• 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

elk yinzer said:
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.
Click to expand...
It definitely takes time, money, and passion. I think my boss is 10 years into his property, and he looks at it as a lifelong, legacy-type effort to restore it. He could shoot more and bigger deer than he has now for less money, which is what most people manage for in my experience.
 
Nutterbuster said:
It definitely takes time, money, and passion. I think my boss is 10 years into his property, and he looks at it as a lifelong, legacy-type effort to restore it. He could shoot more and bigger deer than he has now for less money, which is what most people manage for in my experience.
Click to expand...

Indeed it really only makes sense as a Quixotic hobby. Some money does get tossed around here through NRCS but its small potatoes really, not all that lucrative, and hard work to break into still.

To get landscape scale impacts on resto work we are going to need govt cheddar.

With AI job displacements, I predict we might see a CCC 2.0 that focuses on such things but that's beyond speculative.

I always chuckle at the volunteerism that the conservation orgs push. It's good awareness but the volunteer invasive work is less than a drop in the bucket.
 
Nutterbuster said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not suggesting that venison should replace the US consumption of beef. The easy solution there is a decrease of beef consumption. My primary point here is that the presence of hunters participates in the solution to numerous substantial problems. We literally pay the government money in exchange for them allowing us to provide a free service. That service decrease government spending on multiple fronts. I’ve yet to think of a single other outdoor activity that has those qualifications. If we have any angle to work to ensure a long term seat at the table, it’s hard to find a better leverage point.
 
elk yinzer said:
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.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you don't have to spend that much money unless you're trying to get get a project to go from year 1 to year 10 in 6 months...


Get in with some some of the regenerative permaculture types that know what they are doing, and actually doing it, you can build a landscape a lot cheaper if you do some extra leg work that doesn't cost extra money.
 
SNIPERBBB said:
The thing is, you don't have to spend that much money unless you're trying to get get a project to go from year 1 to year 10 in 6 months...


Get in with some some of the regenerative permaculture types that know what they are doing, and actually doing it, you can build a landscape a lot cheaper if you do some extra leg work that doesn't cost extra money.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of permaculture (hate that word but I'll swallow and echo it) type projects running too but it's hard to run a business on patience and vibes, ya gotta get paid for your time and knowledge and produce results.
 
Jammintree said:
My primary point here is that the presence of hunters participates in the solution to numerous substantial problems.
Click to expand...
Amiably, I don't see that point being made. Very rough math and historic precedence (Great Depression and the deer population collapse) seems to indicate that a hunter-gatherer's protein source can't support the demands of an agrarian or industrial society. That's just one wrinkle to the problem. I can't even fathom how recreational hunting could produce that much venison. I feel like it can only ever provide very small fraction of a percentage of societies protein needs; mostly to people who don't really struggle to get it.

A fraction of a percentage of meat supply seems like a single, small benefit. Not numerous substantial problems being solved by hunters.

What other big problems are hunters in 2026 and beyond solving for the 95% of people who don't hunt? What changes for them if hunting stops? 80% of my state DNR license dollars goes to admin costs and LEOs, and each group primarily intersects with hunters. Yes, state DNR does non-hunting adjacent stuff, but they also do it with non-hunting adjacent funding. Based on what I know, it's not like state parks and campgrounds and hiking and birding trails go away if hunters go. We have fewer hunters today, but more of all of those things compared to 50 years ago.

Asking an honest question. What are we doing that another group couldn't pick up?
 
elk yinzer said:
I have a lot of permaculture (hate that word but I'll swallow and echo it) type projects running too but it's hard to run a business on patience and vibes, ya gotta get paid for your time and knowledge and produce results.
Click to expand...
Yeah, doign it for yourself vs a business are different animals unless your clients are the patient types. Not many of those out there.
 
elk yinzer said:
To get landscape scale impacts on resto work we are going to need govt cheddar.

With AI job displacements, I predict we might see a CCC 2.0 that focuses on such things but that's beyond speculative.

I always chuckle at the volunteerism that the conservation orgs push. It's good awareness but the volunteer invasive work is less than a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...
Nutterbuster said:
I'd love to see CCC 2.0 instead of the prison farm system we inherited.
Click to expand...

Maybe we could get these casual hunters who are going to prop up hunting into the prison farm system first, and then graduate them to CCC 2.0 ....

Sorta like Earn-A-Buck : You gotta some good before you get a prize.

"Hey, man, first we're gonna have you pick up trash on the highway and maybe bust some rocks, and then you can move on up to planting some tomatoes and picking some corn in that big field behind Building 3.

"After that, we'll let you shoot a rabbit. If you find out you really like killing bunnies but want to try for something more glamorous, we'll move you up to Big Boy Camp. That's the Civilian Conservation Corps 2.0. You'll be building rock walls and maintaining mountain bike trails --stuff like that -- but since you've already proven yourself to be an committed casual hunter, you can apply to the committee for a duck permit or a deer or turkey tag."

"Oh, boy, Sir! Will I get to wear camoflauge?!?"

"Absolutely son, except for turkey hunting. As a casual hunter, we're concerned for your safety ... So for gobblers you'll have to wear blaze orange."




[I read about the noob wearing blaze orange going after turkeys earlier today on Rokslide --So the above is not a +complete+ work of fantasy.]
 
