The future of deer hunting

[moog5050]

4 minutes ago, Real World Hunter said:

. One could say a hit was taken.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I looked at this a few weeks ago.  Pretty stable numbers the last 10 years but down significantly from the early 90s where sales exceed 700k.

[The_Real_TCIII]

How do they factor in all the lifetime licenses bought when they had the fire sale a few years back?

[moog5050]

3 minutes ago, The_Real_TCIII said:

How do they factor in all the lifetime licenses bought when they had the fire sale a few years back?

That chart shows "license holders" not sales, so I assume they are included.

[Rack Attack]

I've stated this before and I will again, we still have one of the highest hunter densities in the nation.  I would bet, even if we lost half of the hunters we would still be on the high side of hunter density.  Everyone talks about concern for funding conservation due to loss of license sales.  How do these other states with much lower hunter densities pay for conservation?  What are they doing different?  To me it's not much different than our taxes, we pay the highest taxes in the nation and get no more services than any place else, why is that?  One word, waste.  With the high hunter density, it means we are paying more per hunter to get the same or worse service from our DEC.  Personally, I'm not overly concerned with hunter numbers, we already have two to three times more hunters per square mile than most other states so I don't really see it as an issue.

[The_Real_TCIII]

11 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

I've stated this before and I will again, we still have one of the highest hunter densities in the nation.  I would bet, even if we lost half of the hunters we would still be on the high side of hunter density.  Everyone talks about concern for funding conservation due to loss of license sales.  How do these other states with much lower hunter densities pay for conservation?  What are they doing different?  To me it's not much different than our taxes, we pay the highest taxes in the nation and get no more services than any place else, why is that?  One word, waste.  With the high hunter density, it means we are paying more per hunter to get the same or worse service from our DEC.  Personally, I'm not overly concerned with hunter numbers, we already have two to three times more hunters per square mile than most other states so I don't really see it as an issue.

Just a guess but its probably out of state license sales. We get a lot of fishermen but not many hunters 

[Doc]

I'm not too sure that license holders represents the number of those actually hunting or the actual level of participating hunters. I know people who annually buy licenses "just in case", and never step a foot in the woods. I also have noticed that actual participation has severely dwindled among even those that do make it out. Judging from the cars at state parking lots. and hunter tracks in the snow, and the level of shooting, I would say there are a lot of one-day hunters that take opening day to hunt and that ends their season. Many days hunters become 1/2 day hunters. All that is very different from deer seasons past. Yes, they all get counted, but do they really hunt. Then too, just a raw count of all hunting licenses does not tell you much about whether they are hunting deer, geese, squirrels, or again, just carrying a license in their wallet in case somebody coaxes them out into the woods. Also look at the variety of separate licenses sold today as compared to 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Doc

[Rack Attack]

49 minutes ago, The_Real_TCIII said:

Just a guess but its probably out of state license sales. We get a lot of fishermen but not many hunters 

I'm not convinced that's it, as the hunter densities are total number of hunters that would include out of state sales.

[Doc]

I have seen an awful lot of hunting seasons, and yes I think there is a very big difference in today's hunters vs that of hunters back in the late 50's when I started hunting. It is true that antlers were always the standard in deer hunting. Yes everyone wanted that big ol' 12 point that everyone claimed to see and no one ever got. But they were happy with the 4-point that they got and wanted everyone to see it. Today's hunters feel an entitlement to that 12 point. Those that get a 4 point today are ridiculed and belittled. I have to wonder how that little change impacts the enthusiasm for hunting. So now hunters start off with expectations that they will get some trophy deer or must feel a total failure at hunting if they don't. There are plenty of TV programs, videos, to make them feel that way too.

So now in an effort to fare well in the hunting community, more and more people are devoting thousands of dollars to buying and locking up land. They spend ungodly gobs of money buying tractors and other ag equipment hoping to lure the neighbors deer onto their own property. If the state would allow it, they would be buying feeders to put their deer at an exact spot from their blind in an attempt to buy their way into what they consider hunting success. We have even created scoring systems to tell us when we can declare success and be happy with our abilities. There is no cost too high when it comes to buying a trophy.

No, I doubt that we will turn around in a couple of years an wonder where everybody went. The changes are a very slow evolution, but they are there. Are they good changes? Time will tell. They are not changes that enthuse me, but then I don't have that many years to worry about it....lol.

[WNYBuckHunter]

13 hours ago, Rob... said:

Not another one of these threads!

America is the land of lazy parents and even lazier kids more or less. Not most of the folks on this site, but take a look around. Yeah, some outdoors minded parents teach their kids how to fish, hunt, and camp, but those parents are growing thin. Technology is killing being outdoors! So is fast food! 

