• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Quit Expecting Every Hunter to Be So Hardcore. We Need Casual Hunters, Too

  • Thread starter Deleted member 23394
  • Start date
Nutterbuster said:
No real comment on the article, other than I liked Matt Miller's Fishing through the Apocalypse and have read other stuff by the author of the article that I like. OL and Field and Stream have surprised me a couple of times in the past few years publishing stuff that I think is obviously true but equally obviously not popular with their base.

As far as the rest of the conversation...

Hunting is dead. Full stop. It's not dying, it's dead, and we're living off of a corpse.

We do not have enough public acreage to support quality hunting for enough hunters to sustain the model that was envisioned. The men who started the North American Model had an excellent vision, and started the ball rolling. Subsequent generations have failed to continue to accumulate public lands, and at this point I honestly do not think that we can accumulate enough public land to make the NAM work based on hunting/fishing. Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funding are mainly supplied by non-hunting firearms/ammo sales and and non-fishing recreational boating fuel at this point, which has served to mask the situation to most outdoorsmen. So even state-level DNR funding (which is only one very specific and relatively small part of conservation spending compared to funding coming from oil taxes, non-sportsmen nonprofits and agencies, etc) isn't even able to sustain itself with hunter participation.

Everybody is worried about anti-hunting takeover of DNRs, but I can tell you that in my state the more insidious problem is takeover by extractive industry. DNR in more rural, conservative states is very much beholden to timber, ranching, gas, mining, etc., The hunting stuff they do is good PR at this point and not much more. If the Men who Matter want to set up a lithium mine on your public land, or graze cattle, or clearcut, or drill for oil, they will eventually. You may have beat them last year, and you may beat them next year, but you have to keep winning, and they only have to win once. It's been this way at the state level (at least in my corner of the world) for a long time, but now we have the director of the EPA stating that their organizational goal is to "unleash American energy." This isn't what they were chartered to do, but here we are. As we continue to develop and use resources (and the AI-boom has greatly accelerated this process) business will come for what is left of public land, and it will degrade in ability to support hunting.

As far as making private land accessible, this is a pipe dream. We have, right or wrong, repeatedly demonstrated that we will brook no talk of collectivism when it comes to acreage. My boss used to work in land sales, and part of my job is editorial teamwork on a recreational property management podcast. I'm pretty familiar with what land costs, and what it costs to maintain that land so that it will support quality hunting. It is currently beyond most family's grasp, and that situation will not be improving.

I say all of this as a lifelong hunter, whose daddy, grandaddy, great-grandaddy, and great-great-grandaddy all hunt(ed). I work in the hook & bullet world, and have for my entire career. I've interviewed state DNR directors and throughout the southeast. I've got friends that work in state and federal agencies from Corps of Engineers to Fish and Wildlife to college research and park biologists. I'm on the board of two conservation groups. I'm young, but I've paid close attention for the last decade, have read up on the last hundred years of conservation history, and have talked to a lot of "old timers" who all say the same thing. The hunting and fishing that they have today (deer hunting aside) is universally worse than it used to be. We broke our arms patting ourselves on the back for bringing wood ducks, turkeys, and deer back, put the shovels down, effed off, and now we're having to acknowledge that duck numbers are free-falling, turkey numbers are dropping, and at least in my state upland bird hunting is a complete non-starter.

It's over. It's done. If you sit on the right side of the income bell-curve, you'll be able to ride out your lifetime. If you're really well off, you may be able to pass it on to your kids or grandkids. But hunting in North America is already irreversibly on its way to being a pastime of the well-heeled, just like it is on every other continent.

R3 won't fix it. Hunt Quietly won't fix it. The people who opposed public lands when folks like Teddy and Muir advocated for them have very quietly but diligently dismantled the institutions that protected them. Case-in-point, there's an extremely good chance that the revisions to definitions of "waters of the united states" will remove protected wetland status from 80% of the current acreage protected. That number is from the EPA. That will have massive impacts on public access, duck breeding success rates, and water quality. It's barely making a ripple in the sporting community, and it's just one of an almost unfathomable number of changes we're making in the name of making the US more "business-friendly."

Deer and squirrels and predator trapping are the last bastions, because those animals can survive in urban sprawl and farm monocultures. But I've watched duck hunting decline from bad to abysmal in the last ten years, haven't seen a good group of snipe in 3, and have never even seen enough rabbits or quail to attempt to hunt them. We have been so lost in navel-gazing and sticking our head in the sand that we didn't see that the habitat loss Aldo Leopold and others warned ourselves about didn't stop, or even slow down, but accelerated in pace.

