Maybe we can’t have more hunters

[texwest44]

Absolutely,

My point @texwest44 in the original comment you replied to was that we are assuming that the current trend line will remain the trend line.

I'm actually saying exactly the opposite of this. The trend line is changing at an exorbitant rate. The "trend" of people moving to the west for lifestyle is becoming a "trend" of people moving to anywhere open to gamble on property values, and some of the largest gains to be made are in the interior west. They look similar when you're sitting on your porch watching new neighbors move in, but they're two completely different situations.

The encouragement of property gambling combined with the removal of stigma and consequences for when it goes wrong is a new phenomena, and it's going to result in some crazy stuff. Different crazy stuff than what happens when coastal bougie hippies move in because it's pretty. This is why MT should worry less about becoming a TX-UK hybrid, and worry more about becoming a clone of WA state.

 

[TOGIE]

man, guy, that sounds like some crazy stuff indeed.

 

[Trial153]

A very general but important point that shouldn't be overlooked is that we might have the mistaken belief that the level of advocacy that we see in a community like this is indicative of the entire hunting community.

 

[texwest44]

man, guy, that sounds like some crazy stuff indeed.

Let's see, you weren't a part of the conversation, you've interrupted with prison-cafeteria quality snark, and this is somehow getting a positive reaction?

This thread is worth abandoning until OP and the grown ups come back.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I still think the biggest concern is the loss of federal public land. Hunters would be best served to realize we need to build advocacy for nature more than advocacy for hunting.

After reading, and re-reading @ElkFever2 first original post I really think this is the crux for me. De-coupling hunting advocacy and conservation advocacy.

Maybe that's the point, Matt is making. We don't need more people going elk hunting, we need more people caring about elk winter range and @Trial153 even on the forum how many people actually care about habitat/conservation beyond the implications it has on their draw odds?

A point that.. BuzzH has made repeatedly

which I think brings us back to this...

What if the total number of all hunter hours = access*habitat*interest? Access and habitat are in continuous decline. Maybe this is the real reason we are at risk of losing conservation advocacy, and fewer persons hunting is simply a consequence rather than a cause.

A comprehensive approach to increasing conservation advocacy:
A. Promote habitat
B. Promote sound wildlife management
C. Promote access
D. Promote undersubscribed hunting opportunities.
E. (Painful for many) Make a strategic exit from commercial promotions of saturated hunting opportunities.

 

[KB_]

I don't see a problem with adding new hunters. But FWP needs to understand that the animals are not plentiful enough to justify the increase in pressure. We need more LE permits rather then less. I believe we need the districts to be smaller to micro manage them rather then less districts. We have to reduce the pressure so the quality of the hunt is better. Have more hunters is not a bad thing if you have LE units. This brings in more money to FWP to have more funds to work with. When you do draw your LE permit you know your gonna get a quality hunt and have to deal with less pressure. Also those LE permits should maybe have an antler restriction to 3 to 4 points to a side.

Maybe I'm completely wrong but we have to do something to reduce the pressure with the growing hunting population. Especially in montana, the popluation is going to keep growing. Now is the time to do something.

 

[KB_]

Let's see, you weren't a part of the conversation, you've interrupted with prison-cafeteria quality snark, and this is somehow getting a positive reaction?

This thread is worth abandoning until OP and the grown ups come back.

Chill,

If you cant handle a little humor then maybe this is not the place for you.

 

[vanish]

We have done a phenomenal job of promoting and getting better at hunting and killing western game

Less than 1% of hunters kill more than one big game animal in any given year.*

We might take this for granted considering the audience around this forum and the perception on social media these days, but your average hunter is NOT travel hunting multiple states and isn't that great at hunting. Many struggle just to fill the freezer ( I think it was around 30%* )

--

My take is the carrying capacity for hunters is decreasing due to our own greed. Someone with $$ can lease land for themselves to hunt that was once hunted for free by dozens of people. Given the money that can be made from selling hunts and hunting related gear, it becomes worthwhile to do this to the detriment of your own community.

