Why so little support among hunters for growing game populations?

[Pucky Freak]

Just spitballing here. Besides the complexity, cost and time required to put more game in the field, I think there might be a fundamental flaw in attempting to redirect hunters’ attention away from how we slice the pie, and towards making the pie bigger.

If you are of privilege, the total number of huntable animals might not significantly influence your hunting opportunity. If the pie shrinks, you can take opportunity away from the non-privileged in order to keep getting the same amount of pie every year.

If you are not of privilege, let’s say the bottom 90% of hunters by a variety of measures (nonresidents, too young to have got in on the bottom floor for points, LO, income level, etc.), it’s easy to be skeptical that a bigger pie will translate to more personal hunting opportunity due to the history of squandering tactics of the privileged groups.

A practical example: rewind the clock 2-3 decades to when point systems were created. The math for glory tags was known up front - all the people buying tags in the first few years will eventually get glory tags, and nearly all the new point buyers to follow will never get one. Hunting opportunity was intentionally carved away to ensure that the current generation got the best and most at the expense of the next generation getting carved out.

And it’s not just PP, look at when the oldest MT hunters grumbled about not getting their moose and sheep tags. They re-stacked the deck AGAIN by squaring their BP. In several other States outfitters secured tag carve-outs, and NM dumps half their elk to NR’s. WY’s One Shot Antelope “Hunt”, auction tags, governor tags…There are countless other examples.

A lot of hunters, myself included, get incensed by the carveout shenanigans. When the pie is small, can’t we at least divide it up equitably? Shrinking game herds can be the source of angst too, but it doesn’t help that there are dozens of factors influencing why the herd size is the size that it is. Blame gets thrown around to predators, habitat loss, disease, wildfire policy, liberal harvests, etc., but at the end of the day there is no smoking gun. But when MOGA-directed elected representatives slip in an 11th hour provision to a bill that gives every outfitted NR a free elk and deer PP, the culprits are unambiguously clear.

Landing the plane…

If I willfully choose to tune out the endless procession of hunting opportunity carveouts by the privileged, perhaps I can force myself to get more amped up about antelope habitat, etc. than I do about trustees of public resources failing to do their jobs.

If ID moves to a pure PP system, do I get in on the ground floor to secure a sweet tag at the expense of the next generation of hunters? Is it worth the cost of aiding in the future disillusionment of those hunters towards doing what is best for the resource?

 

[Ben Lamb]

IMO,

Not everyone is cut out for advocacy and conservation. If your reward (the hunt) is more important than the future existence of the animal, then perhaps it's not your jam.

 

[ismith]

Mostly, because people suck.........

 

[Forkyfinder]

To your original question - the lack of support to grow game populations - i think a lot of it has to do with politics. Seems like there is only pro hunting (who are also for landowner ag/welfare - including and especially special tags) or anti hunting in politics - not much interest in actually growing wild game populations, conservation, or preserving the benefits of hunting for future generations.

 

[antlerradar]

Likely because most people think that growing game populations is going to require cutting opportunity and in many cases they are right.

 

[npaden]

Doing the math on dividing the pie up is easy. The math might not work out in your favor if you are just getting into the game but it is still pretty easy to do the calculations. You might not like what they tell you but it’s still just math.

The tricky part with building wildlife populations is that the math is pretty sketchy and historically hasn’t been very accurate.

Sometimes it is about the habitat, sometimes it’s social tolerance, predators get the blame a lot but rarely are the true explanation. It’s a lot harder than throwing some money at it but donating to wildlife conservation organizations is a start. It also takes time and advocacy that might not ever result in you with a prime tag in your pocket as a result.

Even owning my own property with lots of incentive to make things more attractive to wildlife and grow the populations it is hard to really feel like I can make much of a difference. I still do what I can though.

I’ve thought if each of us pitched in the same amount of $ to a wildlife organization like RMEF, RMBS or similar organizations for every $ we spent on application fees, points and licenses we could at least get a start. The money doesn’t always solve the problem but pooling money and buying conservation easement and grazing allotments and things like that sure don’t hurt.

 

[BuzzH]

Number one reason is most people that hunt just aren't serious about it.

 

[Rie Bread]

Meat in the freezer bro

 

[Bob-WY]

#1 reason, selfish people.

Yo raise numbers for tomorrow's hunter, today's hunter has to sacrifce

 

[TOGIE]

i'm a pretty pessimistic dude

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.

does that mean i'm giving up? nah. but, i'm not optimistic.

slowing the decline is better than nothin, and i fear that's all we can do.

 

[COEngineer]

I’ve thought if each of us pitched in the same amount of $ to a wildlife organization like RMEF, RMBS or similar organizations for every $ we spent on application fees, points and licenses we could at least get a start. The money doesn’t always solve the problem but pooling money and buying conservation easement and grazing allotments and things like that sure don’t hurt.

You realize your app/points/license fees go to your state wildlife agency which is managing the wildlife, right? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but it sounds like you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. If you think they are spending the money worse than RMEF/RMBS, then get involved and help change it.

EDIT: I can't read. npaden said to contribute the same amount, not swap where the money goes. My apologies.

What would make your argument better, IMO, is if you said something like, "If we contributed the same amount of money to RMEF/RMBS/etc as we spend on trucks, guns, optics, travel, etc..., we could literally change the world for the better."