Again, hunting is dead. It may still be capable of fogging a mirror, but it isn't recovering. It will not get better in a meaningful way for a meaningful number of people. And it's pretty bad right now. The amount of work or money that it takes to be successful now is greater than it ever has been. This is a deer hunting forum, so we have the best of it. But those of us who hunt other species know that on the whole, it's really terrible right now. And we're diligently undoing all of the things we did to salvage the situation.
Click to expand...
What a gut punch, a well written one that I don't see any evidence to dispute unfortunately
 
BTaylor said:
Maybe what we need is a push to re-brand R3 to something more of us could likely get behind. How about Retrain, Refocus or Remove "influencers". ;)
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but any of us who are very active in the hunting or outdoor sphere are "influencers." ---Even if we are only in print, digital or not (!)

Or the local gun shop, or on the water.

Think about it: Jim Zumbo was an influencer.


LOL ---Okay, bad (?) example. (Maybe?) --LOL



Jack O'Connor was definitely an influencer.
 
mschultz373 said:
- population collapse to the tune of -32% in USA by 2100 (per current birth rate, this is projected trend absent immigration) means less resource use and more land available for hunting - Population collapse, as I've read it, is generally expected to lead to economic collapse. Countries going through economic collapse put more strain on natural resources, not less, as they desperately attempt to stabilize and regrow. Or, they're exploited by other nations. Those are, at least, the historic outcomes as far as I'm aware.
- AI/technology innovation fuels extreme efficiency in resource development that ends up opening up more land for conservation - I hear that optimistic viewpoint a lot. But currently, AI is already devouring massive amounts of natural resources. The damage is real and immediate, the supposed upside is very much hypothetical and mainly touted by people with much to gain financially from selling everybody else on it.
- political climate shifts that reverse current trends - would love to see them. Not holding my breath.

we have some evidence that we can in fact reverse trends, too - bald eagle populations, ozone layer recovery, reforestation worldwide, etc. - None of that happened because of the sporting community. I think we may be able to salvage part of some ecosystems, but that's not the same thing as the middle class being able to enjoy quality hunting.
Click to expand...
 
Went for a run, had a glass of water and a protein shake, and wanted to maybe reign in my own pessimism.

I do not think my first post is wrong. Hunting is dead, assuming that hunters today and tomorrow keep doing what they've been doing my whole life. We lost momentum and coasted. Initial wins that should have been proof of concept and models to build on were treated as final victories. Meanwhile, conflicting interests have been much more diligent and focused. Again, I'm not talking about "the antis." I'm talking about extractive use and development that has quietly and boringly been buying up all of the land and either fencing off reserves for the Haves or stripping it of resources. Cultural conflict with the "woke hippies" is loud and emotionally satisfying. Land-use conflict with powerful organizations (many of which are led by men who, ironically, like to hunt and fish and can pass as "good guys") is exhausting. Hunters, as a group, have overwhelmingly and somewhat understandably chosen the former, and that choice has had consequences. It’s much easier for developers and extractive industries to deal with isolated user groups than with a broad coalition that includes hunters, anglers, paddlers, birders, water utilities, and downstream communities. Meanwhile, the forces that actually determine land use have never stopped lobbying, never stopped organizing, and never stopped adapting. They’ve been very good at the boring work.

If hunters remain isolated as a shrinking interest group, concerned primarily with defining and defending little tribes against other little tribes, as has been the case for my whole life, then it's dead. If hunting becomes one tool within a broader land and water ethic shared with non-hunters, and we can actually start saving habitat, then hunting may survive in a form most of us would find acceptable for our kids and grandkids. That would require hunters to stop thinking of themselves as the center of conservation and start acting like one constituency in a much larger fight over land, water, and power. That’s a harder cultural shift than buying a license or mentoring a kid, and it may be the real make-or-break question underneath all of this.
 
Nutterbuster said:
Went for a run, had a glass of water and a protein shake, and wanted to maybe reign in my own pessimism.

