Nick87
Well-known member
I do the application for usually 3 or 4 of us and I know they're all to cheap so I just tack it on and give them the total. What they don't know won't hurt them.
Are hunter numbers down?
- Thread starter lastlight
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I know so. There are many years pre the 1980's Canada geese wouldn't stop in Illinois until they hit Rend lake. Now it takes a ton of snow to push them that far. When I was a kid, if a flock snow geese stopped in central Illinois it made the paper. Today there are outfitters to hunt them. Pheasants rabbits and quail all had the same trend. It was the disappearance of that marginal cover along fence rows that supported them.
People used the same BS excuses you see today, just different predators. Too many raccoons, skunks, coyotes, whatever. But the answer is always habitat. The decline of potential nesting areas led to nests being easier to find for those predators, so there is some factual context, but the answer is always better habitat. People would pheasant hunt again if there were pheasants to shoot.
Nick87
Well-known member
Oh I'm totally familiar with the geese not making it to rend anymore. Used to be the capitol. I just don't know that I believe it's from no till. I think it's more of a weather pattern change and the floods in the nineties that changed a lot of flight patterns as well. 9 times out of 10 ducks and geese here are feeding in tilled fields over no till.
Nick87
Well-known member
Also I agree its habitat is the major factor. But raccoon skunk etc numbers do reak havoc on a lot of nests especially waterfowl and I'm presuming pheasants as well. Some of the research that delta has done in the pothole region supports predator control on coons and skunks has a significant return on those numbers. I mean nobody hunts or traps those things anymore.
Last edited:
Nick87
Well-known member
If you shot a Canada goose back in the day you were a local legend. Now you have to fight them for parking spaces at walmart.
seeth07
Well-known member
Waterfowl is probably a poor choice for an example here. Waterfowl in North America are an exception to the overall downward trend of wildlife. There isn't a better time to be a waterfowl hunter
seeth07
Well-known member
I lied. It was better before market hunting destroyed populations
BuzzH
Well-known member
or an elk hunter, unless you're @rjthehunter.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think they are a good example of a lot of things. Particularly how little changes like CRP can have a big impact on pops. And how little changes we don't think of like no-till farming and nuclear cooling lakes can affect hunting and hunter numbers.
We all have tendency to the most obvious thing for a problem but it is usually way more complicated.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Oh, you want to do this again? Yeah, elk hunting private land every year in WY as a resident is great isn't it?
I thought NRs weren't doing anything positive for WY, and you could thrive without NRs?
BuzzH
Well-known member
rjthe"hunter",
I've shot ONE elk of the 86 I've shot on private land that was not open to the public, in Montana in 1983:
So, to answer your question, I wouldn't have any idea if elk hunting on private every year in Wyoming is great. You'll have to ask someone that has that kind of access, I don't.
As to question 2, you shouldn't think.
I wonder if the person preparing the chart in the OP read the methodology pages, specifically this paragraph?
rjthehunter
Well-known member
No, I doubt Matt read that, but if he did he ignored it. It wouldn't fit his narrative then.
FI460
Well-known member
I think he did mention that in the video he shared.
But what other resources do we have? The USFWS report appears to be the best nationwide data out there.
I suppose a guy could go to each state agency and compile resident hunting licenses sold over time. That seems like a pretty gargantuan task though.
Point is, these USFWS surveys have never told us how many unique hunters bought licenses. As some pointed out, a lot of people duplicate, triplicate, or in my situation, would be counted 7 times if it was just licenses sold.
And, if we only look at it on a nation-wide basis, it ignores that some states might be feeling more crowded due to that state having an increase while nationally there was a decrease. I got the Montana numbers between resident and non-resident. Pretty interesting. Resident license sales dropped some, in total, decreasing some areas and slightly increasing in other license types. During a period when resident population grew 11.8%.
A hunter is a resident in only one state, so looking at the resident license sales in every state would get rid of the duplicity of counting people like me multiple times. I know Mark Dudda of Responsive Management has done a ton of surveys on this and he has spoke to the growing trend of hunters buying licenses in multiple states and how that requires more analysis to understand the true numbers.
I would encourage people who want to debate this topic to get the resident v. non-resident license sales, by state. Yes, it would be a bit of work. But, if either side wants to make a claim of increase/decrease and do so with knowingly incomplete or incorrect data, they are likely doing so to arrive at a number that supports their own narrative. And having it by state of residency, as shown above, is likely more beneficial.
And, if we only look at it on a nation-wide basis, it ignores that some states might be feeling more crowded due to that state having an increase while nationally there was a decrease. I got the Montana numbers between resident and non-resident. Pretty interesting. Resident license sales dropped some, in total, decreasing some areas and slightly increasing in other license types. During a period when resident population grew 11.8%.
A hunter is a resident in only one state, so looking at the resident license sales in every state would get rid of the duplicity of counting people like me multiple times. I know Mark Dudda of Responsive Management has done a ton of surveys on this and he has spoke to the growing trend of hunters buying licenses in multiple states and how that requires more analysis to understand the true numbers.
