Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[Deleted member 28227]

This is not a human population issue.

False, every ecological issue our planet faces is due to our overpopulation. We manage every species on this planet except for ourselves, how any sportsman or conservationist can use the term carrying capacity with regard to game species and then argue that it does not apply to humans is beyond me.

Technology may help us mitigate our impact, but there is nothing that can or will be developed that will stop our species from pushing most of the species on this planet to extinction.

 

[mtmuley]

It's a people problem. Not hard to see that. It's extremely difficult as a Montanan whose family has been here generations, to absorb the changes. Same in Wyoming, Idaho etc.. Out. mtmuley

 

[HighWildFree]

Just get rid of wolves and equilibrium and global harmony will be restored.

I think the handwriting has been on the wall for a long time that there will have to be a reduction in either length of season or efficiency of harvest. Quality of experience and health of the resource has been declining in proportion to the human caused strain on wildlife.

I'd gladly give up efficiency of harvest. No scopes, rangefinders, mechanical releases...whatever.

I've given up hoping that Montana will somehow avoid the population boom that the rest of the West is seeing. Someday soon we'll look like Colorado. About all I can do is advocate for wildlife and wild spaces and get what's left because no one else is slowing down...

Tragedy of the Commons I suppose.

Makes me think of that character in Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men: "All the time you spend tryin to get back what's been took from you there's more goin out the door. After a while you just try and get a tourniquet on it.”

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would be with you in giving up efficiency of harvest. However, I am guessing we would be in a small minority if polled across license holders in general. Most people don’t prioritize their time to take advantage of long seasons and want the most effective methods of harvest to give them an “edge “ in the limited time they have.

 

[antlerradar]

We in Montana can always pray for more winters like the last few. When that doesn't work we are going to have to start to look at reducing opportunity or dialing back technology.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Reduced NR tag opportunity is not a long term problem. make 100% of BLM accessible to the public with a stroke of a pen and that issue is solved in an instant.

Please explain. ???

 

[Pucky Freak]

False, every ecological issue our planet faces is due to our overpopulation.

When you begin with the presumption that the earth is overpopulated, it's easy to stack other arguments upon it. Reconsider the presumption, and the rug comes out from under a lot of the leftist ideological propaganda that flows from it. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/3/195/223056

Ecological issues are mostly due to how humans live, not how many of us there are.

We manage every species on this planet except for ourselves, how any sportsman or conservationist can use the term carrying capacity with regard to game species and then argue that it does not apply to humans is beyond me.

Seeing as U.S. voters are unlikely to elect the next Pol Pot and confer absolute power to such a person, the practicality of considering management of human fecundity/longevity is an exercise of futility.

Technology may help us mitigate our impact, but there is nothing that can or will be developed that will stop our species from pushing most of the species on this planet to extinction.

Agreed. Human population growth has precipitated one of the great eonic extinction events of the whole history of life of this planet. Tens of thousands of unique species will permanently perish in the decades to come. This is the normal process of life on earth. However, since humankind uniquely possesses the awareness of what is happening, and some care about how the extinction event will unfold, I'm all for intentionally guiding the process such that some species are all but guaranteed ongoing existence in the wild for at least a little longer, thus the previous plug for preservation of critical habitat.

 

[mtmuley]

Less hunter recruitment. Sad but true. mtmuley

 

[Pucky Freak]

Please explain. ???

Sure

Demand for mountain West hunting tags among NRs has steadily been going up for years at the same time as populations of ecologically sensitive game species have declined due to habitat loss and human encroachment (antelope, bighorn sheep, mule deer, sage grouse, etc.). But by far the biggest cohort of NR big game hunters with adequate disposable income to purchase these NR tags are Baby Boomers, born '46-'64. Statistically, there is a sharp decline in hunter participation when someone makes it to age 70. So the last of the Boomers will be hanging up the hat over the next 10-15 years, and younger generations of Americans include far fewer hunters. The "looming cliff" of total U.S. hunter participation both in terms of absolute number as well as % of the population that hunts is anticipated, so many efforts have been made to try and boost new hunter recruitment, so that people will buy hunting licences, vote for things that matter to outdoors people, continue the hunting legacy, etc. However, these efforts are failing badly. Yeah, a few man bun, skinny jean neo-urbanites have taken up the bow and put some non-GMO protein on their kitchen tables made of recycled milk jugs, but overall the trend of hunter participation would need to change in a radical new way in order to have the same number of hunters 20 years from now than we have today.

