Do we really WANT more hunters?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

In the long-term demographics picture, there are fewer and fewer hunters. Fact. There are many efforts by different hunting-related organizations to increase hunter numbers. Also fact.

Now know it's good for the wildlife department, but from a selfish point of view, I'd prefer there be less hunters, particularly as available hunting lands get smaller and smaller. It's just a matter of numbers. Land getting less, people getting more, that means less acres per person to hunt. I like to roam free and wild, and not see a soul if I can help it. I'd like to see hunters' numbers decline myself, but stay at a decent level (not a precipitous drop), so that the culture still survives & thrives. But to me, I see the tee vee hunting shows that (I assume) result in recruiting every tom, dick and harry city boy to the sport of hunting as a *bad thing*.

 

[1shott]

Sure, more hunters would be great.

My personal belief is that hunting has gone the way of fishing, all commercial now.

While those hunting shows can be entertianing, they seldom show how hunting really is. Most of them film on ranches that cater to canned hunts, so to speak. Ya you can get the big wall hanger buck, but it will cost you $15k in fees and such, no thanks.
Also most of the shows are nothing more than a 30 minute commercial for whatever product is a sponsor of that show. Use this feed, use this lure, use this feeder etc etc etc....no thanks I will pass.

New hunters would be a great asset.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

OK. But WHY are new hunters a great asset?

They help the wildlife department with fee collection which in turn helps us, so that part is good. We WANT to the wildlife department to have a healthy budget for enforcement, land acquisition, services, etc.

But beyond that, how does it help you and me, the average hunter, to have more rather than less (or a steady number)?

 

[1shott]

Well new hunters can pass on a great tradition.

Also keep in mind that alot of them will fall off and give it up after not bagging that big wall hanger they see everyone getting on those tv shows.

I think the sport will continue to grow and will reach a level where it supports itself.

You are correct about dwindling places to hunt, getting harder and harder, I can still access a few decent spots, but nothing like I had for the last few years. I swear you could not swing a cat out there without hitting deer.

This year I am setting out, between a sick family member and work, my time is going to be very limited,
Today and Wednesday I am off, but have already been back once today, and I know tomorrow I will have to go in for a meeting, so there goes part of my day as well. Eh its all good.

 

[bigcountryok]

Don't take this personal, just a discussion.

I honestly could not disagree with you more. The reason we have the areas that we have to hunt is because of hunters. The more our numbers decline the less power we as a group have and the more rights and land we will continue to lose. Below are several reasons why I thing we need more hunters.

1) To protect and preserve our God given right to hunt. The fewer of us there are the quicker they will try to take away what is ours.
2) The life lessons learned. Hunting is not just killing. It teaches many life lessons that go beyond the woods. Hunters know about life, death, conservation, and survival. They practice hands on management of our resources that is not taught in classroom along with a whole list of lessons in responsibility.
3) Yes there is the money. Hunters fund the Wildlife Department, purchases and maint of hunting land, the bio studies, and the wardens.
4) Then there is the conservation of the land and animals. The more people we have active practicing conservation, population managment, and land management, the better off all hunters will be.
5) The time spent with family and friends hunting is a true gift and a blessing. The more people who enjoy it the better. I would never want to deprive anyone of that.

We need more responsible, active, hands on hunters who practice hands on conservation and are willing to get involved politically to protect the God given rights we should never even have been forced to defend.

 

[Istandalone]

Less hunters means less power to keep public lands open to hunting.

 

[grwd]

In my opinion, Its not about you, or me, or other hunters; its about the wildlife and habitat.

First off, the vast majority of hunters will wack the first fawn that comes along, so even if they call them selves trophy hunters, very few are dragging slob buck back to the truck every year.

the WD must manage for a healthy ecosystem first and foremost; using hunting as a significant tool, of course.

They help the wildlife department with fee collection which in turn helps us, so that part is good.

On the money side, its not only good, its necessary and critical.


Back to the science

if you have less hunters, you can take less animals (keep in mind most deer taken are does, which is good).

Less hunters= more animals=overpopulation=population crash

 

[bigcountryok]

(keep in mind most deer taken are does, which is good).

If I remember correctly last years numbers did not reflect this, but did reflect a change heading in that direction.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Dr. Tad, did you read this on another forum a couple weeks ago?

This was on a bowhunting forum I read and it went on for days and page after page. I don't post there, just watch the fireworks, lol.

 

[bulbboy]

Less hunters means less power to keep public lands open to hunting.

+1

very good post