Are the glory days of deer hunting coming to a close?

[Howboutthemdawgs]

@SwampCat heres another angle. Imagine if Arkansas decided to get restricted with its nonresident duck hunting licenses. Imagine how the quality would improve and imagine how much more revenue they could potentially raise by people willing to pay for that Quality. It’s a win all the way around for most people. Granted some Folks who can’t justify or afford the increase would be left out, but I think more residence and actually non-residence would benefit.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

My own home state of AR has about 350,000 deer hunters and 750,000 deer. We kill about 100,000 bucks. There will never be enough 130 inch bucks around for everyone to shoot one. Our average 5 yr old buck scores about 117”. I usually am hunting for a 140” plus - but i doubt 1 in 10 mature bucks makes 140 or more. I have access to 1300 acres of lightly hunted land, and down here - there might only be 2 deer that size on that acreage. I have a number of 10/20 acres adjacent landowners and all that land is hunted. Yes, they would each like to kill a 140 - or even a 120 - but they arent stupid - they have no false notion that if they pass every buck, they will have a 140” under their corn feeder next year.

A lot of us have younger kids or grandkids. When my 8, 10, 14, or 16 year old grand daughter comes down for their two weekends of hunting, you think I am going to pass out cards with only a few pictures of bucks they can shoot? Hell no I am not. The same with my 40 year old daughter - I get to hunt with her maybe two weekends a year - if that. If a 130” two year old buck walks out - if she wants to shoot it - which she probably would not shoot it - I would let her.

This is all part of the game - neighbors, kids, meat hunters - the goal for me is to kill a big buck in spite of the adversity. I dont want to stay in the batting cage - I want to get out on the field and play against everyone else. It always makes me laugh when so many folks are terribly adverse to high fence hunting - but A lot of those same folks want high fence hunting without a high fence.

Kids are a whole different situation in my book. I was referring to adult hunters. I don't condemn those who choose to shoot a smaller buck - that's up to them. I just don't understand the ones who want BIG, mature, wall-hangers of 130" and up ..... if they don't allow bucks to get some age on 'em. We have some of those complainers in our camp. How can anyone complain about lack of bigger bucks when they mow down every basket-rack 6 or 8 point?? Here in Pa. - if I pass on a 100" to 115" buck - the guy over the hill will kill it for sure. No illusions here either. But I've passed on some in that class to let 'em go another year. Just knowing there might be some bigger, mature bucks lurking in the area next fall is satisfaction to me.

For our camp and other camps on our mountain, kids and seniors take what they want. But when we all began some trigger restraint, bigger bucks started showing up. Seeing a kid or a senior hunter in the twilight of their hunting years take a BIG buck is a nice thrill. Worth the trigger restraint IMO. Again - that's just me.

 

[BenA]

We’ve been told hunting is dying with recruitment numbers in the toilet, but on the other hand there are fewer mature bucks than we’ve seen in decades? So which is it? I’d say there are too many hunters, especially non- resident, and the states need to prioritize their residents over out of staters. If every state created a better deer herd, then no one would “have” to go across state lines to have great deer hunting. I’m sorry you’re from Michigan, that doesn’t mean you should buy up land here and be guaranteed tags every year. Let’s mirror Iowa which would reduce the price of lands and leases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Non-residents account for a small percentage of the overall hunter numbers. I've seen more issues with locals in areas they once could hunt for free or little money being priced out by people from other parts of the same state.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Non-residents account for a small percentage of the overall hunter numbers. I've seen more issues with locals in areas they once could hunt for free or little money being priced out by people from other parts of the same state.

I definitely think that’s regional even within states. Of my direct neighbors who touch me all but one is a nonresident.

 

[SwampCat]

@SwampCat heres another angle. Imagine if Arkansas decided to get restricted with its nonresident duck hunting licenses. Imagine how the quality would improve and imagine how much more revenue they could potentially raise by people willing to pay for that Quality. It’s a win all the way around for most people. Granted some Folks who can’t justify or afford the increase would be left out, but I think more residence and actually non-residence would benefit.