While all this is going on, there are nearly ten million acres of public hunting land in the mountain west that the public can't set foot on because there is no access. https://www.greatfallstribune.com/s...-hunting-trespassing-public-lands/1589146002/ A lot of this is BLM land, especially checkerboard BLM, which in some (or all) states cannot be legally crossed to via the corner of adjacent public land. To someone like me, who primarily grew up in the midwest, this is an infuriating situation. Many states, mostly in the East, make it illegal for any public land, or even any body of water, to be inaccessible to the public, which in my mind, is how it should be. I understand if a state like WY wants to landlock it's own state land, but BLM is Federal ground. The BLM has historically allowed individual states to determine public access to these lands, and doesn't attempt to provide access to the citizens of the US to whom the land belongs. Many Western States give preferential treatment to ranchers, developers, oil, gas, and mineral companies, and other corporate entities to essentially produce their own profit from the public resource at little or no cost, by using BLM lands that the public cannot get to.

What I mean that it could all change by the stroke of a pen is that the US congress could pass a bill mandating public access to all BLM land, and could be signed into law by Trump, which would override States' policies of locking up these lands to the average Joe public land hunter. The same could be done for other types of landlocked public lands such as NF and NG. Of course, the likelihood of such a thing happening is basically zero because the corporate entities are getting fat off of their free or low-cost access to landlocked federal public, and the people in State government they are in bed with contribute millions to the GOP to keep things just they way they are.

If these lands were opened to the public, it unlocks a massive public resource, allowing state G&F agencies to issue more tags for big game animals residing on such lands to be pursued by resident and NR hunters alike. Granted, these areas overwhelmingly already get hunted via outfitters and others who pay for access, but the pressure is generally light, and overall they can sustain a greater harvest of game than they experience currently.

 

[mtmuley]

My secrete spots just got way more secreter.
mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sure.

Thank-you, I do understand. No disrespect meant, but I'm better at grasping succinctness.

 

[ImBillT]

I say we shuttle all the illegals to the Rocky Mountain states till they quit complaining about the wall.

“I hate population growth”

“The Wall is terrible for wildlife”

“Too many people are bad for wildlife and public land”

Hmmm.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Ecological issues are mostly due to how humans live, not how many of us there are.

Exactly, my statement is predicated on the idea that we humans won’t make lifestyle changes. Ask any cardiologist in the world, the hardest thing you can ask a person to do is change their habits.

The Rocky Mountains are especially effected by this because we are developing in the worst way possible, suburban sprawl, everyone wants a “slice of heaven” with a giant ass house, garage, massive trucks and toys. I can’t blame anyone for wanting to live like this but our issues would be greatly mitigated if everyone was more wiling to live in smaller apartments and use public transit for their daily commute.

You raise a great point about the “boomer cliff”, changes are definitely coming in the next 15 years. Residents of every western state are going to have to decide what’s important to them as far as quality, cost, and season length.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I'd be shocked if average opportunity were the same or greater at any given point in my lifetime for most big game, relative to now.

Things change, some for better some for worse. You can bet I'll be making hay while the sun shines and having adventures of a lifetime every year, rifle in hand or not. Interesting question though.

 

[BrokenArrow]

There is a finite amount of energy on earth. As we populate, it takes more energy to keep humans and their lifestyles alive. Habitat and other species suffer. Horrible truth. How do we manage the damage?

To be specific on how we can shape our local, state, and national landscape for hunting, I am starting local. I may never get past that.