I do not think my first post is wrong. Hunting is dead, assuming that hunters today and tomorrow keep doing what they've been doing my whole life. We lost momentum and coasted. Initial wins that should have been proof of concept and models to build on were treated as final victories. Meanwhile, conflicting interests have been much more diligent and focused. Again, I'm not talking about "the antis." I'm talking about extractive use and development that has quietly and boringly been buying up all of the land and either fencing off reserves for the Haves or stripping it of resources. Cultural conflict with the "woke hippies" is loud and emotionally satisfying. Land-use conflict with powerful organizations (many of which are led by men who, ironically, like to hunt and fish and can pass as "good guys") is exhausting. Hunters, as a group, have overwhelmingly and somewhat understandably chosen the former, and that choice has had consequences. It’s much easier for developers and extractive industries to deal with isolated user groups than with a broad coalition that includes hunters, anglers, paddlers, birders, water utilities, and downstream communities. Meanwhile, the forces that actually determine land use have never stopped lobbying, never stopped organizing, and never stopped adapting. They’ve been very good at the boring work.

If hunters remain isolated as a shrinking interest group, concerned primarily with defining and defending little tribes against other little tribes, as has been the case for my whole life, then it's dead. If hunting becomes one tool within a broader land and water ethic shared with non-hunters, and we can actually start saving habitat, then hunting may survive in a form most of us would find acceptable for our kids and grandkids. That would require hunters to stop thinking of themselves as the center of conservation and start acting like one constituency in a much larger fight over land, water, and power. That’s a harder cultural shift than buying a license or mentoring a kid, and it may be the real make-or-break question underneath all of this.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you reframed your own case. This remix is much more in alignment with my yet to be published perspectives.
 
Nutterbuster said:
It’s much easier for developers and extractive industries to deal with isolated user groups than with a broad coalition that includes hunters, anglers, paddlers, birders, water utilities, and downstream communities. Meanwhile, the forces that actually determine land use have never stopped lobbying, never stopped organizing, and never stopped adapting. They’ve been very good at the boring work.

If hunters remain isolated as a shrinking interest group, concerned primarily with defining and defending little tribes against other little tribes, as has been the case for my whole life, then it's dead. If hunting becomes one tool within a broader land and water ethic shared with non-hunters, and we can actually start saving habitat, then hunting may survive in a form most of us would find acceptable for our kids and grandkids. That would require hunters to stop thinking of themselves as the center of conservation and start acting like one constituency in a much larger fight over land, water, and power. That’s a harder cultural shift than buying a license or mentoring a kid, and it may be the real make-or-break question underneath all of this.
Click to expand...


Maybe if "paddlers and birders and downstream communities" stopped thinking of hunters as "extractive users" as a bad thing, you could build this "broad coalition."

If not, good luck. Hunters are already doing what they can for outreach, and have been for decades.

It's not up to hunters to save the wild.

But yes it is, and here we are.
 
Swamp Fox__On The Run said:
Maybe if "paddlers and birders and downstream communities" stopped thinking of hunters as "extractive users" as a bad thing, you could build this "broad coalition."

If not, good luck. Hunters are already doing what they can for outreach, and have been for decades.

It's not up to hunters to save the wild.

But yes it is, and here we are.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely disagree. I've told my local Sierra Club chapter how stupid it is to alienate half the country by having a stance on gun laws when you're an environmental group. Pretty bad mission drift.

But regardless of who did what, we're in the hang together or hang separately stage. And you're painting a really broad brush. Not all nonhunters are anti hunting, and not all nonconsumptive users have beef with consumptive use. Some of us alternate between watching the birds and shooting them. And I personally know quite a few of the local Audubon crowd who are pro hunting and know more about the good work hunters as conservationists have historically done than most hunters
 
Nutterbuster said:
I don't entirely disagree. I've told my local Sierra Club chapter how stupid it is to alienate half the country by having a stance on gun laws when you're an environmental group. Pretty bad mission drift.

But regardless of who did what, we're in the hang together or hang separately stage. And you're painting a really broad brush. Not all nonhunters are anti hunting, and not all nonconsumptive users have beef with consumptive use. Some of us alternate between watching the birds and shooting them. And I personally know quite a few of the local Audubon crowd who are pro hunting and know more about the good work hunters as conservationists have historically done than most hunters
Click to expand...

For the record, I didn't write, hint or imply that all --or any!-- non-hunters are anti-hunting.

I merely pointed out (or tried to) that consumptive/non-consumptive is a two-way street.
 
BTaylor said:
Maybe she should stop labeling hunters based on the actions of a very small percentage on social media. And just maybe while she's at it, she could write something new rather than making a few slight edits to a 5 year old article that was already published.

If that seems a harsh take just keep in mind I am 6 days into no bread, crackers, Debbies or pretty much anything good food wise.
Click to expand...
Same on the food!!! Just greens, protein and water this week. Kinda blows!!!
 
