A Financial break for Hunter Recruitment?

[SAJ-99]

I’m all for it, but think of the consequences of students picking college for Titties and Beer (Tulane), if students choose based on “things other than academics” you will have a bunch of adults living their lives. And if you are running the university do you want people having things to do to relieve stress.

Bro myopic view of academics.

Also people choose Montana because it’s cheap, MSU is cheaper out-of-state than CU is in-state.

Those factors (T&B) exist everywhere. Quick Google search: Tulane grad rate is 83% (it does have some legit academic value). Hell, even Arizona State is 67%. Montana State is 53%, but in the counter argument, the non-resident grad rate is 60% so it is pulling that overall number up. Maybe Montana should start charging more of out-of-state tuition?

 

[jt13]

Maybe Montana should start charging more of out-of-state tuition?

Because it's the poor people that are dumb and not graduating?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Some states do, some don't. I'd like to see it in every state.

If a person is dumping a few hundred thousand dollars into the local economy and living there 9 months a year for several years they deserve a break on hunting and fishing license prices especially when that person is usually young and broke.

If those students decide to claim residency, then great. But they are choosing to stay on their parents taxes so the deduction continues, and they don't pay necessarily taxes in the state they're going to school in unless they have jobs as well. If College kids want resident status, then they should be residents in all aspects, IMO.

I think @1_pointer's post is the right approach, especially in the more densely populated eastern & west coast states. It's the lack of access too the resource that is the limiting factor. For a lot of folks in urban environments, you have to provide the opportunity in order to get kids into the sport, and those local rod & gun clubs/TU chapters, etc are the best way to do that, as well as push for better access for under-served communities. Exurban development makes it much harder for a large number of folks to find places to hunt or fish unless they have a mentor who can show them the way. Urban centers may have fantastic fisheries running through them, but unless there's a way to access them, then it's all theoretical unless you have a boat.

More access, more open lands (Let's not forget great private lands access programs are out there at the state and federal level and through programs like LWCF) and more mentors who will show kids how it's done are what is needed to maintain hunting and angling as sustainable methods of wildlife management. According to this EPA study, between 1982 & 2012 there has been a 58% increase in developed land with associated impacts to ecological function for what's left. Overlay that with urbanization & increased human populations and it's clear that we're losing those close-to-town spots, and as people have to travel farther, fewer will continue to hunt.

Access to critters, close to where you live, and focusing on the cost of it locally is how we keeps kids interested. Most of us grew up in a world where we could walk out the door and find a spot to hunt or fish pretty easily, but when we moved from Wyoming to Texas, I stopped every kind of outdoor activity except for partying in the park & running from cops.

Great discussion. Thanks for starting it, @Outdoor-enthusiast24 !

 

[SAJ-99]

Because it's the poor people that are dumb and not graduating?

I was being facetious.

 

[jt13]

If those students decide to claim residency, then great. But they are choosing to stay on their parents taxes so the deduction continues, and they don't pay necessarily taxes in the state they're going to school in unless they have jobs as well. If College kids want resident status, then they should be residents in all aspects, IMO.

While I get it, establishing residency with a dorm room number for an address is tough as is using the address of the monthly leased apartment you may rent over the summer or a yearly leased college house. I lived through it a decade ago and it was a pain even when spending the whole year in-state. To become a resident, I ultimately used the address of a relative that lived in that state so that I would at least have somewhere I could "establish residency" and wouldn't have to change my driver's license, vehicle registration, car insurance, ect. twice a year as I moved around the university.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While I get it, establishing residency with a dorm room number for an address is tough as is using the address of the monthly leased apartment you may rent over the summer or a yearly leased college house. I lived through it a decade ago and it was a pain even when spending the whole year in-state. To become a resident, I ultimately used the address of a relative that lived in that state so that I would at least have somewhere I could "establish residency" and wouldn't have to change my driver's license, vehicle registration, car insurance, ect. twice a year as I moved around the university.

What you are describing is an administrative issue relative to establishing residency. That requires an administrative solution, as opposed to eliminating revenue streams for wildlife conservation in order to get cheap tags.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

I was blown away by this. When I invited my Eagle River buddy to join me on POW this year, he said , "Why not, I get the license and tag for free. " Then he said the AK Air gives him a deal as well.
This fueled my desire to move to SE Alaska even more.

Plus no state income tax, no sales tax, a permanent fund dividend check for every member of the family, no ticks, fire ants, gators, snakes, poison ivy, etc.

 

[brownbear932008]

Plus no state income tax, no sales tax, a permanent fund dividend check for every member of the family, no ticks, fire ants, gators, snakes, poison ivy, etc.

That's it I'm packing it appears Juneau and Fairbanks are incentive hard to fill post at my agency. Win Win!