This then concentrates hunters into a smaller area, further exacerbating the problem. Not only did people lose a place to hunt, other hunters are now more crowded.


*According to the recent Blood Origins podcast

 

[TheTone]

We’ve got people killing with muzzleloaders at over 600 yards, rifles at over 1000 and with bows at over 100. Granted some of those people doing so would be having success regardless but also I think some of those critters would be surviving for future years.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think there are strategies for conservation that may not actually increase hunters. If we focus on habitat conservation we can coordinate with other groups and magnify our efforts.

I am also an avid mountain biker and member of Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, as well as RMEF, in WA. We’ve learned over the years that multi-use management is just more successful. Division divides…. Drrr, and weakens the effects of all groups that are trying to have a positive effect. Yes, this means we will have to collaborate and compromise at times. If every hill is one to die on we’re going to die damn quickly.

Getting people out into the wild is key. They have to see the value in protection of habitat. People don’t tend to value what they don’t use. We need people out experiencing the wild in some way; hunting, fishing, hiking, horse back riding, camping…

We must set some differences aside and realize strength is in numbers. Focusing on collaboration with groups with similar values to protect multi-use habitat is key, and spreads the pressure out across the year.

I agree with this in concept. However, I think the time has come for hikers, campers, backpackers, boaters, and bikers to pay into process through a Pittman-Robertson tax. Manufacturers have been adamantly against it. The reality is hunters and fisherman have funded the bill for conservation for 80+ years practically alone. That can't continue forever.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree with this in concept. However, I think the time has come for hikers, campers, backpackers, boaters, and bikers to pay into process through a Pittman-Robertson tax. Manufacturers have been adamantly against it. The reality is hunters and fisherman have funded the bill for conservation for 80+ years practically alone. That can't continue forever.

Birders hate that you can hunt Refuges but then don't buy duck stamps. They might buy 5k worth of photography equipment but then never contribute a cent to habitat protection.

 

[Oak]

I propose that we would make a lot more progress on our issues in general if we spent just one fifth of the time we spend arguing it on hundreds of posts long threads on HT actually engaging the issues and writing letters to our wildlife departments, land management agencies, and elected officials. In a conversation this morning with a U.S. Senator's staffer about an egregious grazing decision the BLM is about to make, the staffer said, "the voice of the general public is missing."

 

[elkduds]

I propose that we would make a lot more progress on our issues in general if we spent just one fifth of the time we spend arguing it on hundreds of posts long threads on HT actually engaging the issues and writing letters to our wildlife departments, land management agencies, and elected officials. In a conversation this morning with a U.S. Senator's staffer about an egregious grazing decision the BLM is about to make, the staffer said, "the voice of the general public is missing."

Oak walks the talk, if you didn't already know that. As do many others here. In the past I posted a suggestion about the rule of 10, encouraging HT members to make @ least one contact w a legislator, commission member, agency representative for every 10 posts they make here about rules and policies.

 

[Pucky Freak]

De-coupling hunting advocacy and conservation advocacy.

“But hunters contribute the most money to conservation”
“But hunters are the most knowledgeable about habitat and animals”
“But hunters also conveniently support the 2a”
“But…”

For perhaps a variety of reasons, many of us have been sold on the premise that if we can just get more people to hunt, good things will follow, whether that is preserving the legacy of NA public land hunting, the NA model of conservation, maintaining a favorable voting bloc, etc. We swallow the bitter pills of diminishing draw odds, commercialization of hunting, accelerating costs to hunt, and crowding of public lands, thinking at the end of the day, it is still worth it.

Has it been worth it? For hunters? For the resource?

Let’s say we have a random sample of 10,000 non-hunting Americans. Maybe with a lot of effort we can convince 100 of them to hunt, and 1 of those 100 becomes a real champion for conservation. Great.

How many out of 10,000, with a lot of effort, could we convince to care about wild places, habitat, wild animals, and plentiful access to those things? 500? 1000? If the number of persons frequenting our national parks is any indication, there seems to be a lot of untapped potential.

To cite just one application, imagine if landlocked public arose to national consciousness. There are far more persons in our country who have a vested interest in creating public ingress/egress to those all places than support the “rights” of adjacent landowners from maintaining exclusive use for themselves.