Nutterbuster said:
Amiably, I don't see that point being made. Very rough math and historic precedence (Great Depression and the deer population collapse) seems to indicate that a hunter-gatherer's protein source can't support the demands of an agrarian or industrial society. That's just one wrinkle to the problem. I can't even fathom how recreational hunting could produce that much venison. I feel like it can only ever provide very small fraction of a percentage of societies protein needs; mostly to people who don't really struggle to get it.

A fraction of a percentage of meat supply seems like a single, small benefit. Not numerous substantial problems being solved by hunters.

What other big problems are hunters in 2026 and beyond solving for the 95% of people who don't hunt? What changes for them if hunting stops? 80% of my state DNR license dollars goes to admin costs and LEOs, and each group primarily intersects with hunters. Yes, state DNR does non-hunting adjacent stuff, but they also do it with non-hunting adjacent funding. Based on what I know, it's not like state parks and campgrounds and hiking and birding trails go away if hunters go. We have fewer hunters today, but more of all of those things compared to 50 years ago.

Asking an honest question. What are we doing that another group couldn't pick up?
Click to expand...
Hunters and trappers need to realize that they are service providers for landowners/farmers. I think trappers generally recognize this, hunters not so much. Unfortunately for hunters there's not too many critters that can be hunted outside of deer, geese, and groundhogs if you have them that hunters can use to get access to land. Currently the benefit that most farmers see from hunters is the lease fees.

As for what other group that could pick up the wildlife management mantle is the ecological/regenerative farming type farmers(small scale/high profit per acre). Unfortunately a lot of that crowd isnt exactly friendly to the consumptive use of animals crowd.
 
The ultimate irony of the NAM failure is that antlers and recreation ended up having more market value than wild meat ever did or will.

That speaks to the core reason why the model failed and why hunting has driven up land prices.

That last sentence would be incomprehensible to someone in the 18th and 19th centuries. It would break their brain.
 
SNIPERBBB said:
Hunters and trappers need to realize that they are service providers for landowners/farmers.
Click to expand...
SNIPERBBB said:
Currently the benefit that most farmers see from hunters is the lease fees.
Click to expand...
If hunters and trappers were valuable service providers for landowners, then they would be the ones getting paid to hunt and trap. We all know that this is very much not the case.

@elk yinzer, I think you're very right that switching from meat having value to recreation/trophies/tournaments having value has definitely thrown a wrench in the works. We're struggling something fierce in Alabama to figure out how to manage todays super-successful bass fishing tourney crowd. Historically, you managed harvest with creel limits. A small percentage of anglers are so good at finding big, breeding bass, that they're literally (according to DCNR and an AU study) catch-weigh-and-releasing them to death. There's a big fight over if we're going to start limiting/banning tournaments on less-fertile reservoirs, implement a season instead of allowing year-round fishing, try to stock our way out of the problem, or (gasp) switch to catch-photograph-release.
 
elk yinzer said:
I gots to find that one, but in PA up til a few years ago when the NWTF acolytes banned rifles, we had to wear orange in the fall season.
Click to expand...

LOL.... I *knew* the 1% who have or had a fall season and/or like murdering turkeys with rifles were gonna pick at that joke, dammit! Maybe I should re-write it [Sigh...]

This is SC spring gobbler --- Shotguns, bows, camo city, baby!

Post 169

How to deal with game wardens?

Examples of Probable Cause (Inferred) A warden sees hunters near a "No Hunting" sign with fresh game and no licenses. A boat operator is fishing with illegal gear (like a gill net). A vehicle smells strongly of freshly killed game, but the occupants have no tags or licenses. I would pretty...
rokslide.com rokslide.com
 
Last edited:
I'm glad we are having this conversation civilly. 10 years ago I was formenting these ideas and was called a radical anticonservationist. The NAM had a religous fervor in the conservation crowd. I just call it like I see it.
 
Nutterbuster said:
If hunters and trappers were valuable service providers for landowners, then they would be the ones getting paid to hunt and trap. We all know that this is very much not the case.

@elk yinzer, I think you're very right that switching from meat having value to recreation/trophies/tournaments having value has definitely thrown a wrench in the works. We're struggling something fierce in Alabama to figure out how to manage todays super-successful bass fishing tourney crowd. Historically, you managed harvest with creel limits. A small percentage of anglers are so good at finding big, breeding bass, that they're literally (according to DCNR and an AU study) catch-weigh-and-releasing them to death. There's a big fight over if we're going to start limiting/banning tournaments on less-fertile reservoirs, implement a season instead of allowing year-round fishing, try to stock our way out of the problem, or (gasp) switch to catch-photograph-release.
Click to expand...
Well some of us do get paid to hunt and trap. Mostly trap though. There's guys getting paid 1-2k a week to trap on large farms. Which is chump change to to guys doing residential/commercial/industrial wildlife control around bigger cities.
 
Nutterbuster said:
try to stock our way out of the problem, or (gasp) switch to catch-photograph-release
Click to expand...
The kayak fishing tournaments are doing the photo -release style tournaments around here. Gotta have approved measuring boards and follow the rules for taking the pictures
 
Not sure traditional livewell culling and weigh-ins are the problems with well-run tournaments. Happy to see evidence to the contrary, though, if it exists.

Kayak guys seem to be okay with measuring boards and photos, but they're kayak guys. (I'm one of them, LOL, though I have zero interest in tournament fishing.)

But I don't see it translating to traditional bass tournaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top