Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[onpoint]

This isn't hunting, but fishing in the Rocky Mountain West. Some reality - An excerpt from the most recent website fishing report from Parks Fly Shop in Gardiner MT. This shop makes it's living promoting and servicing the Gardiner and northeast YNP fly fisherfolks and thus attracting people to the area via advertising is crucial, as their business year is basically as long as the YNP area summer/fall tourist season. Kudos to Parks for telling the raw unadulterated truth. Says something about the number of people recreating here, locals as well as non, when a flyshop puts this out there.
No solutions, but a snapshot of current events here in fly fishing mecca......

"Soda Butte Creek Fishing Report – Updated August 3

Overwhelmingly crowded. It is usually difficult for more than a single angler to find room to fish here. If you decide to join the crowds of West Yellowstone guides and tourist anglers that often crowd two or three to a pool barely large enough for one, look for the same hatches and terrestrial fishing mentioned above. One of Walter’s clients fished here on his own a few days ago and said this stream was “like fishing in hell” due to the crowds. As such, we only guide here when we have no other option due to client fitness or desires."

Rare candor seldom heard from the people in the "Industry".

 

[Bowhunter999]

Reading several posts concerning the overcrowding of the Rocky Mnt. states, it appears that most are involving with ‘overcrowding of hunters’ being the issue ! I think the more important and dire issue is not the increase of hunters per se, but the general increase of the population as a whole. Of course there is realy nothing which can control the problem of population growth and the problems it might in-cure on hunting, but it can and does impose the issue of the mind set of this growing population,

I think we can all agree that there has been a perceived degree of change on the whole of hunting acceptance, mostly by the ‘woke’ generation of the last several years. It is this attitude which is going to be detrimental to hunting and not ‘overcrowding’ of nonresident or even resident hunters. We are already seeing evidence of this in some of the initiatives concerning wildlife matters being decided at the ballot box. The hunting and wildlife issues that are beneficial to hunters, are often defeated by this progressive population which has been involved in the growth of the Rocky Mtn. States. Our conservation departments can control hunting and wildlife matters through license allotments, seasons, game limits etc., but they have little control over voting attitudes which will control the entire issue of hunting acceptance, or more plainly, societal acceptance.

So, after all these words, what is the answer ? I only wish I knew. Having been a hunter for 70 years, I just hate to see what is coming to a activity I dearly love . I have enjoyed the good years of hunting acceptance, and I have grave sorrow for the future generation as a result of progressive thinking. Maybe some of you can give me hope.

 

[runningmt]

Reading several posts concerning the overcrowding of the Rocky Mnt. states, it appears that most are involving with ‘overcrowding of hunters’ being the issue ! I think the more important and dire issue is not the increase of hunters per se, but the general increase of the population as a whole. Of course there is realy nothing which can control the problem of population growth and the problems it might in-cure on hunting, but it can and does impose the issue of the mind set of this growing population,

I think we can all agree that there has been a perceived degree of change on the whole of hunting acceptance, mostly by the ‘woke’ generation of the last several years. It is this attitude which is going to be detrimental to hunting and not ‘overcrowding’ of nonresident or even resident hunters. We are already seeing evidence of this in some of the initiatives concerning wildlife matters being decided at the ballot box. The hunting and wildlife issues that are beneficial to hunters, are often defeated by this progressive population which has been involved in the growth of the Rocky Mtn. States. Our conservation departments can control hunting and wildlife matters through license allotments, seasons, game limits etc., but they have little control over voting attitudes which will control the entire issue of hunting acceptance, or more plainly, societal acceptance.

So, after all these words, what is the answer ? I only wish I knew. Having been a hunter for 70 years, I just hate to see what is coming to a activity I dearly love . I have enjoyed the good years of hunting acceptance, and I have grave sorrow for the future generation as a result of progressive thinking. Maybe some of you can give me hope.

I believe we can make access, hunting laws, opportunities, and acceptance BETTER if we work together on these issues instead of always picking fights with the other “side”.