I would encourage people who want to debate this topic to get the resident v. non-resident license sales, by state. Yes, it would be a bit of work. But, if either side wants to make a claim of increase/decrease and do so with knowingly incomplete or incorrect data, they are likely doing so to arrive at a number that supports their own narrative. And having it by state of residency, as shown above, is likely more beneficial.
atlas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Messages
- 421
Andrew McKean:
"Acre-for-acre, private land tends to hold more game than public land. So, why don’t we lobby for a portion of our P-R funds to go to private-land access programs and use the windfall of new-hunter recruitment to add more land for these newcomers—as well as us veterans—to hunt."
He has some generous neighbors at least.
Edited by Big Fin to remove screen shot.
"Acre-for-acre, private land tends to hold more game than public land. So, why don’t we lobby for a portion of our P-R funds to go to private-land access programs and use the windfall of new-hunter recruitment to add more land for these newcomers—as well as us veterans—to hunt."
He has some generous neighbors at least.
Edited by Big Fin to remove screen shot.
Last edited by a moderator:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Does that data take into account a hunter that holds multiple tags?
@atlas - I edited your post to get rid of the aerial of Andrew’s property.
You might get to use your HQ platform to make ignorant comments about people, but you’re not gonna use my platforms for your chickenshit cheap shots aimed at people who have had their shoulder to the wheel back when some of you guys were in high school. Andrew has done so much for hunting and conservation. Your post is a reflection on you and HQ, not him.
Yes, Andrew is a friend of mine. A friendship that has come through decades of work together on conservation and hunting issues. Through that friendship I’ve come to know his generosity and charitable nature, especially with the most valuable and scarce asset, his time. I’ve never hunted Andrew’s property, but I know a lot of people have and they didn’t have to pay a dime. You don't have to be in BM to be a good landowner. But, if the landowner doesn't meet the HQ litmus test, nothing else matters.
Let’s see, Andrew coaches a high school cross country team, he volunteers on the MT Wilderness Society Board, he volunteers on a national hunting organization Board, he volunteers for just about everything in his community, he mentors new hunters, assisted the tribes with their hunter mentor/training, teaches Hunter’s Education, he (insert a lot more here) …..
You can hack on me all you want. To post somebody’s property on a forum, because you wanna make some grade school level attack on them and their character, isn't happening here. Nor am I gonna put up with the HQ attacks on all the other conservation volunteers made when Matt starts his conspiracy theories about how NGOs are just a front for the hunting industry and media people. That's a kick in the crotch to every person who volunteers for these groups or works for these groups at wages far below what they could make in private industry.
I've got pretty thick skin, but when volunteers become the target, I'm not gonna let it happen on my platforms.
You might get to use your HQ platform to make ignorant comments about people, but you’re not gonna use my platforms for your chickenshit cheap shots aimed at people who have had their shoulder to the wheel back when some of you guys were in high school. Andrew has done so much for hunting and conservation. Your post is a reflection on you and HQ, not him.
Yes, Andrew is a friend of mine. A friendship that has come through decades of work together on conservation and hunting issues. Through that friendship I’ve come to know his generosity and charitable nature, especially with the most valuable and scarce asset, his time. I’ve never hunted Andrew’s property, but I know a lot of people have and they didn’t have to pay a dime. You don't have to be in BM to be a good landowner. But, if the landowner doesn't meet the HQ litmus test, nothing else matters.
Let’s see, Andrew coaches a high school cross country team, he volunteers on the MT Wilderness Society Board, he volunteers on a national hunting organization Board, he volunteers for just about everything in his community, he mentors new hunters, assisted the tribes with their hunter mentor/training, teaches Hunter’s Education, he (insert a lot more here) …..
You can hack on me all you want. To post somebody’s property on a forum, because you wanna make some grade school level attack on them and their character, isn't happening here. Nor am I gonna put up with the HQ attacks on all the other conservation volunteers made when Matt starts his conspiracy theories about how NGOs are just a front for the hunting industry and media people. That's a kick in the crotch to every person who volunteers for these groups or works for these groups at wages far below what they could make in private industry.
I've got pretty thick skin, but when volunteers become the target, I'm not gonna let it happen on my platforms.
That's the question always asked when these surveys come out. I think it is part of why they are changing the survey methodology that I posted above.
The expert behind this is Mark Dudda. He knows more about this than anyone I've ever talked to. When I've asked about prior reports, his group cautioned about using them for "hunter numbers," as they reflected licenses sold and some hunters were counted multiple times.
I am not sure if that has been corrected in this data. I hope so.
I wish the USFWS would publish resident license sales by state. I know they have it, as it is part of the P-R allocation work they do. That would get us to the answer.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Was curious because I was wondering about the big jump in NR hunters. I was thinking it may have to do with elk b tag sales or NRs snapping up leftover deer b tags, or a combo of both?
It's probably been thought about but comparing tag purchases with unique conservation license numbers would stop counting the same hunter with multiple tags
Similar threads
