Ouch! someone made a boo boo....

[thphm]

All I can say that Land Access is Not a problem all around where I now live. I think there is more  DEP land now then private now around me. But who want's to drive 4-1/2  - 5 hours  from LI or NYC to hunt here unless you have a place to stay. There are a few B and B places maby 2 motels and that's it. There are also a few good size spots of State land also.The deer are here  ( according to the DEC ) there are also some nice bears ,. but is is not that desirable if you are not in shape , more hills to climb then flat land to hunt.Another minus to attract hunters.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

I remember last year there was a lot of talk about not buying a license due to AR's, Cuomo's diss, and the surge in lifetime license sales in prior years.

[G-Man]

There are no more combo licences, so. A guy that maybe small game hunted might I'd just bought a sportsman in the off chance he would deer hunt, or the guy that deer hunted would buy a combo incase he saw some small game now only buys his buck tag, the dec has no idea how many people hunt turkey in the fall or in the spring , the tag is cheap so I'm at the license shop and I buy it incase maybe I see one in the fall,I only spring hunt, or I buy it as I only fall hunt... their numbers in all things are just s.w.a.g. maybe this new system will give a better s.w.a.g after a few years when numbers calm down.

[mike rossi]

Can someone be more specific here?  This is a drop in license sales only?   And a drop over one year or several??  Please post links if you have them.

 

When you lower the price, you can sell just as many or more and net less revenue....

 

And it takes a special kind of stupid to think that not buying a hunting license is a way to protest the safe act....

 

And, it was the organizations representing NY sportsmen who were behind this restructuring, not the dec or the Governor. 

[Doc]

One thing that seems to go zinging over everyone's head is that once you drive hunters out of the sport, either through irritating regulation, excessive costs of licenses or whatever, they tend to stay out. Guns get sold, new hobbies are invested in and enjoyed, and even if you dramatically cut costs of licenses, they simply are not coming back. We are just barely hanging on to our hunters as it is. Drive them out and then implement incentives to come back? ..... It just ain't happening. They're gone.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

One thing that seems to go zinging over everyone's head is that once you drive hunters out of the sport, either through irritating regulation, excessive costs of licenses or whatever, they tend to stay out. Guns get sold, new hobbies are invested in and enjoyed, and even if you dramatically cut costs of licenses, they simply are not coming back. We are just barely hanging on to our hunters as it is. Drive them out and then implement incentives to come back? ..... It just ain't happening. They're gone.

Did it ever enter your mind that in todays sick world that many out there dont care and kinda hope that more hunters hang it up?  Now add the restricts along with disease scare and no deer and they are smiling all the way to their new hunting spot that is loaded with deer!

[steve863]

Did it ever enter your mind that in todays sick world that many out there dont care and kinda hope that more hunters hang it up?  Now add the restricts along with disease scare and no deer and they are smiling all the way to their new hunting spot that is loaded with deer!

 

 

It's surely become a selfish game, I'll give you that.  Years ago neighbor allowed neighbor to hunt each others land, while these days most property boundaries are guarded better than our southern border with Mexico. I guess much of the distrust between hunters has been created by slob hunters, but it's usually a slob hunter who thinks everyone else is a slob hunter, just as a thief always thinks everyone else is a thief, so as I've always said, the demise of hunting has pretty much been our own doing.  Even with the restrictions such as AR's.  It was one group of hunters who pushed for it and made it become law, while the rest are now starting to give it up since legally there isn't much left to shoot at.  The ones who pushed for the law are probably loving it that there will be fewer hunters out there to shoot "their" bucks, so it's a win-win for them on a couple of counts.

[steve863]

When you lower the price, you can sell just as many or more and net less revenue....

 

 

 

 

I still haven't seen a link posted to verify this decrease in revenue, but if true, there is NO way that the lowering in price of sporting licenses could have decreased the revenue by as much as it is being claimed here.  How much did prices go down by?  A couple of bucks in total??  NO way that would add up to the millions we are talking about here.

[jjb4900]

mandatory antler restrictions are the worst thing to ever happen to the sport of deer hunting when it comes to keeping older hunters and recruiting new ones.....and I hope DEC figures that out pretty quickly.

