Decline in hunters and paying for conservation

[Curmudgeon]

56 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

When I read propaganda like hunting is a moral issue and more people are nature walking and bird watching I don't need to read the rest  to know what this guy is getting at

Every story these guys write always has this leftist moral superiority slant to it and I for one am  sick of it .

The narrative of that story is hunters are  not moral   but a necessary evil to found conversation.

Maybe you don't get it but that is what the author is saying with out saying it . If you know what I mean . 

 

Thank you Belo for once again trying to talk sense in an environment of knee jerk reactions.  Stormy is new here but I noticed he is very quick to yell "fake news" and "leftist" bias. It must be the times.

FACT: Hunters are declining in number due to attrition. This has been going on for a long time.

FACT: P-R money funds a huge amount of wildlife conservation, even for species that are not hunted.

FACT: There are many people who object to hunting on moral grounds. Some of these people love wildlife and what benefit from P-R funds. Just the shear numbers of non-hunters leaves us with many millions of Americans who have no first hand knowledge of hunting. I am not even addressing the animal rights people.

Like many people on the site, I hunt and engage in a lot of wildlife observation. I encounter these people all the time - those who oppose hunting for moral reasons. Reporting it is not "leftist" or "Superior". Whenever I speak publicly about raptors - which I have probably done 20 times in the past 5 years - hunting comes up because the lead poisoning issue comes up. I tell them I hunt, always. I am often speaking to non-hunters and even anti-hunters. Whenever I have been challenged by someone who objects to hunting, I ask if they eat meat. If they do, I assert that hunters have the moral high ground. People who buy meat wrapped in plastic from factory farms, people who take no responsibility for the death of that animal is pretending. If they are vegetarians, I ask them how I am supposed to deal with the ag damage from too many deer. Sometimes they want wolves.

[WNYBuckHunter]

1 hour ago, Storm914 said:

Why does he even have to go there .

There are nuts that don't eat meat .

Who cares why bring it up .

Because you want to make the point about hunters being less of good person then the kind gentle nature watcher that is why . 

It's, like on those survival shows where they make it a  sad dramatic thing when someone kills a  animal  . 

Are you blind . 

Gee you don't think the constant moral shaming these leftys put out about hunters and hunting on tv does not have a impact on the younger generation of course it does that is part of the problem why you have less hunters .

Honestly, I think its you that blind on this. Maybe if you took your blinders off and read the whole thing, youd see where you are wrong.

[Hunter007]

31 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Thank you Belo for once again trying to talk sense in an environment of knee jerk reactions.  Stormy is new here but I noticed he is very quick to yell "fake news" and "leftist" bias. It must be the times.

FACT: Hunters are declining in number due to attrition. This has been going on for a long time.

FACT: P-R money funds a huge amount of wildlife conservation, even for species that are not hunted.

FACT: There are many people who object to hunting on moral grounds. Some of these people love wildlife and what benefit from P-R funds. Just the shear numbers of non-hunters leaves us with many millions of Americans who have no first hand knowledge of hunting. I am not even addressing the animal rights people.

Like many people on the site, I hunt and engage in a lot of wildlife observation. I encounter these people all the time - those who oppose hunting for moral reasons. Reporting it is not "leftist" or "Superior". Whenever I speak publicly about raptors - which I have probably done 20 times in the past 5 years - hunting comes up because the lead poisoning issue comes up. I tell them I hunt, always. I am often speaking to non-hunters and even anti-hunters. Whenever I have been challenged by someone who objects to hunting, I ask if they eat meat. If they do, I assert that hunters have the moral high ground. People who buy meat wrapped in plastic from factory farms, people who take no responsibility for the death of that animal is pretending. If they are vegetarians, I ask them how I am supposed to deal with the ag damage from too many deer. Sometimes they want wolves.

Fact is when you have a predominant amount of leftist working in the  major media Outlets you are amplifying this problem  most people are sheep they object hunting not because they object to it' it is because 9 out of 10 times they saw some propaganda on TV about it and have been brain washed to think that , same with gun control and NRA now these same people are brainwashing a whole generation  into giving up there 2ed Amendment rights right before are eyes. 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Storm914

[WNYBuckHunter]

Just stop Storm, you keep making yourself look like a dummy the more you comment. How can you possibly comment on something you havent even taken the time to read? Go read the article or shut the hell up about it.

