Why so little support among hunters for growing game populations?

Population objectives and associated counts seem to be what drove some areas going to LE. How do we get population baselines higher? Especially for mule deer?
In western MT we likely need a combination of a change in management and improved habitat. In eastern MT we need to quit treating public land mule deer like vermin. If we could fix western MT we might just fix eastern MT too.
 
Last edited:
In general, hunters choose opportunity over quality of hunt and the states manage that way. Quality meaning more mature animals and less hunters.
 
Not necessarily my own position, but I’ll throw it out there in the debate club spirit.

All these responses to OP’s prompt are kind of glossing over his objections to carve outs. One has to be somewhat sympathetic to folks getting discouraged from participating (in any given realm, not just hunting) when they’re told they need to limit their own access to a resource for the greater good, yet exceptions for those who can afford it are regularly being expanded.
I intentionally ignored it because of the can of worms it opens. Saying someone is "privileged" glosses over the fact that some people just prioritize hunting higher than others. Not to mention the whole societal equality/equity arguments, taxes, forms of government, etc, etc.
 
and i'll be frank, until the human population shrinks, or we see draconian laws against development and growth, i don't see any real way out of this continued decline in many in of our huntable populations of animals.

This^

It's about habitat, you don't just "put" animals in the field, you have to grow their population. The Front Range in Colorado is a prime example of rampant development gobbling up good habitat. Mule deer and elk don't love suburbia.
 
Last edited:
I intentionally ignored it because of the can of worms it opens. Saying someone is "privileged" glosses over the fact that some people just prioritize hunting higher than others. Not to mention the whole societal equality/equity arguments, taxes, forms of government, etc, etc.
I think that can of worms is pretty central to the crux of OP’s debate prompt though.

I do agree that it’s such a big can of worms that I had a tough time not stating non-hunting examples that many here seem to agree with. However, the American body politic has been especially driven by perceived individual disenfranchisement grievances for a while now, so it’s kind of hard to sweep under the rug.
 
This shiz is so hard. It reminds me of education. We know the answers, and they’re simple. However, simple is sometimes the hardest.

Kids need two parent households. Hell I could use a 3rd responsible parent in my house. Parenting is hard! Saying this is not condemning single parents, it actually honors the challenges they face. I was one for quite some time.

We need to protect land. How do we do that? A hill to die on must be the selling of our public lands. Support groups protecting land. Whomever you believe in.

In reality, humans are driven to be comfortable. This translates to easy, and cheap. Most hunters don’t invest an optional dime in their “love.”

I wonder what the “oh shiz” moment will be. Look what it took with the bison?
 
What do you mean? Montana has plenty of game. If you don’t believe me just look at how many tags we have, how long our seasons are, how liberal our bag limits are and the amount of wildlife on inaccessible private property.
Montana certainly has ecology to be a deer/ mostly elk factory
 
In general, hunters choose opportunity over quality of hunt and the states manage that way. Quality meaning more mature animals and less hunters.
That's an interesting point, though there are differing definitions of opportunity. For example, I would rather see more animals of average size than only one animal that's a "giant". Now as far as growing herds I really think much of it is unwillingness to sacrifice in the short term. For example, after the disaster of a winter in '22 antelope and mule deer seasons should have been completely closed for a couple years. But that would never happen lol
 
Golf is a hobby.

If you go to all the golf courses and ask the golfers if they would like a nice new beautiful golf course to enhance their golfing experience. You would get a resounding YES. If you then ask them to donate a bunch of money and spend a bunch of their free time to build and maintain that nice new golf course, that will still cost them just as much, or more, to play on as what they now have. Probably not going to generate a lot of excitement.

Hunting is a hobby.
 
Golf is a hobby.

If you go to all the golf courses and ask the golfers if they would like a nice new beautiful golf course to enhance their golfing experience. You would get a resounding YES. If you then ask them to donate a bunch of money and spend a bunch of their free time to build and maintain that nice new golf course, that will still cost them just as much, or more, to play on as what they now have. Probably not going to generate a lot of excitement.

Hunting is a hobby.
At least in that example all the golf folk would know there was a tangible result that would benefit them all in the relative short term.

Many other examples in society where folks aren’t willing to pony up for the greater good if it affects their bottom line, be that time or money. Especially when they don’t anticipate seeing any real, immediate benefit in their own lifetime. Or, worse yet in perception, that the benefit goes to someone other than them.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
112,876
Messages
2,003,079
Members
35,880
Latest member
fishonfleek
Back
Top