You reduce the possibility of collaboration when you use terms like “right” “left” “progressive” “dem” “rep”.

We need to work as a team on this, the divide of the last decade in this country is making us weaker, whichever side you think is so much less guilty of impropriety.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Reading several posts concerning the overcrowding of the Rocky Mnt. states, it appears that most are involving with ‘overcrowding of hunters’ being the issue ! I think the more important and dire issue is not the increase of hunters per se, but the general increase of the population as a whole. Of course there is realy nothing which can control the problem of population growth and the problems it might in-cure on hunting, but it can and does impose the issue of the mind set of this growing population,

I think we can all agree that there has been a perceived degree of change on the whole of hunting acceptance, mostly by the ‘woke’ generation of the last several years. It is this attitude which is going to be detrimental to hunting and not ‘overcrowding’ of nonresident or even resident hunters. We are already seeing evidence of this in some of the initiatives concerning wildlife matters being decided at the ballot box. The hunting and wildlife issues that are beneficial to hunters, are often defeated by this progressive population which has been involved in the growth of the Rocky Mtn. States. Our conservation departments can control hunting and wildlife matters through license allotments, seasons, game limits etc., but they have little control over voting attitudes which will control the entire issue of hunting acceptance, or more plainly, societal acceptance.

So, after all these words, what is the answer ? I only wish I knew. Having been a hunter for 70 years, I just hate to see what is coming to a activity I dearly love . I have enjoyed the good years of hunting acceptance, and I have grave sorrow for the future generation as a result of progressive thinking. Maybe some of you can give me hope.

Actually, around here, I'm finding the "woke" folks to be pretty open minded about hunting for deer, turkey, etc. They often question the reasoning/ethics of predator hunting and trophy hunting, but good ol' hunting for food and adventure goes down pretty well with alot of these folks.

I disagree that there is nothing we can do about population growth, we're just not at a point where people are ready to hear it. There are all sorts of ways we can incentivize smaller families. But in the meantime, there are things we can do to mitigate the damage that's being done by our sprawling numbers. And frankly, the west, as a whole, has been awful at getting ahead of the issue. I remember my college orientation in Missoula, in 1995. We all attended a bunch of talks that week and one of them was from a former governor of Colorado. His whole speech was about recognizing that Montana is beginning to to go through what Colorado did in the 70's and 80's and that now was the time to act. Putting restrictions on the kinds of development that were ok, would keep places like Missoula and Bozeman from becoming the giant, sprawling messes that we see along the front range in Colorado. He saw this very clearly and implored Montanans to look at the mistakes made elsewhere and to look past their desire for personal freedom and minimal restrictions, for the sake of their communities and landscapes. We need to decide what we want our areas to look like and make plans to ensure that we don't get off that track. We need restrictions on development and "restrictions" is not a word that goes down well anywhere, but especially in the west. We saw this coming and states have been largely unwilling to put boundaries on it.

I think the world would do well to look at the model of the Adirondacks. Within the "blue line" there is a mix of public and private land. The public land is managed by the state Dept. of Environmental Conservation, but there is another agency called the Adirondack Park Agency, which oversees development of private land within the park. All of the private land was given a designation many years ago, based on where it is, what kind of land it is and what we want this place to look like. Some has relatively little restriction on development, some has alot. You need to get a permit from the APA to build something, not just from your town. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But, it means that growth happens intentionally and with oversight. It's a general formula that many places could really benefit from.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There are all sorts of ways we can incentivize smaller families.

Without immigration the US population would already be shrinking. As it is in Europe and Japan. The developed world already has moved to family sizes below replacement numbers. Only immigration from the developing world is propping up populations.

Population reduction is a recipe for economic malaise at best and collapse at worst. Our modern social welfare systems (including retirement systems) are "ponzi schemes" that assume larger future populations to fund them. And it's not just goverment - future business growth assumes an ever increasing customer base. Japan's low birth rate and zenophobic approach to immigration are the primary causes of its flat to dying economy (this plus the real estate bubble that was never allowed to pop).