Edited July 8, 2015 by jjb4900

[steve863]

mandatory antler restrictions are the worst thing to ever happen to the sport of deer hunting when it comes to keeping older hunters and recruiting new ones.....and I hope DEC figures that out pretty quickly.

 

 

As you and others have stated, there has definitely been a drastic reduction in hunter numbers in the Catskill/Hudson valley region.  Many of which were hunters from the NYC/LI area.  People think that there aren't many hunters from that area, but they just don't realize the number of people that actually live there.  Out of the MILLIONS of people there, only a small percentage hunt, but this still adds up to a LOT of people in comparison to population numbers in the rural parts of the state.   Lets say 20,000 hunters have given it up from the region, which in my opinion is probably on the low side.    Lets say on the average these people spent $60 on sporting licenses.  If they are no longer buying sporting licenses, that's $1.2 million dollars right there of lost revenue.

[mike rossi]

I still haven't seen a link posted to verify this decrease in revenue, but if true, there is NO way that the lowering in price of sporting licenses could have decreased the revenue by as much as it is being claimed here.  How much did prices go down by?  A couple of bucks in total??  NO way that would add up to the millions we are talking about here.

 

I have not seen the link either, and I am put off by the fact the OP isnt responding to you about that. However ----

 

Lets say there were only one million hunters and anglers in NY. If you reduced the license one dollar that is a lose of one million dollars a year in revenue. In two years it is a loss of two million dollars....

 

Seven million isn't a stretch, unless you cant do arithmetic. 

 

So, Steve, what should we do about it besides vent on this forum? That is about the only thing about this that should be discussed, and about the only thing that never is. 

[steve863]

I have not seen the link either, and I am put off by the fact the OP isnt responding to you about that. However ----

 

Lets say there were only one million hunters and anglers in NY. If you reduced the license one dollar that is a lose of one million dollars a year in revenue. In two years it is a loss of two million dollars....

 

Seven million isn't a stretch, unless you cant do arithmetic. 

 

So, Steve, what should we do about it besides vent on this forum? That is about the only thing about this that should be discussed, and about the only thing that never is. 

 

 

If the loss of revenue is caused solely by the drop in the cost of licenses, then why would the state or anyone be looking into this?  They could do the math and the case would be closed.  I somehow think their math isn't adding up to only the drop in license costs, thus this is being analyzed further.  Again, I don't know JACK as to where anyone is going with this since I have not seen any links posted here.

 

What do we do about it?  Some of us have been giving our observations and reasons to why there has been a drop in hunter numbers.  As to solutions?  There are many, yet as is usual in the hunting world, NONE will make everyone happy.  I myself can't see hunting gaining in any sort of popularity on a large scale.  Yeah, you might have a few take it up, but then you'll have that many or more who will give it up.  So in the end you'll still have a net loss in hunter numbers, which is exactly what I think is happening here.  There is NO magic bullet here.  One can't take up hunting as one would take up tennis, jogging, bicycling or many other activities.  Hunting is a totally different animal.  It depends on so many different factors, that for many it's becoming way more trouble than it's worth.

[jjb4900]

The article is in the latest edition of NY Outdoor News.........I tried to find a link to post, but didn't have any luck.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I still haven't seen a link posted to verify this decrease in revenue, but if true, there is NO way that the lowering in price of sporting licenses could have decreased the revenue by as much as it is being claimed here.  How much did prices go down by?  A couple of bucks in total??  NO way that would add up to the millions we are talking about here.

 

For resident licenses it only went down a buck or two, but non resident licenses dropped by a ton. Also, as has been said, combo licenses are gone and people are only buying what they need. It could amount to a sizable drop in revenue. We should wait to see the numbers for all of it before we start crying that the sky is falling.

[mike rossi]

If the loss of revenue is caused solely by the drop in the cost of licenses, then why would the state or anyone be looking into this?  They could do the math and the case would be closed.  I somehow think their math isn't adding up to only the drop in license costs, thus this is being analyzed further.  Again, I don't know JACK as to where anyone is going with this since I have not seen any links posted here.

