Free hunting social media is not free

[Pucky Freak]

a hick from buenie iowa in shit covered coveralls.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Pick a side, damn.

I think that’s half our problem right there.

Is it envy towards the $30k hunts and because Randy's hunt style is the $3k variety, something most can stomach more than $30k, that's OK?

Modeling products using dead animals from hunts inaccessible to 99% of the population, when the hunt is portrayed as an experience more than 1% of the population can access is messed up.

The chief complaints are emotional which make the arguement dumb. You (the general) don't like someone else dipping their balls (hunting) in your girl (unit/wma/etc). She's not courting you. She's out having fun, and you think she's your girl.

My first hunting season was 1991. I know how to avoid pressure. I give away spots to new hunters and find new ones for myself.

I love sharing the woods with hunters. I’m not thrilled about sharing the woods with gear models (hunting influencers), because they kill for content. If they didn’t get paid to kill semi-loads of game every year, they wouldn’t do it.

Hunters got rid of commercial wild game meat markets because we wanted something else for our natural resources.

Commercial wild game markets are now back in force - see diagram in OP. Hunters can again decide to put the zombie down 100 years later. “No dead or dying native game animal may be used in media advertising.” Gear companies are going to quit doing tech research? Really? Maybe we can get hunters back out in the field again and get the revenue harvesters out.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Less hunters doing way more hunting is what I think it boils down to.

Guy above says he has 14 tags to fill this year. Maybe you're onto something.

QQ

 

[trackerbacker]

View attachment 291964

I knew, knew in my heart...that if I got a response like that...I was talking to an Iowan.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Guy above says he has 14 tags to fill this year. Maybe you're onto something.

QQ

Full transparency. Sounds like a lot, but when you break it down, I do eat it.

0/2 on spring turkey
2 fall turkey. On average I fill about 40% of those tags.
2 WY pronghorn and deer. Very likely to fill both tags.
8 resident whitetail. 5 of them are for the same animal, b/c you buy a separate tag for each season. 2 are buck tags - I fill less than 20% of those.

I have a family of 6, and we eat about 5 adult deer a year plus turkeys and small game.

 

[WapitiBob]

I've had a hunting license for the last 55 years and other than a cpl private land walk-in's in WY, can't recall losing any access where I hunt or have hunted in OR, ID, NM, UT, WY, or AZ. The biggest threat to my hunting access would be transferring federal forests or BLM to the states.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Full transparency. Sounds like a lot, but when you break it down, I do eat it.

0/2 on spring turkey
2 fall turkey. On average I fill about 40% of those tags.
2 WY pronghorn and deer. Very likely to fill both tags.
8 resident whitetail. 5 of them are for the same animal, b/c you buy a separate tag for each season. 2 are buck tags - I fill less than 20% of those.

I have a family of 6, and we eat about 5 adult deer a year plus turkeys and small game.

The number 14 stands out to me, because I keep track of myself, my wife, 3 kids, and a son-in-law. Discounting fall bear and cougar tags, as we won't target them and have never fired a shot on either of those tags, we will have between 6 of us this fall...14 tags.

I don't blame you for buying and hunting those tags, but I think the original point stands. We want to spend a ton of time in the woods and then complain about other people spending a ton of time in the woods.

QQ

 

[trackerbacker]

the original point stands. We want to spend a ton of time in the woods and then complain about other people spending a ton of time in the woods.

This is it.

The claim - too many hunters (false)
The claim - influencers (false)
The claim - less land (so far-false)
The claim - too many hunters per hour per acre ÷ season × .0276 coefficient (finally, one so obscure its hard to disprove, but it's false too)

Much like @WapitiBob I can not name an acre that was closed/sold/removed from public in the states i hunt or have hunted. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but to the level that it's push soooooooooooooooo mannnnnyyyyy statewide hunters into so few lands, is utter bs.

And since we're on it, hunter numbers have been going down since before the creation of the internet, that fearful thing so many units are posted on. Actually, every unit. So many influencers are on. So many Newberg/ rinella/pick a hosts. Gosh darn even things.

It's just....too much Matt rinella esque. Only I should hunt, and if you hunt, it must be my way, or it's not tradition, because its too hard now for me. Like the high school qb from 1983 sitting at the bar, why he could've and should've been the cowboys qb except that one thing that one time that one person did.

I think that’s half our problem right there.

No, my problem is people who want to tell others how only their way is acceptable. You have the problem with how others do the act of hunting.

Modeling products using dead animals from hunts inaccessible to 99% of the population, when the hunt is portrayed as an experience more than 1% of the population can access is messed up.

There's a dude here who pulled 3 OIL tags. In one year. We should not let him post it. You're right.

My first hunting season was 1991. I know how to avoid pressure. I give away spots to new hunters and find new ones for myself.

So far then, no issue for you.