Camping ( real camping in a tent ) was on a downward trend, but it's picking up again. I am hopeful that hunting takes the same turn.

If the only reason you hunt is for the antlers, good for you, hope you get a B&C every year!

If you hunt just to put food in the freezer, then you know what hunting is supposed to be about. 

 

 

EDIT: FSW, the new user name doesn't fit. A "Real World Hunter" doesn't hunt inside a fence, and isn't afraid to hunt deep in unknown territory. 

What do you mean not another one of these threads? The day we as hunters stop discussing the future of our sport, is the day the sport dies.

What an ignorant post.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

14 hours ago, Rob... said:

Not another one of these threads!

America is the land of lazy parents and even lazier kids more or less. Not most of the folks on this site, but take a look around. Yeah, some outdoors minded parents teach their kids how to fish, hunt, and camp, but those parents are growing thin. Technology is killing being outdoors! So is fast food! 

Camping ( real camping in a tent ) was on a downward trend, but it's picking up again. I am hopeful that hunting takes the same turn.

If the only reason you hunt is for the antlers, good for you, hope you get a B&C every year!

If you hunt just to put food in the freezer, then you know what hunting is supposed to be about. 

 

 

EDIT: FSW, the new user name doesn't fit. A "Real World Hunter" doesn't hunt inside a fence, and isn't afraid to hunt deep in unknown territory. 

Edit.....Guess this post shows how bright you really are.   Way to show that stupidity.

[sodfather]

This doesn't pertain so much to future of deer hunting as much as hunting in general. My daughters 11 and Goes to archery with instructors every week. She has gone on Turkey hunts and waterfowl hunts. She eats the venison and eats the birds. I don't know if she will stick it out or is this something she is doing cause it makes me happy. But I know that as long as she shows interest and is willing to wake up early with me then I'm going to keep at it ( Even though she has spent as much of my money on archery than I have)  . Kids still love the outdoors I don't think it's lost but who knows.. I know many others on here bring their children/ grandchildren along and those are my favorite posts.

[dbHunterNY]

i agree with FSW in that access worth pursuing or obtaining will be more and more difficult.  with every inheritance, property gets chopped and divided up. otherwise, it's more and more becoming not affordable for a single individual to keep.  taxes on our property here in NY are far into five figures. to keep it, it has to be farmed and pull in revenue.  finding time to do so with a day job, is a real *&^%$%.  it's not a lifestyle and financial overhead that many are willing or have the resources to pursue.  those that can afford larger tracts consuming a whitetails home range are in it for other reasons than deer, so it turns into leased ground. those with smaller parcels under several hundred acres are left with feeling limitation on how they can hunt or better their hunting.  hunt a property small enough and any effort to be selective in your harvest goals or to try and manage the land might seem like a lost cause with little results to show for your efforts.

also, hunting is less and less a tradition than it is a hobby or pass time.  the latter comes and goes.  it's human nature to continue something only if you're good at it and see results.  in today's world, immediate are even more the focus.  i've said it before technology and things like social media put only the very best results at your finger tips.  you now have unrealistic goals or believe you can't keep up with the pack so some might think "what's the point?" in reality the anticipation and enjoyment of the whole process is where it's at and more of a guaranteed return.  we all know a good portion of license holders go 
Average hunting age is higher and inline with baby boomer generation. as they (or you. lol) become old enough, such that hunting is parred back a bit or stopped, there will inevitably be an overall decrease in hunters.  without mentoring and change we won't recruit anyone to replace enough of them.  less and less there's participation the more the general public can say it's irrelevant and not needed.

we're currently in a position where deer thrive in most of the country and this state.  they are in abundance so much that putting people's wants and desires over what might ensure deer are best off may seem acceptable. i don't think too many people, including myself, believe deer are in danger of being wiped out any time soon.  instead they seem to be doing just fine. that might be a scary mindset though. change especially when it comes to anything with natural presence might be subtle, until you wake up one day with more and more people saying "what the h*&^ happened to the deer?!"  then again, maybe the novel idea of whitetail diseases becomes something real here in NY. something that would cause merciless and swift change.

i do think there seems to be provisions to combat most of this, so my outlook still isn't all doom and gloom. i also don't let the fear of the future kill my efforts to enjoy hunting today and tomorrow.  i think discussions like this are warranted all the same.  if you don't realize and acknowledge what might be coming down the road. at some point you'll realize you're stepping out into traffic when it's too late.

