken with neighbors here who used to hunt. They've, to a person. told me the same thing. 'There is not real opportunity to hunt here, sell your guns and take up fishing.' I went to the Game and Inland Fisheries office a short time ago to discuss which licenses were requried and had a long discussion with the WCO that was in that day. He gave me that very same comment.
I'm not easily daunted, but after about seven years of it, it's beginning to sound like a good idea.
Yep, to me at least, it's lost opportunities.
Bfly

Hey Hunter54,
Curios how you figure "non-green" energy consumption is messing up hunting. I really enjoy driving out in my big diesel to my jumping off spot in the middle of the oil-field where all the big bucks live.
Way I see it, "non-green" energy is the only thing making diminishing hunting opportunities possible.

quote:

Way I see it, "non-green" energy is the only thing making diminishing hunting opportunities possible.

Care to expound on that concept a little more?

You could certainly make the argument that "green" energy has a negative impact on wildlife and hunting. A solar power plant takes up 1000+ acres of land. Wind farms take up a lot of space too. Some of the nuttier environmentalists protest against wind and solar almost as hard as they do against coal and nuclear power.

Wind farms take up space, but once the construction phase is over, the game is still there and huntingh can resume. Some of the properties I work on are getting windmills built on them and rthis past week I sat in a bvlind and had 7 bucks pass by within 10 yards or less of where I was setting. Wind farms are not as bad as folks like to make out that they are, I am getting first hand knowledge on that issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Even though the 2011-2012 hunting seasons around America are rolling right along, we can't forget the threats that still exist that could eventually end those yearly rituals.

There aren't many refuges from development, and as the human population spreads there are fewer placed to hunt. I have lived and hunted in a few states, and finding public land opportunities has been a problem. I more-or-less gave up hunting locally in North Carolina the year that a tract listed as public turned out to have been leased to a club. In Connecticut, there are places but it's best to make friends with a farmer. I've found a few places in the west with excellent BLM land and a few others with good access to private land, and it's worth the long drive to go there.

Funny, I haven't really explored California much. There are a few places I'd like to hunt, just don't seem to get the time...

Part of the problem is thee's too damn many people putting in for tags in my state. I seriously wonder how many are actually being used by real hunter and how many are being grabbed up ny anti-hinters to keep legitimeate hunters from getting a tag. In my cae alone, I have not drawn a tag for antelope in 33 years. I finally had to do a play for pay hunt in 2009. It's been 8 years since I drew for elk and 7 years for deer in my home state. I could probably get a tag for southern AZ but my better half feels with all the drug and illegal alien smuggling going on, such a hunt could be hazardous to my health. Been way too many newspaper stories about a hunter or camper being found dead in his tent. My neighbor across the street had his immediate boss murdered in that fashion Whoever did it killed him and his wife. Their 4X4 truck was found later in Mexico.
Looking at elk hunts on landowners tag $5K and up seems to be the rule. I've seen a few hunts for Whitetail Deer that the tarif would be a damn fine down payment on a very expensive house.
NOw that I'm retired with a fixed income that seems to get smaller every day, the outlook for me doing even an in state hunt looks pretty damn slim and I'm very damn pissed.
Paul B.