Again, you are letting your local bias and situation significantly impact your feelings on the issue. There is serious warrant to it and how it impacts hunter numbers but the data chart provided above does not need to have "huntable acres" depicted on it as the national level because you would see a pretty near flat line
Nope.
Yes there has. I don't know if these numbers are published anywhere, but it would be an interesting comparison of land opened up vs land lost.
No that can't be your just using your bias and your situation aka real world experience affect that.
Please expand on this. I can think of solar fields, creation of reservoirs. What else do you have?
This is what I'm dealing with where I live in Kentucky! What was once easy access to small and large farms is now gone. Outfitters have came in and offered outrageous prices to lease land. Also wealthy out of staters have leased what's left. The farmers who also hunt only want large antlered bucks like the ones they see on tv so they keep people off because they themselves are also competing with the farm next door that is leased or run by an outfitter. Land prices themselves have gone through the roof. So now all these hunters who once had decent places to hunt have either quite, been forced to hunt public land in the same state or decide to spend their time and efforts pursuing tags out west. What we are left with is plenty of game animals but no place to hunt because we are out priced.
The "huntable acreage" has not changed though. Only who can hunt it.
Yes mostly correct, there has been quite a few lost to development, more houses on the landscape and subdivisions being added. But for example what used to be a 500 acre farm being hunted by 7 or 8 people is now only being hunted by 1 or 2. So where do the other 5 or 6 go? They quit or go to public! Most the time public in another state.
Another great point. Lots of private access that was once shared by different types hunters is now used for one exclusive reason. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a small game hunter around anywhere in the state that on private with the exception of shooting squirrels behind there house on a 4 acre lot. None of the deer hunters want them messing up a chance at there "hit list buck" so they got the boot years ago. Same goes with pheasant hunters, not so much even because of access but the pheasants here are GONE. So wipe them out of the equation as well.
Probably but I still don't think you will ever be able to get an accurate data. For example where I live if you own 5 acres or more you don't have to purchase a hunting license to hunt your own property. Amish never buy a hunting license but they put a hurtin on game year round because of their religion. So not sure how you would be able to capture those types of hunters numbers.
I actually disagree but only a fine picky detail about this statement.
It's a multitude of factors. There were significant changes in farming practices, particularly a move to fencerow-to-fencerow farming that took a lot of habitat away. Pheasant and rabbit hunting in the midwest was great in the 70's and early 80's. Today, every farmer has to squeeze every acre and maximize output to make a living, and a landowner has to make a conscious effort to attract and retain wildlife. That all helped push people toward the leasing model.