[goosifer]

5 hours ago, Rack Attack said:

I've stated this before and I will again, we still have one of the highest hunter densities in the nation.  I would bet, even if we lost half of the hunters we would still be on the high side of hunter density.  Everyone talks about concern for funding conservation due to loss of license sales.  How do these other states with much lower hunter densities pay for conservation?  What are they doing different?  To me it's not much different than our taxes, we pay the highest taxes in the nation and get no more services than any place else, why is that?  One word, waste.  With the high hunter density, it means we are paying more per hunter to get the same or worse service from our DEC.  Personally, I'm not overly concerned with hunter numbers, we already have two to three times more hunters per square mile than most other states so I don't really see it as an issue.

What if some of the hunters the state loses would have liked to continue hunting, but drop out of hunting because they no longer have access to hunting land for some reason beyond their control? I can understand your not having any sympathy for the state and its revenue, but what about the hunters who get squeezed out (if that were to happen)?

[goosifer]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

I'm not too sure that license holders represents the number of those actually hunting or the actual level of participating hunters. I know people who annually buy licenses "just in case", and never step a foot in the woods. I also have noticed that actual participation has severely dwindled among even those that do make it out. Judging from the cars at state parking lots. and hunter tracks in the snow, and the level of shooting, I would say there are a lot of one-day hunters that take opening day to hunt and that ends their season. Many days hunters become 1/2 day hunters. All that is very different from deer seasons past. Yes, they all get counted, but do they really hunt. Then too, just a raw count of all hunting licenses does not tell you much about whether they are hunting deer, geese, squirrels, or again, just carrying a license in their wallet in case somebody coaxes them out into the woods. Also look at the variety of separate licenses sold today as compared to 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.

Maybe # of deer harvested, or # of deer harvested as a % of tags issued, would be a better measure of hunter participation. I will be curious to see what data is available.

[Rack Attack]

9 minutes ago, goosifer said:

What if some of the hunters the state loses would have liked to continue hunting, but drop out of hunting because they no longer have access to hunting land for some reason beyond their control? I can understand your not having any sympathy for the state and its revenue, but what about the hunters who get squeezed out (if that were to happen)?

Wouldn't it actually be the other way around?  If there are less hunters wouldn't there be more available public land for them to use per hunter?

[goosifer]

1 minute ago, Rack Attack said:

Wouldn't it actually be the other way around?  If there are less hunters wouldn't there be more available public land for them to use per hunter?

It was a hypothetical question based upon the idea that hunting land will get more and more scarce, for whatever reasons, as several posters and articles have expressed.

 

[Rack Attack]

4 minutes ago, goosifer said:

It was a hypothetical question based upon the idea that hunting land will get more and more scarce, for whatever reasons, as several posters and articles have expressed.

 

I think the posters and articles are referring to private land, which that may be true.  However, I really don't see public land access being reduced in the foreseeable future.

[goosifer]

3 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

I think the posters and articles are referring to private land, which that may be true.  However, I really don't see public land access being reduced in the foreseeable future.

OK, let me try rewording my question. In your original post you said

Quote

I would bet, even if we lost half of the hunters we would still be on the high side of hunter density.  

So my question is, if the half of hunters that were lost were, hypothetically, lost under circumstances such that these hunters would have liked to continue hunting, but couldn't for some reason outside of their control, would you have any sympathy for them? 

[Rack Attack]

4 minutes ago, goosifer said:

OK, let me try rewording my question. In your original post you said

So my question is, if the half of hunters that were lost were, hypothetically, lost under circumstances such that these hunters would have liked to continue hunting, but couldn't for some reason outside of their control, would you have any sympathy for them? 

I guess I'm not seeing the circumstance that would cause the person the loss of ability to hunt that was outside of their control?  I guess the only circumstance that would fit that bill that I can think of is if the state some how closed all hunting seasons, or raised the license fee to a point that they could no longer afford a license?  In that case, I would think that it is still within their control as they could have purchased a lifetime license, which would have eliminated the rise in cost option as well as given them and MANY other hunter legal recourse against the state.

[goosifer]

2 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

I guess I'm not seeing the circumstance that would cause the person the loss of ability to hunt that was outside of their control?  I guess the only circumstance that would fit that bill that I can think of is if the state some how closed all hunting seasons, or raised the license fee to a point that they could no longer afford a license?  In that case, I would think that it is still within their control as they could have purchased a lifetime license, which would have eliminated the rise in cost option as well as given them and MANY other hunter legal recourse against the state.