I love sharing the woods with hunters. I’m not thrilled about sharing the woods with gear models (hunting influencers), because they kill for content. If they didn’t get paid to kill semi-loads of game every year, they wouldn’t do it.

How many gear influencers have you seen in the field? Lets just say theres 1k of em. 1k out of 10, 12 million hunters?

Hunters got rid of commercial wild game meat markets because we wanted something else for our natural resources.

Commercial wild game markets are now back in force - see diagram in OP. Hunters can again decide to put the zombie down 100 years later. “No dead or dying native game animal may be used in media advertising.” Gear companies are going to quit doing tech research? Really?

in part, do you think kifaru/sg/mr/argali/newberg/rinella/marsupialgear/seek outside/knife endorsements/gun endorsements/etc would exist if not for commercialization of hunting?

Maybe we can get hunters back out in the field again and get the revenue harvesters out.

Better go after rinella, Newberg. Put your money where your mouth is.

Have you ever posted any media of your game then to here? That right there is advertising on this site. You may not make anything, but views, clicks, all that attention from quality posts is media advertising why hunttalk is xyz.

I'd imagine somewhere buried in the TOS is something to the effect of media postings here and IP etc. I could be wrong, but generally those terms exists on forum ToS.

 

[atlas]

isn't it fair to assume that if more private lands are off-limits it is going to push more hunters onto public land?

 

[antlerradar]

isn't it fair to assume that if more private lands are off-limits it is going to push more hunters onto public land?

Yes and no. Very little land is off-limits, It is just that the price is more than most are willing to pay.
For example a neighbor of mine has leased to an outfitter since the 80's. The outfitter hunts that property harder than it was ever hunted before it was leased. The difference is most of those people hunting there now are NR and before it was leased most of the hunters were local. Are some of those local hunters now hunting public, almost certainly. Were the NR hunting there now hunting public in the past, not likely, but they are likely taking some tags away from a NR that would be hunting public.
I don't think that our neighbors property is unique.

 

[atlas]

Right but let's say there's a block management area that a over 100 individual hunters a year on it and it gets leased up and now only has 5 hunters on it a year. Those 100 displaced hunters are going to be looking for a new spot.

There's a huge BMA I hunt that was almost lost to an outfitter this year it was so close that they missed the BMA contract deadline and in the end decided to remain a BMA but allow the outfitter drive in access to the NF that I have to walk to get to. I'd imagine that the BMA is at risk of being lost next year if things go well with the outfitter.

If that's the case hundreds of other hunters and I might end up in your spot next year.

 

[atlas]

Very little land is off-limits, It is just that the price is more than most are willing to pay.

Also, there are millions of acres that have been lost and are no longer wildlife habitat. I posted that figure earlier in the thread. Therefore they aren't likely getting hunted anymore. So places definitely have been permanently made off-limits.

 

[trackerbacker]

Also, there are millions of acres that have been lost and are no longer wildlife habitat. I posted that figure earlier in the thread. Therefore they aren't likely getting hunted anymore. So places definitely have been permanently made off-limits.

The article you posted noted 24 million acres lost of "nature" from 2001 to 2017.

It does not note what combination of public, private etc that was (that I saw) or where- as cities more than likely account for most of the below noted "roads/developments....", hunting was already off limits.

It does note it largely was roads, developments, buildings, pipelines. One could largely presume a builder, developer, city/state/fed are not building these smack dab in your unit. Rather, the next edge of town, and purchasing, again, presumably, from private parties.

So the 24 million acres of "nature" that was lost, how much was off limits to hunting as is, because again, you aren't building a road/building/development out in the boonies near as often as in a city, and you cant hunt in cities, or it was existing tillables as that's the most efficient manner of developing. And more trees = more profit per LF. I was in the development game, the scorched earth mentality is not nearly a presence like it once was.

Heck, if we're talking R1 zoning, color by number developments, 1/3 the land is roads and pue off the bat. Trees cost money to cut, but "wooded lots" add a premium.

Pipeline, well, imo that's lame attempt as most pipelines exist underground, and many farmers till overtop, so I'd wager that "nature" lost went from farmer Joe to PUE to fluff stats. Which, for iowa, I find the "rails to trails" (converting railroads to bike/walking trails) a dumb program as .gov uses eminent domain for pipelines. Eminent domain around the rails or sell off the "rails to trails" to pipelines.

I live in iowa, a state ranked (per the Sierra club, first Google hit) #49 in public land. Short of 1 development that "encroached" on some bird watchers, i have yet to see an acre close, but have seen many acres added through a variety of means.

The thing about it all, the land, is I'm for conservancy. That's a use cycle. I'm not for preservation, which is stare at the leaves but don't use it.

Per the GAO:

A Look at How the Government Acquires Public Lands

This Saturday is National Public Lands Day—the nation's largest single-day volunteer effort aimed at restoring and celebrating national parks, refuges, and forests. Many of these lands have belonged to the public for decades while others have been added recently as the government continues to...

www.gao.gov

Until I see someone post how much PUBLIC land we lose, seems we either add ,or get restricted from, but haven't lost PUBLIC lands in part, to be an excuse. And if we are losing hunting rights to public land, I'd wager that's far more political and its own thread.

