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

[Howboutthemdawgs]

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...

So a guy comes into Kansas, buys 500 acres for $2 mil. Then he needs a place to stay, hired a local guy to build him a barndomium for $400k and then and equipment shop for $100k an then for 10 years he buys supplies and licenses in Kansas, he’s less valuable to the state then some dude in Topeka who makes 45k (using income tax revenue) a year and buys a hunting license and goes to some family property? If we are weighing who is more invested it’s obvious in that scenario.

 

[BenA]

Hunters despite being local, non-local, out of state, in state, all have the same opportunities to hunt the same properties. If one person wants to hunt the property, just buy it or lease it like the other person is doing.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

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

I think there are enough cautionary tales from states where the public is on the wrong side of science. I'm thinking the wolf hunt in Wisconsin or Mountain Lions in Colorado, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples that exist for whitetails too.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I think there are enough cautionary tales from states where the public is on the wrong side of science. I'm thinking the wolf hunt in Wisconsin or Mountain Lions in Colorado, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples that exist for whitetails too.

I thought specifically about the wolf when you posted that. I actually think that’s an example of where numbers didn’t matter. Colorado has a ton of hunters. I’m sure it’s average to above average per capita. That was brought on by the governors boy toy husband and wasn’t going to be won. Now, if you want to say that more hunters might cause a state to lean more conservative, which in turn would favor hunting rights, OK I can see that but that’s using hunting as a proxy for conservative values. If you notice, it’s always the liberal states that are looking to destroy hunting. To the contrary, Florida just had its first bear hunt and it’s bright red state, so they actually gained hunting rights.

 

[T-Max]

So a guy comes into Kansas, buys 500 acres for $2 mil. Then he needs a place to stay, hired a local guy to build him a barndomium for $400k and then and equipment shop for $100k an then for 10 years he buys supplies and licenses in Kansas, he’s less valuable to the state then some dude in Topeka who makes 45k (using income tax revenue) a year and buys a hunting license and goes to some family property? If we are weighing who is more invested it’s obvious in that scenario.

It's votes. The guy in Topeka gets a vote and we are on the verge of losing all of those guys because of the emphasis on money. At some point the state flips and you end up with more people who couldn't care less about hunting because they have no connection to it. I grew up with 5 close friends who hunted. None of them hunt anymore due to lost opportunity so what a candidate thinks about deer or any other wildlife is meaningless to them. That's all I am saying. Economics? Sure. Is it enough money to matter to the average taxpayer? No way.