SD51555
5 year old buck +
This really should be it's own thread.
I'd argue that most of us have very little regard for expanding access to public hunting opportunities to our fellow man. This isn't a knock on anyone, it's simple human nature. We want to have a successful and natural hunt in the peace and quiet of the untouched wilderness. But do we really want our neighbors get there too? I don't think we do.
If this was a priority, wouldn't we measure the users per square mile as a metric of success? For example, how many people get to hunt a square mile of public ground in Wyoming? 2, 20, 50? I really don't know. How about deer hunting land north of Duluth, MN or anything north of Hwy 2? How many people utilize those lands per square mile in a given year?
Now, what if instead, to expand hunter access, we traded $500 million dollars of land 4 hours away from our population center (which very few people use) for $500 million dollars of land right outside our population center? A parent/child duo could day trip out there and back home, with no more expense than a little gas and some sandwiches. The cost of access would be far less. Wouldn't that be a good thing? You would be wise to assume we couldn't get as many acres, but that isn't the goal. Remember, we're talking about making the outdoors accessible for everyone, and our metric of success is how many people can access it.
The truth is, I think we only want public land just accessible enough so we can get there and nobody else. If suddenly there were programs to give free rides to our favorite hunting spots, free tags for low income citizens, free gear rental, and free lodging, we might not be so happy about what happened to our favorite free hunting spot. But it would do wonders for hunter access.
I've paid big dollars to go fishing in places that poor people couldn't reach, and it was wonderful. I'm guilty of it too, but I'm honest about it.
I'd argue that most of us have very little regard for expanding access to public hunting opportunities to our fellow man. This isn't a knock on anyone, it's simple human nature. We want to have a successful and natural hunt in the peace and quiet of the untouched wilderness. But do we really want our neighbors get there too? I don't think we do.
If this was a priority, wouldn't we measure the users per square mile as a metric of success? For example, how many people get to hunt a square mile of public ground in Wyoming? 2, 20, 50? I really don't know. How about deer hunting land north of Duluth, MN or anything north of Hwy 2? How many people utilize those lands per square mile in a given year?
Now, what if instead, to expand hunter access, we traded $500 million dollars of land 4 hours away from our population center (which very few people use) for $500 million dollars of land right outside our population center? A parent/child duo could day trip out there and back home, with no more expense than a little gas and some sandwiches. The cost of access would be far less. Wouldn't that be a good thing? You would be wise to assume we couldn't get as many acres, but that isn't the goal. Remember, we're talking about making the outdoors accessible for everyone, and our metric of success is how many people can access it.
The truth is, I think we only want public land just accessible enough so we can get there and nobody else. If suddenly there were programs to give free rides to our favorite hunting spots, free tags for low income citizens, free gear rental, and free lodging, we might not be so happy about what happened to our favorite free hunting spot. But it would do wonders for hunter access.
I've paid big dollars to go fishing in places that poor people couldn't reach, and it was wonderful. I'm guilty of it too, but I'm honest about it.