No doubt. AR sells more NR state duck stamps than resident. There had been some small strides made in years past to somewhat slow the clown show on public ground - a ban on spinning wing decoys and restrictions on how much NR duck hunters could hunt on public ground. A year ago, our g&f department reversed those two restrictions - allowing spinners and NR all season. The head of AR g&F left soon after to go to work for a big waterfowl hunting company. I am not insinuating anything - just presenting the facts.

Conversely, most of the public areas in MO are draw only. Obviously, they are willing to give up some money in favor of resource protection. I agree, a steep increase in NR public land duck stamp fees would greatly improve the problem - or better yet, an annual draw for an annual public land NR duck stamp - preferably both.

A lot of resident hunters have quit hunting the public land due to the clown show. NR sleeping for a week in their truck at the boat ramp before opening days. It is pure nuts. The ducks are the last thing considered

 

[BenA]

I definitely think that’s regional even within states. Of my direct neighbors who touch me all but one is a nonresident.

I thought you had an outfitter as one of your neighbors?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I thought you had an outfitter as one of your neighbors?

He is. But he doesn’t actually hunt so everyone that he gets is pretty much a nonresident. I have another neighbor who lives locally but leases it to guys from Georgia. I’m talking about who hunts that land not owns it

 

[BenA]

He is. But he doesn’t actually hunt so everyone that he gets is pretty much a nonresident. I have another neighbor who lives locally but leases it to guys from Georgia. I’m talking about who hunts that land not owns it

Aren't you a non-resident? If non-resident hunters were eliminated from the area, you'd be taking away income from the landowners.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

No doubt. AR sells more NR state duck stamps than resident. There had been some small strides made in years past to somewhat slow the clown show on public ground - a ban on spinning wing decoys and restrictions on how much NR duck hunters could hunt on public ground. A year ago, our g&f department reversed those two restrictions - allowing spinners and NR all season. The head of AR g&F left soon after to go to work for a big waterfowl hunting company. I am not insinuating anything - just presenting the facts.

Conversely, most of the public areas in MO are draw only. Obviously, they are willing to give up some money in favor of resource protection. I agree, a steep increase in NR public land duck stamp fees would greatly improve the problem - or better yet, an annual draw for an annual public land NR duck stamp - preferably both.

A lot of resident hunters have quit hunting the public land due to the clown show. NR sleeping for a week in their truck at the boat ramp before opening days. It is pure nuts. The ducks are the last thing considered

Yeah, I’m pretty sure you can see what that guy‘s motivation was. It’s disgusting how much Money plays a role in regulations. It’s at the expense of the average guy as well. We are the idiots that keep supporting these companies. But with that said, you are spot on on the ridiculousness of public land over there. My buddy slept in the truck at a public land spot last weekend. He got there at 9 PM and was second in line. By the time the gate dropped at 4 AM. There was a line of about 20 trucks. That’s a horrible experience for anyone to do to hunt. Make the nonresident license $2000 a year or more and just start weeding out some people. The state makes the same, they deal with less headache and people across the board have a better experience.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Aren't you a non-resident? If non-resident hunters were eliminated from the area, you'd be taking away income from the landowners.

I am, I’d be in favor of either increasing prices for non-residence to try to weed some people out and especially I’d be in favor of making exceptions for landowners over a certain acreage. And truthfully, I don’t care about land owners capitalizing on their hunting. They don’t care about how I make my living. I really don’t care about theirs if I’m being honest!

 

[BenA]

I am, I’d be in favor of either increasing prices for non-residence to try to weed some people out and especially I’d be in favor of making exceptions for landowners over a certain acreage. And truthfully, I don’t care about land owners capitalizing on their hunting. They don’t care about how I make my living. I really don’t care about theirs if I’m being honest!