 

[44hunter45]

Because it's the poor people that are dumb and not graduating?

What? Is there a test given to ascertain a student's odds of completion in order to get the privilege of $100k+ in student loans?

 

[1_pointer]

What? Is there a test given to ascertain a student's odds of completion in order to get the privilege of $100k+ in student loans?

I took one, it was called FAFSA.

Then again, my amount of sympathy/pity/understanding for folks racking up huge amounts of student debt is very low...

 

[jt13]

What? Is there a test given to ascertain a student's odds of completion in order to get the privilege of $100k+ in student loans?

My comment was in reference to someone making the association of increasing non-resident tuition to improve graduation rates. As if pricing out the less privileged non-residents students, that already graduate at a higher percentage than residents, would lead to higher graduation rate.

The test given to gauge a students odds of completion are the university's academic acceptance standards and policies.... Then they're afforded the privilege of $100k + in loans.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I took one, it was called FAFSA.

Then again, my amount of sympathy/pity/understanding for folks racking up huge amounts of student debt is very low...

Those factors (T&B) exist everywhere. Quick Google search: Tulane grad rate is 83% (it does have some legit academic value). Hell, even Arizona State is 67%. Montana State is 53%, but in the counter argument, the non-resident grad rate is 60% so it is pulling that overall number up. Maybe Montana should start charging more of out-of-state tuition?

I was just being a sass-hole, yeah distractions exist everywhere, I don’t think location or access to activities matter one bit, some students will thrive some won’t.

Education is complicated like everything. There is not a quick easy fix.

IMHO Montana has some of the best educational opportunities in the country.

Im glad the state has seen the value in keeping prices low and within reach of the middle-class.

FAFSA is ridiculous and broken. I’m so glad that our 10 years of it are over and I don’t relish having to do it down the road for our future children.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t think location or access to activities matter one bit, some students will thrive some won’t.

Absolutely.
Don't want to derail the thread. Some people have pointed out the importance of success in building interest. I have wondered if the younger generation is less willing to endure failure. They get cheat codes for video games for example. There will be plenty of failure in life and especially big-game hunting. Killing something isn't an end-game onto itself, IMO. Getting them in the outdoors is step one, but then getting to enjoy the process is more important. Along those lines, I suspect the increase in tag applications we are seeing this year will eventually trail off back to trend because applying and not drawing might annoy some into doing something else.

 

[1_pointer]

Absolutely.
Don't want to derail the thread. Some people have pointed out the importance of success in building interest. I have wondered if the younger generation is less willing to endure failure. They get cheat codes for video games for example. There will be plenty of failure in life and especially big-game hunting. Killing something isn't an end-game onto itself, IMO. Getting them in the outdoors is step one, but then getting to enjoy the process is more important. Along those lines, I suspect the increase in tag applications we are seeing this year will eventually trail off back to trend because applying and not drawing might annoy some into doing something else.

A good hunting partner and I have discussed failure in relation to hunting drive a bunch. Each of us have two sons that I have killed more deer by their 12 birthday than we had done by the time we graduated high school. While they go, they do not seem to have the desire that we did. Granted this is our memory of the amount of desire we had. Him and I often wonder, if we haven't set our sons up for too much success. To them its 'easy' and to use it was a struggle to overcome. Dunno. Very well could tie into the part I bolded in that with too much failure lots of the younger generation will quit. That also could be related to how we, hunters collectively, define success. I've caught myself doing it with my own sons. No I try to focus on them being a part of the decision making process and the whole thing being F U N. Don't know if it's right or wrong, but I'm gonna give it a go.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

I agree with everyone above.

While a noble idea, new hunters should be focused on hunting in their backyards rather than western trips. Western hunter/application numbers are skyrocketing and tag numbers are declining. You'll get little support by suggesting we add more rocket fuel. Western license prices aren't inhibiting new hunter recruitment.

Very Judgey and presumptuous telling someone where they should be focused on hunting.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

It is no secret; the number of hunters is declining. According to the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, we have lost 2.2 million hunters between 2011 to 2016. Baby Boomers make up roughly 1/3 of all hunters and we know they are aging. What does that matter? Well according to the Wildlife Management Institute’s director Matt Dunfree, “If you watch the demographic shift of license purchases by age, what you find is that when people hit their late 60s and early 70s, regardless of how much you incentivize them, they stop hunting and fishing.” Which means in 15 years we could see the numbers of hunters decline another 30 percent.

