Is social media hurting the great outdoors experience?

[Cornell2012]

thank you for the concise reply. These are all very good points. However, I just have not seen something that you and other folks keep alluding to: that hunting was being threatened and was on the brink of being done away with and therefore we needed to recruit millions of additional hunters to "have on our side" to protect the sport. I don't get that. And it is my personal opinion that that is just a talking point to justify business pursuits that pertain to hunting.

I understand your perspective. I don't think hunting was in death throes, but I was concerned long-term about the decreasing participation and the aging-out of the participants. I think part of this also relates to where you live and who your friends are. When I lived in MT, I thought almost everyone hunted. I wore camo to school some days. When I moved away, I saw a very different perspective - that hunters were not doing a good job of talking to the "other side." I also discovered that there is ground to talk to those people by focusing on food and conservation and showing respect to the animals.

I think that in another 20 years we would have seen a lot more places start to look like California (strict gun laws, frequent ballots for criminalizing things like trapping, etc.). The shifts in hunting demographics over the last few years have pushed that fight out for now.

 

[dgc1963]

I do not understand the draw of all the social media I had FB for a few yrs abt 8 yrs ago never did any of the others
And have family members that cant even get through a dinner without checking their phones, I dont carry mine when im not working. Yes im old 58 lol and old fashioned I dont need to video my hunts every step and if Im calling an elk last thing on my mind is is it on camera
Just my opinion but the world seemed a bit better when everyone wasnt on their phone 23 hrs a day Ill call a friend once in a while and wake them up in the morning I always feel bad and say why is your phone in the bedroom I tell them I do 2 things in my bedroom and dont need a phone for either one, some may have to think about that for a bit lol

 

[Deleted member 28227]

my problem/point is this:

Elk and deer are not unlimited. Ford can make as many trucks as the market demands. However, the mountains cannot produce as many critters as the hunting "market" will soon be demanding. Either the hunting "market"/demand burns up the resource, or a given hunter will only be able to hunt every X number of years. So either the quality of the hunt diminishes or the opportunity to hunt diminishes. In my opinion that is where things are headed.

I agree, I will not have the same hunting experience BuzzH did. That's just a fact. I won't draw multiple or possibly any sheep tags, I might not hunt elk every year.

But it's my believe that without promoting hunting, and it's importance there won't be any hunting.

Illustrative example
1950
10 million hunters
150 million Americans

6.6% pop are hunters

2021

14 million hunters
328 million Americans

4.2% pop are hunters

So even though hunters grew by 140% you still have a smaller % of the population. Change hunters to outdoor recreation and the numbers are probably more extreme.

If there isn't a sizeable minority of people in this country that want hunting/ and wild lands then we won't have them. There are constant attacks on hunting and on the places we hunt.

 

[BirdManMike]

I agree, I will not have the same hunting experience BuzzH did. That's just a fact. I won't draw multiple or possibly any sheep tags, I might not hunt elk every year.

But it's my believe that without promoting hunting, and it's importance there won't be any hunting.

Illustrative example
1950
10 million hunters
150 million Americans

6.6% pop are hunters

2021

14 million hunters
328 million Americans

4.2% pop are hunters

So even though hunters grew by 140% you still have a smaller % of the population. Change hunters to outdoor recreation and the numbers are probably more extreme.

If there isn't a sizeable minority of people in this country that want hunting/ and wild lands then we won't have them. There are constant attacks on hunting and on the places we hunt.

40%. Hunter number grew by 40%.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

40%. Hunter number grew by 40%.

It's inconceivable that I could have made a mistake, therefore;

You are a socialist

 

[BirdManMike]

It's inconceivable that I could have made a mistake, therefore;

You are a socialist

спасибо товарищ!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

спасибо товарищ!

 

[The Hedgehog]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CNtFJ40CWVi/?utm_medium=copy_link

 

[MTLabrador]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CNtFJ40CWVi/?utm_medium=copy_link

That is the best thing I’ve seen all week.

 

[lastlight]

I’m still trying to wrap my brain around grown men being on social media taking selfie’s and posting thirsty captions like a bunch of school girls.

 

[BlazerBeam]

40%. Hunter number grew by 40%.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that a "hunter" in the 1950's was not a star struck gear junkie like a "hunter" in 2021. And the raw increase in numbers of hunters have mainly been western states hunters.

 

[DouglasR]

@BlazerBeam post your setup if it’s so bad then.
How many bulls a year do you kill?

 

[cedahm]

40%. Hunter number grew by 40%.

@Hunting Wife - is there a talkie category for ‘caught an @wllm1313 math error’?

order of magnitude aside, a 36% drop in the percentage of Americans that hunt is not a good bellwether for continued advocacy. Especially given the age demographics of the remaining 4.2%

I feel like Meateater alone has prolonged the political life of hunting by at least a generation. The more advocates we have (including those that do not hunt but have a positive view of it) the easier it will be to keep the sport alive.