 

What do we do about it?  Some of us have been giving our observations and reasons to why there has been a drop in hunter numbers.  As to solutions?  There are many, yet as is usual in the hunting world, NONE will make everyone happy.  I myself can't see hunting gaining in any sort of popularity on a large scale.  Yeah, you might have a few take it up, but then you'll have that many or more who will give it up.  So in the end you'll still have a net loss in hunter numbers, which is exactly what I think is happening here.  There is NO magic bullet here.  One can't take up hunting as one would take up tennis, jogging, bicycling or many other activities.  Hunting is a totally different animal.  It depends on so many different factors, that for many it's becoming way more trouble than it's worth.

 

Look into what? Why the lose was greater than expected per the OP? If there is any truth to this post, I would guess the answer to your question is because they are more concerned with restoring funding than ruminating....

 

The DEC Commissioner stated point blank during the budget testimony he did not want changes to the license fees. A bunch of hunters testified they did want it. The Governor went with the hunters.  And this testimony is on video, which I already posted, not once, but twice.... 

 

I think we need to see a link. 

 

Maybe three is a charm:

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

[steve863]

 

Maybe three is a charm:

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

 

Nevertheless you all just will not acknowledge the fact that this was a stupid move by the most politically connected hunters in the state....

 

 

I don't see why we have to admit to anything.  What move isn't due to the politically connected in this state?  I can't think of one.  And what seems stupid to some is great to others.  Take antler restictions for example.  Ten hunters who may be part of a "sportsmans" group could be in the pockets of some politicians and they could have enough sway to get it to become law, while scores of others think the rule stinks and are pretty much voiceless on the matter.  That's how dirty politics works.  Politicians, no matter what party they belong to are as low as it gets on the scale of low-lifes.  If you know of a way to get politics out of hunting and everything else, please let us know how to do it.  I don't think anyone has figured that one out yet.

[mike rossi]

I don't see why we have to admit to anything.  What move isn't due to the politically connected in this state?  I can't think of one.  And what seems stupid to some is great to others.  Take antler restictions for example.  Ten hunters who may be part of a "sportsmans" group could be in the pockets of some politicians and they could have enough sway to get it to become law, while scores of others think the rule stinks and are pretty much voiceless on the matter.  That's how dirty politics works.  Politicians, no matter what party they belong to are as low as it gets on the scale of low-lifes.  If you know of a way to get politics out of hunting and everything else, please let us know how to do it.  I don't think anyone has figured that one out yet.

 

That is a summary painted with too broad of a brush. Certain items are closer to special interests and other items are of the nature that a group is speaking for or representing a larger group. There is a difference....

[DirtTime]

Can someone be more specific here?  This is a drop in license sales only?   And a drop over one year or several??  Please post links if you have them.

I would like to see links as well.

 

I still haven't seen a link posted to verify this decrease in revenue, but if true, there is NO way that the lowering in price of sporting licenses could have decreased the revenue by as much as it is being claimed here.  How much did prices go down by?  A couple of bucks in total??  NO way that would add up to the millions we are talking about here.

Still waiting for the links too.

 

The article is in the latest edition of NY Outdoor News.........I tried to find a link to post, but didn't have any luck.

So, it was from a magazine? Be it a reputable magazine I would still like to see a link from DEC or something official from NYS. How does a magazine have these 'facts', but there is nothing to support it on any official site?

 

 

So.....I will also ask, where are the links to supprt such a massive loss in revenue from the outdoors community? Are there even enough hunters or fishers in this state to supprt that kind of loss?

Break down:

Base Hunting License = $22

Bow = $15

ML = $15

Turkey = $10

Duck Stamp = $10

DMP's = $10

Fishing = $25

 

Total = $107.

 

Now break this down.....$107 into $7,000,000 = appx 65,420 people. IF they all buy everything. So, according to that magazine, 65,000 people went away?

 

LOL!

Edited July 8, 2015 by ....rob

[Doc]

It appears that there is no link on the internet. The entire publication is not available for free in the internet. However, for a total investment of the whopping sum of $2.50, you can go to any well-stocked magazine stand and buy your own copy. As a matter of fact, it will only set you back $24 to subscribe to a whole year and stay in touch with most of NYS's hot-button issues.