Example: I am a member of the regional BHA chapter here and we are fighting hard to keep a historic migration route from being subjected to a proposal made jointly by both a local and a national mountain bike association. This proposal would add 23 Mtn bike trails to an area that already has 7. It basically bisects calving grounds, migration, etc...there are local government officials (unnamed) asking us to help because even though they know the proposal is no good for the wildlife, their hands are tied by adrenaline seeking user groups. They also know hunters spend way more money than mountain bikers directly. We are trying to compile the data to support the migration route. Who knew we have to prove what we already know.
Maybe this gets local or state attention as it heats up? Maybe it’s gets national? But, without starting close to home and giving up some volunteer time, each new proposal from any group is trying to chip away at what we have. It could be devastating to our economy if calf recruitment suffers any more than it has and hunters look elsewhere.

Examples of actions like this will send a message to the folks moving in. Even though they will have a vote, the momentum of historically established voices usually sets the tone of new policy. If a habitat protection agreement/policy/law is already in place by the time they get to the western states, then we already headed them off at the pass! Carpe diem.

Political- Contact local/state politicians. If you propose to them a solid conservation idea and they make it part their own platform when running, who cares where it came from as long as they act on it.

Marketing- Harley Davidson has somehow gotten young folks to buy their bikes again. Maybe the hunting industry could learn a few things from that type of marketing. Not to say that it isn’t light years better than from the early 2000’s.

Lastly, I believe mentorship is severely lacking. I guided deer and elk. Every client I treated like a student in a classroom. I wanted them to learn and connect. Give them the knowledge to promote DIY the next season. My employer would probably rather have them as a return customer. But, I wanted them as a return customer to public land, no matter what form they came in. It’s gold when they get home and tell about the adventure to all their friends. Funny that most booked me year after year. Most importantly, outfitters protect the areas that other hunters utilize. Our outfit was a caretaker of that land and we respected every tree and rock.

In closing, It’s hard for a potential out-of-state second homeowner or newcomer to overturn roots in the ground now, unless that newcomer is the POS, evasive species type. Just got to keep fighting.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Fin

 

[ShortAction]

I think a lot of this could be fixed by people keeping their mouths shut.

All the YouTube videos (which I love watching) don't help either. Dumping fuel on the fire.

 

[ShortAction]

Everything you're experiencing (out West) we've already been through here in the South East (Virginia, Tennessee, and the Carolina's). Massive influx of Northerners with their money and attitudes buying up all the farmland and posting it. But, someone here sold it to them. Also, I have discovered that in the rural communities you're considered an "outsider" if you weren't born and raised in the same zip code. As Solomon said, "There's nothing new under the Sun."

I do feel your pain, though.

As far as hunter recruitment goes...none needed here. Last year on opening day of rifle season I went to 4 or 5 spots I had scouted in the NF only to find several trucks already at each one.
-dp, Virginia native

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'd be shocked if average opportunity were the same or greater at any given point in my lifetime for most big game, relative to now.

Things change, some for better some for worse. You can bet I'll be making hay while the sun shines and having adventures of a lifetime every year, rifle in hand or not. Interesting question though.

It seems many of us on this forum are of a similar attitude when considering the question. A natural generational expansion of that attitude comes with having children, then grandchildren who also love to hunt and enjoy the adventures. Then looking forward the question evolves into concern for the future of hunting, wildlife, and wild places with less focus on "me" and more focus on "them".

 

[ImBillT]

There is a finite amount of energy on earth. As we populate, it takes more energy to keep humans and their lifestyles alive. Habitat and other species suffer. Horrible truth. How do we manage the damage?

The amount of energy on earth is not exactly finite. Energy strikes the earth’s surface in the form of sunlight every day, and every green thing from algae to redwood trees makes use of it more effectively than any solar panel. Plant life uses energy from the sun to assemble hydro carbons(carbs and fats) and amination of some of those hydrocarbons to form proteins. The results of these processes can then be consumed by bacteria, fungi or animals, or they can be burned. We get our oil coal and natural gas from these processes.

The problem is not not that energy on earth is finite and any use leads to our demise. The issue is that there is a rate limit.

In 2015 total energy use from all sources was about 575 quadrillion BTU. The sun delivers about 82,000,000 quadrillion BTU per year. In other words, humans use energy about .0007% as rapidly as it is delivered to earth. Humans do not use more energy than the earth has to offer, and likely never will.

 

[BigHornRam]

Boomer cliff? This boomer plans on kicking your young pup asses up the mountain for at least 20 more years.