The US is nowhere near its carrying capacity with decent resource management and staying on track with typical technical advances. But on the "bright side", the next generation seems to have much lower interest in hunting, "so we have that going for us - which is nice."

 

[Irrelevant]

No one with two functioning brain cells can support perpetual growth. At some point that cancer will kill its host.

Better to sort out our economic woes now, while there's still something worth saving.

 

[VikingsGuy]

No one with two functioning brain cells can support perpetual growth. At some point that cancer will kill its host.

Better to sort out our economic woes now, while there's still something worth saving.

Nice to see your are keeping your arguments classy and focused on facts and viable solutions.

 

[Bowhunter999]

“But on the bright side, the next generation seems to have much lower interest in hunting, so we have that going for us, which is nice”.

To that I totally disagree ! An activity that has less interest in it by the populace, is a dying venture. If there are not enough people to support the cause, the opposition will eat its lunch ! Our voice needs to be heard, and a ‘squeak’ from diminishing numbers will not hold water. The issue is not about resident or non-resident hunters, it is about societal acceptance. There are those who do not want to hear ‘progressive’, ‘left’, or what ever designation one chooses, but if the ‘opponent’ is not determined, and a course of action taken, that opponent is not going to have a change of mind, but will be more determined thinking they are in the majority. Just being the ‘nice’ guy will not always get results !

I am not aware of why this form of type is different........??

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Since Fin started this thread we all know what happened. Accurate population growth numbers that include 2020 and 2021 are going to be big for Rocky Mtn states. Personal opinions about population increases and distribution are almost irrelevant in my opinion, effort is better spent trying to understand the change and influence policies to adapt. Policies that might check at least some of the boxes that are of value to public land hunters and recreationists that have experienced these places in their glory.

Large scale planning around preserving the character of the towns and places we love is under constant pressure. Limits on growth, development, infrastructure, etc. typically lead to prohibitively high cost of living. The next step is often a loss of community character and the authenticity that made it such a great place to begin with. There's no easy answer to this, but to Dougfirtree's point it's not entirely novel. Some steps of this process can be well predicted.

Pressure on game species has many parallels. The resource that created demand falls under greater pressure. Compounding factors like hunter efficacy and CWD muddy the waters and make predictions about future availability difficult. Regardless of if hunter recruitment is down 3%, 10%, or 30%, pressure on the resource seems to unequivocally be on the rise relative to its availability. The next steps are as much social science as ecology, and VERY few professionals are skilled at both.

I want to be led into the next decade of wildlife management in the west by organizations, scientists, and even politicians that acknowledge the gray, but are not ashamed to follow the science when the preponderance of evidence points one way or the other. I'm not very optimistic that those voices will get the play they need to make a difference against the background of state budgets, political pressure, and lobbyists. I try to be educated on at least some aspects of the issue, not be an arrogant voice that turns people off to a message, and be connected enough to my community and legislators that they listen when I engage. This is a long game, we best treat it like one.

 

[VikingsGuy]

“But on the bright side, the next generation seems to have much lower interest in hunting, so we have that going for us, which is nice”.

To that I totally disagree ! An activity that has less interest in it by the populace, is a dying venture. If there are not enough people to support the cause, the opposition will eat its lunch ! Our voice needs to be heard, and a ‘squeak’ from diminishing numbers will not hold water. The issue is not about resident or non-resident hunters, it is about societal acceptance. There are those who do not want to hear ‘progressive’, ‘left’, or what ever designation one chooses, but if the ‘opponent’ is not determined, and a course of action taken, that opponent is not going to have a change of mind, but will be more determined thinking they are in the majority. Just being the ‘nice’ guy will not always get results !

I am not aware of why this form of type is different........??

The referenced quote was meant as sarcasm. (and an ever appropriate Caddyshack reference)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Without immigration the US population would already be shrinking. As it is in Europe and Japan. The developed world already has moved to family sizes below replacement numbers. Only immigration from the developing world is propping up populations.