 

As to the DEC putting something on their web-site, I wouldn't hold my breath. The DEC site is generally way behind in publishing of any info there, and in many cases, such things never do make it to their site. It sounds like most or all of this info is coming from the state's Conservation Fund Advisory Board, and they are the people who would know.

[DirtTime]

You would think that seeing they are using "Facts" based on NY outdoors losses they would at least have a link to see the results they seem to know all about.

 

<shruggs>

 

Still, everyone was talking about the math, I just gave you the math. Even it was only $4,000,000, that would still be appx 37,300 people who left. That's a huge number. I doubt there are 30,000 people in total who hunt in NY.

 

 

Edit:

I think more people have sold the Brooklyn Bridge then hunters/fishers have stopped.

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by ....rob

[growalot]

 

You would think that seeing they are using "Facts" based on NY outdoors losses they would at least have a link to see the results they seem to know all about.

Was that directed at me? the FACTS I wrote about were in the New York Outdoors News(a publication) Article.

I wrote I tried to link to it BUT the paper is too up to date and  NOT on line yet...or at least my tries to find it failed...Go buy the paper...

All I was doing was getting a conversation about this going....BTW perhaps the actual agency... THE DEC.... who is responsible in part for such losses and the computations that state such losses occurred should have this information on THEIR WEB SIGHT for ALL to see! Go get pissy with them.

 

[DirtTime]

No grow, not aimed at you. Not at all!

 

These days you can't trust any publications to have real facts, and worse if you trust all the rumors circulated on the wb you would never leave your house or go insane sifting through them all. If a magazine has information like this, then it should be shared. Wouldn't that make sence?. I am not buying the magazine to see a lie. Whether they got the stats from NYS or not. They printed it! I am sorry, but I just showed the math, and there is no way those numbers can be real. At the smallest number, it would mean that over 30,000 sports people stopped hunting and fishing? I don't think so. Just last fall many people around here were happy that the number of hunters was up. So how was there a loss if numbers were up? It's s catch 22!

 

I am not arguing, I am not trolling, I am actually stating facts about the numbers. Everyone wants facts, then when they get them, it's still that same old catch 22.

 

That's my point!

Edited July 8, 2015 by ....rob

[mike rossi]

Rob, the DEC reports there are 750,000 licensed hunters including nonresidents, not including anglers which way out number hunters... I hesitate to say 750K, only because elsewhere the DEC reports 500, 000, but that is still a half a million. 

 

Even at 500,000, a one dollar discount hurts the conservation fund and provides no incentive for poor people to buy licenses. If cost was a precluder, a logical solution would be a low income license or free hunting days like we have for fishing. But there was no logic in this it was spite... and the brand of spite akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face..... 

[mike rossi]

and i need to emphasis my point to steve about this differing from special interest... This was a cluster of hunters telling the DEC how much money they need, this was way out of line. It was not going after a cross bow season, fighting a crossbow season, for a moose season, for antler restrictions or dove hunting.... Much different,,,, 

 

I recommend to undo what they did, is buy the voluntary habitat stamp. I am sure that means I am for the safe act by suggesting that..... The five bucks for the HS will mitigate the hit to the conservation fund if enough people do this....

[DirtTime]

Rob, the DEC reports there are 750,000 licensed hunters including nonresidents, not including anglers which way out number hunters... I hesitate to say 750K, only because elsewhere the DEC reports 500, 000, but that is still a half a million. 

 

Even at 500,000, a one dollar discount hurts the conservation fund and provides no incentive for poor people to buy licenses. If cost was a precluder, a logical solution would be a low income license or free hunting days like we have for fishing. But there was no logic in this it was spite... and the brand of spite akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face..... 

 

Where are those numbers? Again no link!

 

Most of the new numbers are recorded form WNY and Downstate. The areas with money. I am POOR! I am a slob as defined by many people on here! That does not change the facts given by a magazine and calculated by a calculater of which I do know how to use! Those numbers from that rag are wrong! Again, last fall, even on this site there was a surge in people either getting back into hunting or starting hunting.

 

So, are the numbers up or down? Someone's FOS and it isn't me. Catch 22!

Edited July 8, 2015 by ....rob