You were the one that said IF we lost half of the hunters . . . . So, for purposes of my question, it doesn't really matter exactly how/why they were lost. When you said what you said, were you just assuming that this half would just voluntarily give up hunting? My question is, what if it weren't to be voluntary, would you care about these lost hunters?

[Nomad]

Part of the problem with recruiting youth hunters is today’s demand on their time . In my high school football days practice was after school games on Sat.

Opening day was Monday , you  could tell the coach you wouldn’t be there because it was opening day, chances are he wouldn’t be there either ....it was no big deal.

Today you’d be benched for missing practice .

My daughters hardest part about taking the hunter safety class was finding 3 nights in a row she could attend one . Once kids get their  license it doesn’t matter if they hunt right away , an opportunity may arise down the road and then they  can go and be hooked for life .

I got my lic. In high school hunted  a bit then stopped, got a job where it seemed like everyone hunted, I was asked to,go and because I had a lic. Previously I could go , then I was hooked for,life .

[gjs4]

gjs4, any thoughts on to what extent the issues you raise are specific to NYS? Might there be other states that aren't as affected by these factors, for whatever reason? (Just looking for a ray of hope.)

I think the polarity of hunting support is more present here than other states. Not able to back this by fact, just based on experiences where it seems folks are pro or against- not indifferent. I also feel the dec does a poor job regarding hunter support, education and visible association. This may not necessarily be a choice as they’re just another cog in the political machine. For our 400M in sportsman’s licenses provided- how much is reinvested into the activities or the game animals? When CWD takes off here it will be a crumbling foundation for deer and deer hunting.

It’s not about being negative, the devils advocate or an Uber realist..... we are going the way of the dodo. What value do we contribute to those who don’t hunt? When are hunter portrayed as heroes? What outreach and interaction is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Four Season Whitetail's]

7 minutes ago, gjs4 said:

 

I think the polarity of hunting support is more present here than other states. Not able to back this by fact, just based on experiences where it seems folks are pro or against- not indifferent. I also feel the dec does a poor job regarding hunter support, education and visible association. This may not necessarily be a choice as they’re just another cog in the political machine. For our 400M in sportsman’s licenses provided- how much is reinvested into the activities or the game animals? When CWD takes off here it will be a crumbling foundation for deer and deer hunting.

It’s not about being negative, the devils advocate or an Uber realist..... we are going the way of the dodo. What value do we contribute to those who don’t hunt? When are hunter portrayed as heroes? What outreach and interaction is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

CWD is doing nothing anywhere and never will. We had it here back in 2005 with no other cases.    For years they were saying it was a folded prion and now they are saying that its caused by an infection?    So many wasted lives and unneeded killings.  CWD has never killed a deer. 

[gjs4]

CWD is doing nothing anywhere and never will. We had it here back in 2005 with no other cases.    For years they were saying it was a folded prion and now they are saying that its caused by an infection?    So many wasted lives and unneeded killings.  CWD has never killed a deer. 

I agree with a lot of what you said except it’s trashing some mule deer herds, spreading to elk and states like Wisconsin have more testing positive each yr. The dec is throwing out their proposed urine ban as a means to limit it spreading (which makes no sense and, as you stated, is not even warranted). Then again we have had Ehd here too and never hear about it and a lead ammo ban is likely in the next 5 and we don’t have condors in NY.

Is cwd spreading and killing deer in other states? Yes. Is the cdc saying test deer and don’t eat positive result animal material? Yes. Is that an issue here in NY? Not yet. Could that be a spin that toppled the deer hunting tower in the eyes of Joe & Jane public to shoot first and maybe eat it? I hope we never find ourselves there answering that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[goosifer]

26 minutes ago, gjs4 said:

 

I think the polarity of hunting support is more present here than other states. Not able to back this by fact, just based on experiences where it seems folks are pro or against- not indifferent. I also feel the dec does a poor job regarding hunter support, education and visible association. This may not necessarily be a choice as they’re just another cog in the political machine. For our 400M in sportsman’s licenses provided- how much is reinvested into the activities or the game animals? When CWD takes off here it will be a crumbling foundation for deer and deer hunting.

It’s not about being negative, the devils advocate or an Uber realist..... we are going the way of the dodo. What value do we contribute to those who don’t hunt? When are hunter portrayed as heroes? What outreach and interaction is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's funny, I was reading some old research from the DEC, like circa 2000, and they were worried about how declining hunter numbers were going to affect their ability to manage deer population and keep the ecosystem in balance.  I don't think CWD would be the silver bullet the DEC is looking for in this regard. How much is the hunters' role in deer population control worth to them? How much can they really do? do better?

Edited January 17, 2018 by goosifer