[Hunter007]

2 minutes ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

Honestly, I think its you that blind on this. Maybe if you took your blinders off and read the whole thing, youd see where you are wrong.

I still say it should have been  written  a better way .

With out bringing up morals into it .

[Hunter007]

1 minute ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

Just stop Storm, you keep making yourself look like a dummy the more you comment. How can you possibly comment on something you havent even taken the time to read? Go read the article or shut the hell up about it.

Ok I Will read the rest 

[WNYBuckHunter]

Just now, Storm914 said:

I still say it should have been  written  a better way .

With out bringing up morals into it .

If you read, youll see that there are no morals being pushed in the article at all. The fact is, some peoples morals are different than yours.

[WNYBuckHunter]

1 minute ago, Storm914 said:

Ok I Will read the rest 

There ya go!

[Hunter007]

18 minutes ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

If you read, youll see that there are no morals being pushed in the article at all. The fact is, some peoples morals are different than yours.

Yes I get you , but 

 for once in my life I would like to see an article where morals is,left out of the article all together like in other sports .

For example there  people morally who   object to  violent sports like football but 

When is the last time you saw that in a article talking  about football? 

All I'm saying I wish the media  would treat hunting like they do all other sports .

And not have to write in every single article something about the anti-hunting  groups  argument.

Just like you almost never here about the anti football  groups argument about football being a violent sport teaching kids to be violent.

 

 

 

 

[grampy]

As stated in the article, with less hunters contributing to conservation funds, the impact will be felt from many sides. Not just hunters. With hunter numbers declining, where will the funds come from? To keep conservation efforts to the levels,  they are now, you will need future input, from all sides. Not just hunters. It will take cooperation from both the hunting and non hunting public. This will take a level of understanding, not often seen, from both sides today. 

The future of hunting, as we currently know it is in question. There can be no denying that. With more leaving than coming into it, recrutement is the key to keeping our traditions alive and growing. Mentoring new hunters is the way to accomplish this. Young or old, if we each took the time, to mentor even one new hunter, and have them pass it along. The future of hunting 'AND' conservation, will continue to coexist. That benefits everyone.

Be a mentor. Pass it on.

 

[steve863]

I morally object everyone and everything that is objectionable!  I hope that covers all the bases for me!! LOL

[Curmudgeon]

1 hour ago, steve863 said:

I morally object everyone and everything that is objectionable!  I hope that covers all the bases for me!! LOL

I hope that includes NPR!

[Five Seasons]

3 hours ago, Storm914 said:

Why does he even have to go there .

There are nuts that don't eat meat .

Who cares why bring it up .

Because you want to make the point about hunters being less of good person then the kind gentle nature watcher that is why . 

It's, like on those survival shows where they make it a  sad dramatic thing when someone kills a  animal  . 

Are you blind . 

Gee you don't think the constant moral shaming these leftys put out about hunters and hunting on tv does not have a impact on the younger generation of course it does that is part of the problem why you have less hunters .

I dont think you and I can discuss this anymore. You're arguing over the ethics of hunting with another hunter and that's not what we're even talking about. We're talking about loss of revenue to our conservation fund as hunting declines. He discussed a multitude of reasons why hunting is declining. We've had this debate on here hundreds of times. Land access, less family structure, urban sprawl, video games, youth sports etc. And you find no issue with that part of the article. But YOU are blind if you don't think anti-hunter sentiment isn't also part of the decline. Look at the trashing people get now on social media. He then mentions that some movements have pushed some traditional non-hunter demos towards hunting free range animals, but more and more are apt to just buy it at a store than are apt to pick up a bow or gun. I mean, I don't know how you can debate this. Hunter numbers are down and all of us know it. anti-hunter attitude is just a part of it and certainty should be included in the article. 

If I took anything away from this, it's a call to arms for more people to get interested in hunting and for non-hunters to realize that all these beautiful places they enjoy have been and are currently funded by hunters. And that we need to find ways for non-hunters to help carry the load too. Note that a non-hunter isn't always an anti.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Belo

[Hunter007]

21 minutes ago, Belo said:

I dont think you and I can discuss this anymore. You're arguing over the ethics of hunting with another hunter and that's not what we're even talking about. We're talking about loss of revenue to our conservation fund as hunting declines. He discussed a multitude of reasons why hunting is declining. We've had this debate on here hundreds of times. Land access, less family structure, urban sprawl, video games, youth sports etc. And you find no issue with that part of the article. But YOU are blind if you don't think anti-hunter sentiment isn't also part of the decline. Look at the trashing people get now on social media. He then mentions that some movements have pushed some traditional non-hunter demos towards hunting free range animals, but more and more are apt to just buy it at a store than are apt to pick up a bow or gun. I mean, I don't know how you can debate this. Hunter numbers are down and all of us know it. anti-hunter attitude is just a part of it and certainty should be included in the article. 