Population reduction is a recipe for economic malaise at best and collapse at worst. Our modern social welfare systems (including retirement systems) are "ponzi schemes" that assume larger future populations to fund them. And it's not just goverment - future business growth assumes an ever increasing customer base. Japan's low birth rate and zenophobic approach to immigration are the primary causes of its flat to dying economy (this plus the real estate bubble that was never allowed to pop).

The US is nowhere near its carrying capacity with decent resource management and staying on track with typical technical advances. But on the "bright side", the next generation seems to have much lower interest in hunting, "so we have that going for us - which is nice."

I understand these arguments but I'm not totally convinced.

Sure, population reduction definitely leads to "economic decline" if your definition is the price of Amazon stock.

If your definition is quality of life ...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sure, population reduction definitely leads to "economic decline" if your definition is the price of Amazon stock.

Not that simple -- somebody has to pay for the baby boomers retirement years. The ratio between workers and those recieving soc sec, med and pension is a real issue that cant be so simply dismissed. I don't think my mom ties her personal rent payment to Amazon stock.

 

[Bowhunter999]

The referenced quote was meant as sarcasm. (and an ever appropriate Caddyshack reference)

Am sorry VikingsGuy that this went right over my head, which was evidently off on another tangent of thought......

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not that simple -- somebody has to pay for the baby boomers retirement years. The ratio between workers and those receiving soc sec, med and pension is a real issue that cant be so simply dismissed. I don't think my mom ties her personal rent payment to Amazon stock.

So this conversation has a extremely high potential to get all millennial v. boomer so if your triggered (folks reading ) please keep scrolling past my comment.

Yeah I don't know...

There are a lot of 33-40 year olds making 55-65K and barely contributing to a 401k, renting because they can't afford the down payment on a home. I know several people in this position... and not like crap companies either.

Meanwhile, lots of 70 year old folks who refuse to retire, piling money into the stock market, and owning 4 to 5 homes.







I realize that all this being true there are a lot of folks in older generations, that are barely making it by off social security and the Medicare system is broken.

But >50% of US wealth is controlled by the oldest 25% of the population can't they take care of their own?

What about setting the estate tax at 90% above 500k, and 100% above 1MM. Either spend it while your alive and drive some growth or help us pay down that national debt you racked up.

Lol... Bezos stock going entirely into a trust for Medicare.

Personally I think everyone should try and earn their own way in life. I think part of the brokenness of our system is the reliance on growth and gauging health on growth.

Stagnation... maybe that's the word for it, it's also the same family working the same farm for generations having the same number of cows and having a decent life.

I'm not sure that they need to have 6.7% more cows each year otherwise they've "collapsed".

 

[Irrelevant]

If you definition is quality of life ...

Which it should be. The Scrooge McDuck-ification that has/is occurring, will eventually be rebuked by "the next generation". Unhappiness is growing and study after study shows that money doesn't buy happiness. Eventually we will have a revolution against growth and toward sustainment (health, economy, land). While I'm not going to the extreme of renouncing our current economic model and all definitions of success, I am deliberately choosing a path in life that does not maximize profit but does make me happy, and trends to sustainable. All of that is tied into the current population growths seen in the west. When people find a lack happiness elsewhere (urban areas) they are choosing to move toward a greater connection with the outdoors, wide open landscapes and wildlife, both because it brings them happiness but also because they're simply looking for something new to fill the void of emptiness. If we, as a people, could shift our obsession with money toward happiness, learn what actually creates it and foster those activities, I think we would see significantly fewer immigrants to the rural landscape.

But while waiting on that revolution we should be more forceful of zoning requirements. My google background today was of Pozoantiguo, Spain, fitting when talking about zoning, at least with regard to maintaining open space and preventing sprawl.

 

[rwc101]

I'm sure the boomers will have enough money for retirement if they cut out the avocado toast.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm sure the boomers will have enough money for retirement if they cut out the avocado toast.