 

[COEngineer]

i'm a pretty pessimistic dude

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.

does that mean i'm giving up? nah. but, i'm not optimistic.

slowing the decline is better than nothin, and i fear that's all we can do.

I disagree. If you look at historical game populations when we were actively managing the national forests, you can find evidence that the land can sustain much larger game populations. Look at the millions of acres of old, diseased-riddled pine forests where almost nothing lives. If we can re-start active management (thinning, burning, etc) there is a ton of potential we can unlock. We just need to get past the fear of fire and overcome the perception that all tree cutting is bad.

 

[TOGIE]

I disagree. If you look at historical game populations when we were actively managing the national forests, you can find evidence that the land can sustain much larger game populations. Look at the millions of acres of old, diseased-riddled pine forests where almost nothing lives. If we can re-start active management (thinning, burning, etc) there is a ton of potential we can unlock. We just need to get past the fear of fire and overcome the perception that all tree cutting is bad.

i'm sure that could help a ton.

but also, how much would it really help if there is zero winter range left?

 

[npaden]

You realize your app/points/license fees go to your state wildlife agency which is managing the wildlife, right? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but it sounds like you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. If you think they are spending the money worse than RMEF/RMBS, then get involved and help change it.

What would make your argument better, IMO, is if you said something like, "If we contributed the same amount of money to RMEF/RMBS/etc as we spend on trucks, guns, optics, travel, etc..., we could literally change the world for the better."

Not sure how saying that in addition to paying your app/points/license fees you should contribute that same amount to wildlife conservation groups also is robbing anyone. I feel like that amount would be somewhat realistic and attainable by most folks. I probably spend $2,000 per year in app/points/license fees and maybe $500 per year in contributions to wildlife conservation groups. I'm saying I should increase that to $2,000 per year, not that I should quit paying for app/points/license fees.

I'm not sure anyone is going to be contribute the same amount as they spend on trucks, guns, optics, travel, etc. Even if we did I'm not sure it would literally change the world for the better. Money can help but it isn't the magic ingredient that wildlife needs.

 

[huntin24/7]

As we’ve seen in MT, a high % of hunters are unwilling to give up their opportunity regardless of how game populations are doing. There oftentimes seems to be an attitude that “if I’m not a trophy hunter, I’m not selfish.” There is a lot of selfishness among outdoorsmen and many aren’t willing to sacrifice for the greater good if changes negatively affect them. This attitude is probably no different than what we see in other aspects of life too.

 

[COEngineer]

Not sure how saying that in addition to paying your app/points/license fees you should contribute that same amount to wildlife conservation groups also is robbing anyone. I feel like that amount would be somewhat realistic and attainable by most folks. I probably spend $2,000 per year in app/points/license fees and maybe $500 per year in contributions to wildlife conservation groups. I'm saying I should increase that to $2,000 per year, not that I should quit paying for app/points/license fees.

I'm not sure anyone is going to be contribute the same amount as they spend on trucks, guns, optics, travel, etc. Even if we did I'm not sure it would literally change the world for the better. Money can help but it isn't the magic ingredient that wildlife needs.

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully. I thought you were suggesting swapping where the funds went. Your suggestion makes sense. My apologies.

You're right, it's not realistic to expect it, but I really do wonder at the people that complain about a $60 license fee and then turn around and pump $200 into their giant fuel-inefficient truck with their tenth rifle they are never going to use and their brand new iphone. Maybe we can at least move the needle a little in the direction of contributing more to non-profits and less to the throw-away economy.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Likely because most people think that growing game populations is going to require cutting opportunity and in many cases they are right.

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?

 

[Trial153]

Putting more sheep on mountain… That’s worked well. Record breaking funding year after year…big results. Just one example. Blah blah blah…before anyone starts yes there are some isolated success story’s, But…and we all know what was said before BUT doenst matter…. But, for the most part everything is trending down. Population ( game of course, not people…heaven forbid we stop spreading like cancer), Tags, opportunities…never mind quality of game..
Maybe , just maybe hunters are sick of tossing good money after bad and getting the same shit results?

 

[CPAjeff]

While these aren't attitudes I agree with, I've heard of/seen lots of folks step away from conservation because of the following:

1. The uncontrollable factors. Case in point, we can have the best summer habitat, no fences for wildlife to cross, wildlife overpasses and underpasses, etc. but bring on a winter like 2022-2023 and decades of work is wiped out.
2. YOLO. Most people simply aren't willing to sacrifice what they want now, for what may be available in the future - even the prospects of a brighter future.
3. Corruption and greed at certain levels within wildlife agencies have soured people from assisting in wildlife management/conservation.
4. Time and money. Unless it's a priority, there isn't time and money allocated in some people's budget to help with conservation.
5. Laziness. I live in an area surrounded by elk, most people haven't done one thing to grow the elk here or help them thrive. For a lot of people, it's all take, take, take - the tragedy of the commons.

My home state has a dedicated hunter program for mule deer. It requires all participants to either buy or perform service hours in return for being able to harvest two deer in three years, while being able to hunt all weapon seasons (archery, muzzleloader, and rifle). Service projects have a direct correlation with conservation and it is always a wonderful time assisting with these projects. But, it's always the same few who are out banding geese, repairing fences, cleaning trails, clearing unwanted brush/weeds, etc. Like @BuzzH said above, most people who hunt just aren't serious about it.

 

[Beignet]

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.