In my search, there appears to be 15,000,000 land locked acres. Now, no one accused the .gov of thinking, but if I were a thinking civil servant, I'd wager there's enough swaps, easements, purchases that could be done to open up a grand majority of that 15m acres easier than expanding within current boundaries for 900,000 acres.

 

[atlas]

Yeah, I would assume it's generally private land that was lost. But there are big solar farms and gas developments on the public too. My point is that at one point a lot of that land was hunted, it would be impossible to know how much, but some of it certainly was. The people that hunted it were either displaced or went somewhere else. I've heard plenty of people talk about the places they hunted growing up being subdivisions now, it just depends on where you grew up. The rate of change is different everywhere. A few years ago driving with my grandpa, he pointed to a strip mall and told me he used to shoot ducks there.

I think it's amazing that we added that much public land and now it will be permanently open to hunting. If it was timer-land it was likely open to hunting already, now it's permanently open.

If the influencer hunting culture increases the pay-to-play model in Montana like many think it is. We could lose a lot more private land open to public hunting because of leasing.

 

[Nameless Range]

The idea that there isn't less land to hunt now than there was 10,20, or 30 years ago is dubious to me. I guess I can't speak to other geographies, but in the western half of Montana there's no question that the amount of acres available to hunt to the unconnected DIY hunter, which is what most hunters have been and ever-will-be, has shrunk.

Also, I think it would be a mistake to look at hunter numbers as a more meaningful metric than hunter days. Where I live, hunter days on the landscape has doubled in the last 15 years. And, again in Montana anyway, on average, individual hunters spend more days hunting per season today than they did 50 years ago.

To folks in the neck of the woods in which I live who spend time outside and have for years, the concept of hunter crowding, more and more land off limits due to development or being bought up by "nontraditional" landownership - those facts ain't controversial.

 

[WildWill]

I don't think it's only that. I think back in the day most guys hunted around home. Like over 90% hunted family or friends farm or ranches for a couple weekends a year to fill a tag or two for the year especially here in the Midwest. Now if you don't hunt every single weekend for 6 months straight and post it all to the gram are you even a real hunter? Less hunters doing way more hunting is what I think it boils down to.

Absolutely this! My dad went on 4 out of state hunts his whole life. By this December I'll be headed on my 4th for 2023. Also proud to announce I've never had a Instagram account.

 

[TheTone]

I can’t say I’ve really lost any public spots over the years but I’ve lost a ton of private land spots. Biggest causes have been development, mostly ranchettes and wanna be hobby farms/offgridders, people buying up chunks for exclusive hunting properties, and a couple to people buying land for restoration work that don’t like hunting.

I would also argue that no part of hunting has improved in my lifetime in my state outside of turkey populations and elk herds across the southern part of the state. Both are almost treated as vermin which unto itself is kinda disappointing.

Crowding is becoming a real thing and I practically feel like it’s a race to get to a spot before someone else. It took me 4 tries on Saturday to find an access point without someone already at it. I’ve called in two hunters in four days of elk hunting this year and zero elk

 

[Shangobango]

I'd like to see the graph of huntable acres since the 1970s. I'd be willing to bet that the amount of land available to hunt for the average hunter has declined at a greater rate than the number of hunters since the 1970s.

I think you are on to something.

Speaking on my area, hunter numbers have been falling steadily as measured by license sales. The number of WMA permits has remained static or even risen slightly. That is a decent measure of public land hunters.

I think this is a function of the price to lease land and the total elimination through changes in the law here of “ open” land or private land with public access. The vast majority of land is being leased or bought by a smaller and smaller number of hunters which would seem to explain the over all decline in hunters with public hunters static to slightly increasing at the same time.

 

[Arthas]

I've had a hunting license for the last 55 years and other than a cpl private land walk-in's in WY, can't recall losing any access where I hunt or have hunted in OR, ID, NM, UT, WY, or AZ. The biggest threat to my hunting access would be transferring federal forests or BLM to the states.

Count yourself lucky and i hope your spots remain unmolested. Wish i could say the same thing. Biden admin just handed out millions of dollars in grants to a resource company associated with renewables to develop thousands of acres in my one of my favorite hunting spots in Wyoming. Absolutely gorgeous spot will be completely ruined. Without tax payer funding that project would have never gotten off the ground. Pretty unfortunate.

when you add in the 26 million or whatever it was the Biden admin took off the table for resident and non resident hunters in Alaska. Then on top of that add the 20 million acres the Biden admin ordered to be committed to solar and solar related projects. All said and done, the Joseph Biden administration has or is trying to take more public land access away from hunters than the public land transfer crowd have ever been able to. Maybe someone has numbers to prove me wrong that I am not aware of?