Hunting's Infighting & Fewer Hunters will end all hunting

[Rattler]

9 minutes ago, grampy said:

The obvious reason for so much infighting is we "all" think we are doing it the "right" way.     

And this is the obvious solution,

"Anything and everything we can do to get another pair of boots on the ground, to get another license purchased, and to have money spent in a gun store; that’s what we had better be thinking about." 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

Notice how hunting and fishing's retail spending has become about 7% of the total outdoor recreation spending?  That's a lot less of the total than it used to be, and that includes fishing.  Today with outdoor recreation including things like bird watching, skiing, hiking, camping, mountain biking, etc., there are many more people out there using the woods for things other than hunting and they could easily force hunters out of the woods if push came to shove.

But none of the other 93% is specifically tagged for conservation as far as I know. Honestly I would like to see the other outdoor recreation taxed at the same level that we are. Maybe Andy can start there rather than making drugs legal.  

[rob-c]

17 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

But none of the other 93% is specifically tagged for conservation as far as I know. Honestly I would like to see the other outdoor recreation taxed at the same level that we are. Maybe Andy can start there rather than making drugs legal.  

Great thought, only problem is it’s all about the money. Think about how many smoke pot or would try it if he made it legal vs the number of hunters, hikers , fisherman in this state. If I would take a guess it would probably be a 3 to 1 pot smokers to outdoors men . 

Edited March 12, 2019 by rob-c

[HunterVince315]

Well Said 100% agree together we stand, divided we fall!

[Merlot]

Rattlers original post about 40 million licenses purchased in the '70 and now down to maybe 12 million licenses is shocking. Maybe by closing the ranks and all working together, we can protect our hunting heritage and our 2nd amendment rights that now appear to be under increased assault every day.

 

[left field]

And yet both of my Hunter's Ed courses in the last three years were packed. The one in the Bronx was overflowing with people and about a third of those were under 25. That seems to be par for the course if one looks at how difficult it is to find an open class online. Where are all these new hunters going?

[Steve D]

3 hours ago, Rattler said:

Notice how hunting and fishing's retail spending has become about 7% of the total outdoor recreation spending?  That's a lot less of the total than it used to be, and that includes fishing.  Today with outdoor recreation including things like bird watching, skiing, hiking, camping, mountain biking, etc., there are many more people out there using the woods for things other than hunting and they could easily force hunters out of the woods if push came to shove

I agree but somewhere in a dark room probably in a basement some geek is crunching numbers and doing an analysis on big game hunting, small game hunting, varmint hunting, waterfowl hunting, turkey hunting, etc. and reporting the amount of revenue obtained by these activities to the powers to be.

Until there is a significant drop in revenue from these activities I doubt there will be a impact on hunting in the near future.

Hunters, trappers, and fishermen are still generating enough revenue to stay in the game. We may have to share more with other groups but have a solid foundation for the time being.

[Doc]

I hope this discussion is not about how hunters must cower in a dark corner somewhere afraid to speak out when they feel something is just not right. I think we maybe could brush up on civility and trying to turn things into a "to-the-death" struggle. But that is more a problem of presentation than something to require us to all to simply nod our heads as a bunch of mind numbed robots and shrink and hide from anything that could be a bit controversial. I think we are really all quite united in our defense of hunting in general and when hunting is challenged, would all work as a united front to face down any such challenges. Disagreements are not the problem here, it is the way disagreements are conducted. And none of these things are anything that ever has or ever will put hunting in any danger. Apathy and non-engagement are the threat to hunting, and I'm afraid that is the tone of this thread.

[Rattler]

We need to be careful what we consider "just not right".  If it's legal, it isn't "not right".

My concern is attacking a hunting method, like using a crossbow, hunting bear with hounds, or long range hunting, which might dissuade someone from becoming a hunter, because that is the type of hunting that interests them.  I think we need to support their interest and encourage them to give it a try.

If someone wants to hunt, and they want to do it legally, it's right for them.

[Doc]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 12:00 PM, Rattler said:

We need to be careful what we consider "just not right".  If it's legal, it isn't "not right".

My concern is attacking a hunting method, like using a crossbow, hunting bear with hounds, or long range hunting, which might dissuade someone from becoming a hunter, because that is the type of hunting that interests them.  I think we need to support their interest and encourage them to give it a try.

If someone wants to hunt, and they want to do it legally, it's right for them.

Most of the bitter disagreements occur over proposed changes. Once they become legal, things seem to always calm down a bit. However, government agencies do not define my ethics or opinions. I reserve the right to allow myself to be in favor or against hunting rules or practices for myself. Laws do not define personal ethics, they only define what you will or will not be arrested (fined) for. I have no problems making my feelings known about anything that is done in the name of hunting, legal or not. I will also be quick to tell anyone who wants to listen what my concerns are and why. I also reserve the right to defend my choices, opinions, and decisions on any hunting issue. I think that is a right that all hunters have and no one should be afraid to express an opinion. All aspects of hunting should be open to the examination of discussion.

[Rattler]

But if you push your personal ethics, feelings, choices and opinions on a person that is considering taking up hunting, to the point of killing that person's desire to hunt, your have eliminated another hunter from the total.

If a new hunter wishes to take up the sport in a way you don't approve of, that has already been approved by the DEC, isn't that a little sanctimonious and detrimental to the cause of increasing hunter numbers?