If I took anything away from this, it's a call to arms for more people to get interested in hunting and for non-hunters to realize that all these beautiful places they enjoy have been and are currently funded by hunters. And that we need to find ways for non-hunters to help carry the load too. Note that a non-hunter isn't always an anti.

I think hunting would be more popular if media folks would stop giving the anti-hunting people a  huge platform on tv to speak out against it .

There are people that oppose A lot of things but usually they don't let them on TV or mention them  in articles . Like the anti football groups. 

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

28 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

 media folks would stop giving the anti-hunting people a  huge platform on tv to speak out against it .

 

You'd have better luck convincing a leopard to change his spots. The media is squarely left. They will slant towards left views. I don't see that changing any time soon. We adapt and find ways around it or we get run over by it. 

[Rack Attack]

As far as our state goes, I feel that you should be required to by a conservation license (land use stamp) like is done in many other states.  This would help subsidize the conservation fund due to lesser funds from hunting licenses.  I have always felt that the hunters have gotten the shaft in regard to ROI with state land use.  The hunters buy all kinds of licenses and pay all kinds of fees and the state seems to invest that money into building cross country skiing trails or hiking trails for the folks that don't pay anything for them.

[Hunter007]

4 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

As far as our state goes, I feel that you should be required to by a conservation license (land use stamp) like is done in many other states.  This would help subsidize the conservation fund due to lesser funds from hunting licenses.  I have always felt that the hunters have gotten the shaft in regard to ROI with state land use.  The hunters buy all kinds of licenses and pay all kinds of fees and the state seems to invest that money into building cross country skiing trails or hiking trails for the folks that don't pay anything for them.

My idea would make at least dog owners buy a Conservation Stamp the   trails  are full of dog crap near me  from them ,and a lot  ingnor leash laws .  We have to buy a license to hunt there  and  they for free can walk there dog there nice system we have .

 

[Dinsdale]

49 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

  The hunters buy all kinds of licenses and pay all kinds of fees and the state seems to invest that money into building cross country skiing trails or hiking trails for the folks that don't pay anything for them.

Would it surprise you to learn that all the trail building and maintenance for the Catskills and Adirondacks is done by volunteer crews and paid crews from NGO's like ADK and 46ers ? All the State does is drop material if required and coordinate through DEC Forest Ranger division.

For example cutting 20 mile trail this spring; via the 46er's work party

"May 4-11: 

We will be working from Duck Hole to Newcomb. Requirements: Crew size is limited. Must be in excellent physical condition and health. You may be required to carry up to 50 pounds of gear for up to 20 miles. We will be staying in the wilderness, and you must have proper equipment and food for the entire stay. We will work long hours and the work will be very hard. Still interested? More details to follow as the time gets closer."

One of the fears if you charge a fee to hikers/nature folks is now they get a bigger say at the table then they already have and there are more of them then hunters/fisherman. Just one of those thing to think about.

White Mountains of New Hampshire require a fee for some areas but through USDA-FS......

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whitemountain/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5187652

Edited March 21, 2018 by Dinsdale

[Hunter007]

18 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

Would it surprise you to learn that all the trail building and maintenance for the Catskills and Adirondacks is done by volunteer crews and paid crews from NGO's like ADK and 46ers ? All the State does is drop material if required and coordinate through DEC Forest Ranger division.

For example cutting 20 mile trail this spring; via the 46er's work party

"May 4-11: 

We will be working from Duck Hole to Newcomb. Requirements: Crew size is limited. Must be in excellent physical condition and health. You may be required to carry up to 50 pounds of gear for up to 20 miles. We will be staying in the wilderness, and you must have proper equipment and food for the entire stay. We will work long hours and the work will be very hard. Still interested? More details to follow as the time gets closer."

One of the fears if you charge a fee to hikers/nature folks is now they get a bigger say at the table then they already have and there are more of them then hunters/fisherman. Just one of those thing to think about.