 

[hank4elk]

I'm sure the boomers will have enough money for retirement if they cut out the avocado toast.

Where do I sign up? For said toast.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I realize that all this being true there are a lot of folks in older generations, that are barely making it by off social security and the Medicare system is broken.

But >50% of US wealth is controlled by the oldest 25% of the population can't they take care of their own?

What about setting the estate tax at 90% above 500k, and 100% above 1MM. Either spend it while your alive and drive some growth or help us pay down that national debt you racked up.

Lol... Bezos stock going entirely into a trust for Medicare.

Personally I think everyone should try and earn their own way in life. I think part of the brokenness of our system is the reliance on growth and gauging health on growth.

Stagnation... maybe that's the word for it, it's also the same family working the same farm for generations having the same number of cows and having a decent life.

I'm not sure that they need to have 6.7% more cows each year otherwise they've "collapsed".

The highest percentage of any adult age group living in poverty is 65+. Just as all the other wealth statistics, there is a huge skew to the top 1-5% that hides this unfortunate truth.

As for estate tax, this is my favorite tax (not kidding). Why does Bill Gate's great great grand kid never have to work a day in his/her life? But, I think $500k is too low, but I would vote today for a 99% tax on amounts over $5M. Enjoy the fruits of your labor. Give your kids the finest education and a debt free start on life, but don't create a quasi-landed gentry class in America - only state lotteries should be able to do that . (the 2000s do have a lot of similarities with the gilded age problems)

As for the cow analogy - which is streched but I will try to honor - it's not just the farm couple. It is their two kids. Plus their two kid's spouses, plus the resulting 2 grandkids per couple, plus the old couple down the street that doesn't have a cow, plus to old couple in the next county that had cows but sold them all and lost the proceeds trying to start an artichoke farm (actually a real thing in ND in the 70's), plus the old couple across the country that doesn't even know what a cow smells like. All need support from that farm's cows - so they better get busy.

As for soc. sec, the big lie that it is a saving account needs to be finally reconned with. It is flat out a $$ transfer from current workers to current retirees. And that is fine. What is not fine is the lie that somewhere in a bank there is an account with wllm11313 on it just waiting to give you back all the funds you contributed. Time to admit it is a social welfare program and as such should be means tested. Just think of the $8/hr fast food worker having funds withheld so that Warren Buffet gets his monthly check -- only in America. But you think corner crossing and non-resident sheep tags are 3rd rail issues just try to take on this bizarre historical problem - thank you FDR for lying to us about what the program is and how it worked - it now prevents us from actually making it work with some fairness and equity.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Without immigration the US population would already be shrinking. As it is in Europe and Japan. The developed world already has moved to family sizes below replacement numbers. Only immigration from the developing world is propping up populations.

Population reduction is a recipe for economic malaise at best and collapse at worst. Our modern social welfare systems (including retirement systems) are "ponzi schemes" that assume larger future populations to fund them. And it's not just goverment - future business growth assumes an ever increasing customer base. Japan's low birth rate and zenophobic approach to immigration are the primary causes of its flat to dying economy (this plus the real estate bubble that was never allowed to pop).

The US is nowhere near its carrying capacity with decent resource management and staying on track with typical technical advances. But on the "bright side", the next generation seems to have much lower interest in hunting, "so we have that going for us - which is nice."

That's a big can of worms, but suffice it to say that you're right, but that the nature of the world today is that world population may be a better marker than the population of individual countries. As you said, "without immigration..." And you can't stop immigration completely. Nor do you stop the transfer of resources in a globalized world and resource consumption is just as important as the actual number of people. In terms of population, resource consumption and the economy, we need to slow this puppy down and start figuring out a way that we can live without growth.
Carrying capacity is a loaded term. No doubt we could have twice the number of people in this country and get them all fed and housed. But could we do that and still have our wild places? Could we do that and still have grizzly bears? Wolverines? Salmon?

I want us to receive total conciousness before we reach our death bed...