In the last century, hunters saved many species from the brink of extinction, at a time in history when allies of nature were few and far between. The American public land legacy was established for generations to come.

Hunters continue to do great things for wildlife and habitat. We can still lead the way. We need better strategies though, ones that specifically engage the non-hunting public.

 

[SAJ-99]

I propose that we would make a lot more progress on our issues in general if we spent just one fifth of the time we spend arguing it on hundreds of posts long threads on HT actually engaging the issues and writing letters to our wildlife departments, land management agencies, and elected officials. In a conversation this morning with a U.S. Senator's staffer about an egregious grazing decision the BLM is about to make, the staffer said, "the voice of the general public is missing."

You won't have a voice on something without knowledge it exists. Is there a way for the average HT'er to stay connected to changes going on? I like when people post things to the state boards, even though they eventually end up in the same place regarding the arguments.

 

[Oak]

You won't have a voice on something without knowledge it exists. Is there a way for the average HT'er to stay connected to changes going on? I like when people post things to the state boards, even though they eventually end up in the same place regarding the arguments.

Good point. Here's a 3-page thread about the decision I referenced, spanning 2019-2021.

Here's an article I posted about the proposed decision.

 

[MO Betta]

Gets me thinking, since this is already in place in several western states, and always being considered in the others: How many hunters will relocate in order to get resident hunting privileges? Where will you put them in MT and ID? Room to spare in WY, @ least for now.

I guess I'm asking those assembled if limiting NRs backfires by increasing immigration to destination hunting states? What's worse, a bunch or NR hunters who go away after hunting season, or a bunch of new resident hunters that make themselves @ home?

IMO, both have their pros and cons. Your NRs bring in quite a bit of money to the small communities often surrounding the areas. When their 7-10 days are over, they head to their home state and are not disturbing the area for a year or more - plus quite a bit of funding for the conservation departments. Less likely to be a persistent advocate for the area. Out of sight, out of mind.

New residents, more money in general for the state. Advocacy one way or another is generally more well received from an R than an NR. R's are much more likely to be doing hands on conservation work in the area. Conservation department and projects may need to either trim down or replace the funding somehow, NRs see the results of that most frequently. R's are more likely to spend more time using the resources, and further encroachment and habitat destruction to provide housing/ranchettes is almost guaranteed when you give more and more people a reason to move there.

There's no perfect answer, as a resident I prefer being around less people year round and deal with NRs than most of the jackholes I see/deal with on a daily basis - but I also don't live in the areas that are the primary subject of this tread.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I propose that we would make a lot more progress on our issues in general if we spent just one fifth of the time we spend arguing it on hundreds of posts long threads on HT actually engaging the issues and writing letters to our wildlife departments, land management agencies, and elected officials. In a conversation this morning with a U.S. Senator's staffer about an egregious grazing decision the BLM is about to make, the staffer said, "the voice of the general public is missing."

One of your past board members has 10k followers on Insta wonder if we could lean on him to spread the good word and get some folks at meetings, or at least hammer CPW/FS/BLM on social media…

Also what about steal a page outta BHA but improve on it and host a pint night right after an in person meeting. Like come to meeker and after we fight the good fight let’s have a beer?

 

[woods89]

I've been thinking about this a lot over the last week. I have done my share of griping about too many new hunters, and with some thought realized that like all of us, there is probably more selfishness in me than I'd like to admit.

It's a complex issue. I've enjoyed reading this discussion.

 

[DouglasR]

One of your past board members has 10k followers on Insta wonder if we could lean on him to spread the good word and get some folks at meetings, or at least hammer CPW/FS/BLM on social media…

Also what about steal a page outta BHA but improve on it and host a pint night right after an in person meeting. Like come to meeker and after we fight the good fight let’s have a beer?

We should schedule the 2022 ht ski meet up around some type of hunting/public land public meeting and after we get done jibbing rails we’ll all put on our court clothes, look super sharp, go to the meeting and let you, Ben and vkings guy talk.