I travel a lot for work and have for decades, so I interact with a lot of people all across the US and abroad from all kinds of different backgrounds. I will say it is downright rare to run across a fellow hunter. I made a very similar comment to Matthew‘s just last week at a dinner with a dozen people of which I was the only one that had hunted (at least since everyone’s respective childhoods). I encouraged them to take a look at Meateater (and I included Randy and even the bro-ish YT guys like BRO/Hush) - as that group have slowed that clock down by portraying hunting in the accessible, thoughtful, intelligent and dare I say ‘nuanced’ manner that they all have.

The genesis of that dinner conversation was last weeks shooting of the archer in SW CO And one of my guys knowing I am a passionate archery elk hunter. Had we not had the conversation, those folks would have doubtless thought something more along the lines of ‘just more idiot gun toting guys shooting at random movement in the woods’ - and I say doubtless because that was the first comment.

I roll my eyes at a lot of the hunting stuff out there, but of done well, it’s valuable, positive marketing and should continue to be.

 

[noharleyyet]

40%. Hunter number grew by 40%.

Do you realize that you just hit a double off of Satchel Paige?

 

[VikingsGuy]

my problem/point is this:

Elk and deer are not unlimited. Ford can make as many trucks as the market demands. However, the mountains cannot produce as many critters as the hunting "market" will soon be demanding. Either the hunting "market"/demand burns up the resource, or a given hunter will only be able to hunt every X number of years. So either the quality of the hunt diminishes or the opportunity to hunt diminishes. In my opinion that is where things are headed. If there is truth to that, then why do guys continue to sell and market hunting?
You cannot compare a manufactured good to a very fragile resource and say that both fall within the realm of capitalism.

Here is the point you are missing. Fairness amongst shared owners and the effect of hunting on the limited animal population doesn't change between scenarios of 1,000 applicants for 500 tags vs 10,000 applicants for 500 tags. The biology of the limited resource is the SAME. And if done randomly, the resulting fairness/equity for all the shared owners is the same.

What is different is that if one of the original 1,000 could somehow block the extra 9,000 hunters from applying - then their personal odds would be much better while having ZERO effect on animal populations. And how could we achieve this? Well, what if we give the vested initial hunters extra chances in the draw that keep them ahead in the drawing process for much of a lifetime, or maybe let hunters have their parents buy them preferential draw status when they are still in diapers, or maybe half our population (women) shouldn't be encouraged to hunt, or maybe the 80% of the population who don't live within easy access of hunting should be discouraged from even trying, or what if folks from other places have to pay more, or what if nobody knew how to do it unless their father taught them because we over-tax and regulate 1A protected speech of public hunting advocates who use modern media, or we give outfitters and landowners transferable tags to "sell" to their long time clients, or what if minorities were not welcome, or, or, or . . .

So, the premise of "hunting media is bad for animal populations" is just a ruse for one owner trying to cut a fellow co-owner out of an equal chance to share the enjoyment of their shared resource. But then again, so many other parts of the western big game hunting game are being done for the same reason.

 

[Irrelevant]

I was going to post about how BS this decline in hunter numbers were but it turns out I shouldn't be complaining too much... though F COVID

 

[BlazerBeam]

@BlazerBeam post your setup if it’s so bad then.
How many bulls a year do you kill?

Usually one. Some years have been none. 10 years ago and back until I was 12 it was one every year. But I have never hunted anywhere else other than my home state of MT. All of my hunting interests and energy have been focused only on my state, and very specific areas of the state. So it has been very easy and clear for me to see how hunting in MT has changed over the years. Elk behavior, elk density, hunting pressure, age class, etc. Now it's just boots on the ground observation, not official data. But public, general units used to be prime areas to harvest mature age class bulls. Now, if those areas do have good elk numbers, the age class is very low. Many on here are aware of the private land problems in MT as it pertains to elk, but 20-30 years ago that didn't matter as much because there was less pressure on public, general units.

 

[TOGIE]

Usually one. Some years have been none. 10 years ago and back until I was 12 it was one every year. But I have never hunted anywhere else other than my home state of MT. All of my hunting interests and energy have been focused only on my state, and very specific areas of the state. So it has been very easy and clear for me to see how hunting in MT has changed over the years. Elk behavior, elk density, hunting pressure, age class, etc. Now it's just boots on the ground observation, not official data. But public, general units used to be prime areas to harvest mature age class bulls. Now, if those areas do have good elk numbers, the age class is very low. Many on here are aware of the private land problems in MT as it pertains to elk, but 20-30 years ago that didn't matter as much because there was less pressure on public, general units.

yeah i dunno, sounds like your gripe might be better directed towards your legislature. not Rinella, Newberg, and their minions.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Elk behavior, . . . etc.

When the prey adapts, so must the hunter . . .


I have no sympathy that after a very long time of getting more than your far share due to the opaqueness of the opportunity, you object to improving opportunities for your felllow co-owners.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I was going to post about how BS this decline in hunter numbers were but it turns out I shouldn't be complaining too much... though F COVID

View attachment 195885