But, you won't be weeding many people out. Maybe in areas like yours. But, they'd be replaced by wealthier people. It's economics. There's a resource that will be taken.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

But, you won't be weeding many people out. Maybe in areas like yours. But, they'd be replaced by wealthier people. It's economics. There's a resource that will be taken.

Maybe right idk. It’s all theory but we’ve both said more skin in the game almost certainly results in more selective take. So would that change the dynamics of a state? I think it would. Real world example- I elk hunted the gila in New Mexico twice in the early 2000’s. It was like 5k for license and tag. I’ve also elk hunted Colorado and it was a fraction of that. I would shoot the first legal bull in Colorado. In New Mexico I was holding out for over a 300. In my pea brain I wasn’t paying that much to shoot a rag horn. But in Colorado who cares. Wasn’t invested that much.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Or better yet keep the prices the same and make it a draw unless you are a landowner of some scale.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

The problem with intentionally reducing the number of hunters is that it reduces the number of people that have a say in how their resources are managed. I am worried about people who have never hunted before telling conservation departments what the regulations should be.

 

[T-Max]

The problem with intentionally reducing the number of hunters is that it reduces the number of people that have a say in how their resources are managed. I am worried about people who have never hunted before telling conservation departments what the regulations should be.

In my humble opinion, that is the biggest danger to states like my Kansas allowing so many NR's. Fewer resident hunters means fewer people with skin in the game helping inform those game departments. At some point people will get tired of managing the resource for the benefit of others. We are accelerating down that path and the game commission has mentioned it multiple times lately.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

The problem with intentionally reducing the number of hunters is that it reduces the number of people that have a say in how their resources are managed. I am worried about people who have never hunted before telling conservation departments what the regulations should be.

I personally think that’s a boogeyman that gets overplayed.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

In my humble opinion, that is the biggest danger to states like my Kansas allowing so many NR's. Fewer resident hunters means fewer people with skin in the game helping inform those game departments. At some point people will get tired of managing the resource for the benefit of others. We are accelerating down that path and the game commission has mentioned it multiple times lately.

But in my opinion of course I approach that with some nuance. I think nr landowners should be looked at differently. They are invested. They pay property taxes. They should get some say. They have roots more or less. Hell I’m more invested in Kentucky than am in the state i live in. Fly by night lease guys and those who use outfitters, I agree, generally a net negative.

 

[T-Max]

But in my opinion of course I approach that with some nuance. I think nr landowners should be looked at differently. They are invested. They pay property taxes. They should get some say. They have roots more or less. Hell I’m more invested in Kentucky than am in the state i live in. Fly by night lease guys and those who use outfitters, I agree, generally a net negative.

Property taxes are part of it, yes. But the state of Kansas doesn't charge any property tax anymore. They get my income tax and no NR pays that here...

 

[BenA]

Iowa limits non-residents and they still have people that say the best days are in the past. Limiting nonresident hunters is just a band-aid trying to be the fix for an arm falling off.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

One thing that I think about quite a bit in terms of hunting quality is the number of deer around our farms vs. what I know about the number of our neighbors that are hunting. If I had a magic wand and could ensure everyone passed the 2-4 year old bucks for 2-3 seasons, every hunter would almost certainly all be able to harvest or have encounters with mature bucks every season.

To me this is an education problem first and foremost. It doesn't matter if someone uses cell cams, a timed feeder, scent proof hunting blind, and a high powered rifle all at the same time if they understand the implications and have a bit of trigger discipline.

I am not naive enough to think that education alone is enough to change behavior (it is literally what my job is - to study how and why people change behaviors in my field). But there is no question that educating people has to be a big part of how we preserve hunting quality. Public policy or hunting regulations in this case, is also a big aspect of it. But states are reluctant to change regulations to make hunting harder if it is unpopular with the public. This is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing, but I think it needs to start with education to get things moving in the right direction.