BTaylor said:
If that seems a harsh take just keep in mind I am 6 days into no bread, crackers, Debbies or pretty much anything good food wise.
Click to expand...

woodsdog2 said:
Same on the food!!! Just greens, protein and water this week. Kinda blows!!!
Click to expand...

I don't know if it will help, but just remember that you put your own heads in the noose.

I have to remind my married friends of that all the time.

LOL
 
The Jeffersonian middle class isn't dead yet, and I'm not ready to declare hunting as we know it dead yet until it is. It's on life support, but there's a lot of political arbitrage neither clown show effectively captures right now. Second half of millenials lifespans are gonna be eventful. It's a pivotal time in history right now, it always is in the moment but technology is coming to a head.
 
I’m not sure that hunting is dead, yet. We are certainly at risk. Our current primary objective should be to demonstrate our significance to conservation, wildlife management and also to human centric issues. In suburban, urban and agricultural regions all across the United States there are deer populations that are out of control. By proactively participating in deer population management harvests, hunters could prove their merit. I know there are folks on this forum who are already doing this. There is also plenty of need from many Americans to have better access to high quality protein. Deer population management has the potential to help address human food needs, and decrease the need to strip the rainforests of Central America in order to produce cheap hamburgers. By feeding hungry people and culling excessive populations hunters can provide a valuable public service.

Because of the aforementioned reasons, I don t actually see hunting as an extractive activity. If hunting is being practiced in a way that is an active part of ecosystem management it is in fact an additive practice. There are very few activities in the land conservation discussion that are as beneficial to the equation as hunting. If we can demonstrate our value, and maintain behavior that makes us easy to work with, our chances of remaining VIPs will not be at stake.

And to the thesis of the author, I don’t actually think that casual hunters play a key role in preservation of hunting, at least under our current practices. She’s right, there’s no reason to shun them. But I don’t really think that’s happening to the extent that she has claimed. Can casual hunters help preserve hunting as a viable component of ecosystem conservation, yes sure - by helping to cultivate a public image of hunters being respectful and considerate participants in the maintenance of our beloved ecosystems.
 
In a lot of the NE we have extractive industry specifically timber to thank for our public lands.

If they had a clue about oil let alone shale gas in 1800, the map would look a whole lot different.

Everything fertile is farms, the rest was timber until timber was no more and the states and feds swooped in and bought what is today forests, when they bought it mostly wasteland.

The Southeast is a an entirely different dynamic with plantation settlement, then reconstruction. That ground has always been spoken for, and there was always the massive wealth disparity that was much narrower as the northeast and then the midwest was settled in a different manner.
 
Jammintree said:
Our current primary objective should be to demonstrate our significance to conservation, wildlife management and also to human centric issues. In suburban, urban and agricultural regions all across the United States there are deer populations that are out of control. By proactively participating in deer population management harvests, hunters could prove their merit. I know there are folks on this forum who are already doing this. There is also plenty of need from many Americans to have better access to high quality protein. Deer population management has the potential to help address human food needs, and decrease the need to strip the rainforests of Central America in order to produce cheap hamburgers. By feeding hungry people and culling excessive populations hunters can provide a valuable public service.

Because of the aforementioned reasons, I don t actually see hunting as an extractive activity. If hunting is being practiced in a way that is an active part of ecosystem management it is in fact an additive practice. There are very few activities in the land conservation discussion that are as beneficial to the equation as hunting. If we can demonstrate our value, and maintain behavior that makes us easy to work with, our chances of remaining VIPs will not be at stake.
Click to expand...
I just did dirty math googling US population, average annual meat consumption per capita, deer population estimates, and a fairly generous assumed average meat yield of 60 lbs per deer.

If we killed the entire 35 million strong herd, and each animal yielded 60 lbs, you end up with a little over 2 billion pounds of meat.

The US eats about 77 billion lbs of meat here lately.

Obviously you can't kill the whole herd each year. Can you kill 20%? Probably. But even if you can get away with killing half of the herd each year, you're looking at less than a percent.

What I do agree on is that hunting can be additive. My boss has done a really cool job of restoring 500 acres of Lower Coastal Plain Longleaf Savanna and bottomland hardwoods. His property not only produces more deer, but more birds and rabbits and native plants than it did when he purchased it as loblolly monoculture.
 
Getting people to spend money on ecology is like pulling teeth, but dentists are rich I guess. I started a small side business targeting ecological restoration where invasives take over and suffice to say it's been a slow burn. A lot of projects you see on SM in that space are a dog and pony show and the bigger projects are full of abject failures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top