That's why I would limit it to dog owners a,lot that go on the trails don't follow the rules.  dogs spook the crap out of game and there owners dont pick the crap off the  trails  .  And let them run wild  . 

The bird watchers bikers hikers are  much more respectful for the most part . 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Storm914

[Dinsdale]

1 minute ago, Storm914 said:

 a,lot that go on the trails don't follow the rules. 

 

We would find much in agreement on that topic.

Major pet peeve of mine <<pun intended.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't even view hunting as left or right issue. I think that view is nonsense. Most of the new, adult hunters I know are leftist foodies.

Even here, the majority are conservative but not all. Compared to the regulars in the political discussions, I'm a flaming pinko. 

And, much of the political stuff has to do with guns, not hunting. 2nd amendment issues overlap with hunting to some degree, but do not conflate the two things. As the bumper sticker said "The second amendment ain't about duck hunting".

With hunters being such a  minority, support from non-hunters becomes a political necessity. Actually informing yourself before spouting off would go a long way towards improving the public perception of hunters.  

[Rack Attack]

22 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

Would it surprise you to learn that all the trail building and maintenance for the Catskills and Adirondacks is done by volunteer crews and paid crews from NGO's like ADK and 46ers ? All the State does is drop material if required and coordinate through DEC Forest Ranger division.

For example cutting 20 mile trail this spring; via the 46er's work party

"May 4-11: 

We will be working from Duck Hole to Newcomb. Requirements: Crew size is limited. Must be in excellent physical condition and health. You may be required to carry up to 50 pounds of gear for up to 20 miles. We will be staying in the wilderness, and you must have proper equipment and food for the entire stay. We will work long hours and the work will be very hard. Still interested? More details to follow as the time gets closer."

One of the fears if you charge a fee to hikers/nature folks is now they get a bigger say at the table then they already have and there are more of them then hunters/fisherman. Just one of those thing to think about.

White Mountains of New Hampshire require a fee for some areas but through USDA-FS......

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whitemountain/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5187652

I was more referring to the trail systems I see more in the central NY area.  But even as you stated, they are still dropping off materials and such that all costs money.  I belong to several snowmobile clubs and we would love for the state to drop off free materials for us volunteers to build the trails. that are making them money.  My point is, that they are getting access to these land for only "potentially" paying state taxes, while hunters are paying extra fees to use the same lands on top of "potentially" paying state taxes.  The bottom line, is that everyone that is using the system, needs to pay their share one way or the other.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 minute ago, Curmudgeon said:

I'm a flaming pinko. 

I had to read that twice. the first time through I thought it said Flamingo Pinko.

[Hunter007]

6 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

I was more referring to the trail systems I see more in the central NY area.  But even as you stated, they are still dropping off materials and such that all costs money.  I belong to several snowmobile clubs and we would love for the state to drop off free materials for us volunteers to build the trails. that are making them money.  My point is, that they are getting access to these land for only "potentially" paying state taxes, while hunters are paying extra fees to use the same lands on top of "potentially" paying state taxes.  The bottom line, is that everyone that is using the system, needs to pay their share one way or the other.

Does that mean if I like to hunt bike and hike I have to pay 3 times under your system lol 

No thanks 

Let the dogs pay if they want to go on the trails .

The bikers hikers and  nature lovers don't bother me I am one of them at times  

Edited March 21, 2018 by Storm914

[Doewhacker]

3 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

I don't even view hunting as left or right issue. I think that view is nonsense. Most of the new, adult hunters I know are leftist foodies.

Even here, the majority are conservative but not all. Compared to the regulars in the political discussions, I'm a flaming pinko. 

And, much of the political stuff has to do with guns, not hunting. 2nd amendment issues overlap with hunting to some degree, but do not conflate the two things. As the bumper sticker said "The second amendment ain't about duck hunting".

With hunters being such a  minority, support from non-hunters becomes a political necessity. Actually informing yourself before spouting off would go a long way towards improving the public perception of hunters.  

I feel asleep trying to read that but I’m sure you are wrong about something cause you are a liberal. Merica!!!!

 

Realistically and thankful this webisite is a small sample size of hunters, conservationist and dolts or sometimes a combination of all three. For every one that misses the point I hope there are more that get it when it comes to important stuff. 

Now excuse me I am going back to eating my freedom fries and chugging a Budwiser.