We have all heard about R3; recruitment, retainment, and reactivation. These programs have not done a good job tracking their results so making a conclusion of the efficacy is difficult. However, as the number of hunting license sales decline if can be hypothesized we are only reaching those kids who come from a background/family of hunters. One R3 event is not enough to pull a child from a non-hunting family into the lifestyle. Parents don’t have disposable income, ample time, and may have their own competing interests. However, 18-25-year-olds have time, income, and the interest that may develop them into lifelong outdoor men and women.

I know we all compete for access and spots, but without lowering the barriers of entry we will soon find there are not enough of us to have a loud enough voice to protect what we love. I will quote Randy Newberg here and say, “the answer to public pressure is not less hunters, it is more access.”

Here is my proposal: For applicants (18 to 25 years old) for big game animals in the west, non-resident applicants pay resident charges. Applicants would still need to follow all of the laws and would be restricted to the same non-resident license numbers. Their cost of entering the game would just be less. This would allow someone with the time and not the money to expose themselves to the experience. He or she has that first bull elk scream in their face and they are now hooked for life. They buy hunting licenses for their lifetime, supporting conservation and they are another voice for the lifestyle. As they get older and have more disposable income, they will be able to pay the non-resident fees and continue supporting the land and wildlife.

Curious to hear peoples thoughts on this idea. I know that it would likely worsen draw odds with more applicants applying, but would improve hunting numbers in the long run and help support keeping wild places wild.

Source for my numbers and interesting article: https://www.outdoorlife.com/why-we-are-losing-hunters-and-how-to-fix-it/

I think its an interesting Idea but should be market based, meaning that not every State would agree that hunter involvement would be down. It could be a good lever for the State that feels the need to do it. It is however true that hunters would be outnumbered by other public land use users and if we don't change either the number of hunters or shooters who participate in excise taxation or change how it's funded, then wildlife will suffer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Absolutely.
Don't want to derail the thread. Some people have pointed out the importance of success in building interest. I have wondered if the younger generation is less willing to endure failure. They get cheat codes for video games for example. There will be plenty of failure in life and especially big-game hunting. Killing something isn't an end-game onto itself, IMO. Getting them in the outdoors is step one, but then getting to enjoy the process is more important. Along those lines, I suspect the increase in tag applications we are seeing this year will eventually trail off back to trend because applying and not drawing might annoy some into doing something else.

The "younger generation" convo is so ridiculous and trite.

To drawing part... maybe, I mean when BuzzH started applying for tags versus when I did were very different times. There is basically no chance I will ever draw anything, so I can certainly see myself bagging out on the whole thing and focusing on hunts I can do every year.

A good hunting partner and I have discussed failure in relation to hunting drive a bunch. Each of us have two sons that I have killed more deer by their 12 birthday than we had done by the time we graduated high school. While they go, they do not seem to have the desire that we did. Granted this is our memory of the amount of desire we had. Him and I often wonder, if we haven't set our sons up for too much success. To them its 'easy' and to use it was a struggle to overcome. Dunno. Very well could tie into the part I bolded in that with too much failure lots of the younger generation will quit. That also could be related to how we, hunters collectively, define success. I've caught myself doing it with my own sons. No I try to focus on them being a part of the decision making process and the whole thing being F U N. Don't know if it's right or wrong, but I'm gonna give it a go.

I camped a ton growing up, wasn't super into it at the time. Didn't camp at all in college, came back to it on my own terms in my late 20s. It's different for every person.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

You guys keep toiling on and on about this whole thing. I gave you the answer. Its ACCESS....If there is ACCESS there will always be enough hunters around maybe not all time record numbers but there will be enough. It's in our DNA to hunt, fish, and gather to provide for ourselves thats not just gonna go away.
If there is no ACCESS tho it involuntarily will go away.

 

[jt13]

Very Judgey and presumptuous telling someone where they should be focused on hunting.

People can focus on hunting wherever they like.

My statement was about how non-resident hunting prices aren't inhibiting the recruitment of new hunters. The same way that Ferarri prices aren't keeping 16 year olds from buying their first car

 

[Ben Lamb]

You guys keep toiling on and on about this whole thing. I gave you the answer. Its ACCESS....If there is ACCESS there will always be enough hunters around maybe not all time record numbers but there will be enough. It's in our DNA to hunt, fish, and gather to provide for ourselves thats not just gonna go away.
If there is no ACCESS tho it involuntarily will go away.

100% This.

Urban Fisheries are probably the best recruitment effort out there for introducing people to blood sports. But we don't realize that. Some of the issues outlined in this article apply to what we're discussing here. It's not just communities of color that face this. I can think of places all across the west where the issues of equality in outdoor spaces is prefaced by economics, and not just race.

Segregated parks linked to higher COVID-19 deaths for Black and Latino Americans

Experts have long called for Black and Latino neighborhoods to have better access to parks to improve community health. Coronavirus highlights that.

www.usatoday.com