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.

 

[BenA]

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.

Money buys votes.

 

[hillrunner]

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.

Small town/ rural money cannot compete with out of town big city money. Pretty soon, the locals have no access to hunt. Those locals now have zero incentive to conserve that resource, and they are the voters.

 

[BenA]

Small town/ rural money cannot compete with out of town big city money. Pretty soon, the locals have no access to hunt. Those locals now have zero incentive to conserve that resource, and they are the voters.

Somebody comes in and takes those resources from the locals because they didn't want it as bad.

 

[hillrunner]

Somebody comes in and takes those resources from the locals because they didn't want it as bad

It's income disparity. A wage that might afford you an above average life in rural Kansas probably couldn't get you a studio apartment in New York.
It's very difficult for the rural Kansas to compete against that kind of money. Want has nothing to do with it.

 

[BenA]

It's income disparity. A wage that might afford you an above average life in rural Kansas probably couldn't get you a studio apartment in New York.
It's very difficult for the rural Kansas to compete against that kind of money. Want has nothing to do with it.

That's exactly the reason I bought in another state. The land in my home state that is capable of producing the type of bucks I want to kill is too expensive for me. And, it's not because of non-residents. It's because of people in my home state making more than I do to afford that. I'm not going to fault them any. If I want the opportunity to do something, that's on me to make it if I want it bad enough.

 

[hillrunner]

That's exactly the reason I bought in another state. The land in my home state that is capable of producing the type of bucks I want to kill is too expensive for me. And, it's not because of non-residents. It's because of people in my home state making more than I do to afford that. I'm not going to fault them any. If I want the opportunity to do something, that's on me to make it if I want it bad enough.

Let me put it another way.
Hunter A lives in rural Missouri and has a good job. He works hard, and he's smart and is able to afford a nice house and puts 15% of his money away every year to buy land.
Hunter B lives in San Diego (yuck) and has the exact same job and home and lives an equivalent lifestyle. He also put's 15% of his money away to buy land.
As long as hunter A and hunter B stay in their respective areas, they are competing against other buyers who have roughly equal income opportunities and thus there is a cap on how high the land goes. Each hunter can work harder and sacrifice harder than their neighbors and reap the rewards.
Once hunter B ventures into hunter A's area, his 15% is now superior to hunter A giving him a large buying advantage. If you play this same scenario over enough times, all the land is owned by out of area owners.
I'd rather not see that scenario play out. I think it's better for everyone if locals can access the resource. That's why I think states should cater to their residents. That is one way to even the playing field for the locals with less resources.

 

[BenA]

Let me put it another way.
Hunter A lives in rural Missouri and has a good job. He works hard, and he's smart and is able to afford a nice house and puts 15% of his money away every year to buy land.
Hunter B lives in San Diego (yuck) and has the exact same job and home and lives an equivalent lifestyle. He also put's 15% of his money away to buy land.
As long as hunter A and hunter B stay in their respective areas, they are competing against other buyers who have roughly equal income opportunities and thus there is a cap on how high the land goes. Each hunter can work harder and sacrifice harder than their neighbors and reap the rewards.
Once hunter B ventures into hunter A's area, his 15% is now superior to hunter A giving him a large buying advantage. If you play this same scenario over enough times, all the land is owned by out of area owners.
I'd rather not see that scenario play out. I think it's better for everyone if locals can access the resource. That's why I think states should cater to their residents. That is one way to even the playing field for the locals with less resources.

But, even inside states you have income disparity. And, it can be drastic. That's what happens regardless of a line drawn on a map. Local residents are displaced from their local hunting areas due to money. It happened in my state. Do we make it to to where you can only buy land inside a certain radius from where you live? Do we make it "equitable"?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I can see both sides but I lean more towards letting the market decide who should get the land. I wish I could buy land in the county I live. I can’t. Developers and country music stars drive the price up so high it’s $100,000 an acre in some scenarios. Oh well, they win. But I chose to live in an area where incomes/opportunities are greater than where my farm is. Every one in that community where my farm is has the opportunity to move to a place where they can potentially make more money but for whatever reason they don’t and I respect that. I would love to live at my farm but I know I couldn’t make ends meet. It’s a sacrifice we both make. Locals don’t want to leave their area and I want to leave mine but can’t. Should I say they can’t come to Nashville cause tourist run the price up and cause traffic for the locals…it works both ways.
I hate to say it but income disparity is a beautiful part of capitalism. It is a great motivator for some people. Trust me, the desire to own land has done more to motivate success in my professional life than any single factor. I think it’s a slippery slope to restrict “out of towners” from buying wherever they can afford.

**and I’m strictly referencing buying land. I’m not talking about leasing or outfitter hunting. Those are generally takers and don’t give much back. Buying is an investment in a community

 

[hillrunner]

But, even inside states you have income disparity. And, it can be drastic. That's what happens regardless of a line drawn on a map. Local residents are displaced from their local hunting areas due to money. It happened in my state. Do we make it to to where you can only buy land inside a certain radius from where you live? Do we make it "equitable"?

Of course we don't, I don't want to ban anyone in this country from being able to buy land anywhere they want. I have several out of state neighbors and I have zero complaints about any of them. I do like to see some advantages to the locals though. If none of the local voters have connection to the land, they are not going to vote to conserve it.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Of course we don't, I don't want to ban anyone in this country from being able to buy land anywhere they want. I have several out of state neighbors and I have zero complaints about any of them. I do like to see some advantages to the locals though. If none of the local voters have connection to the land, they are not going to vote to conserve it.

I don’t see that being reality though. I’ve lived in two areas that went from rural to suburban hell. Did those locals that sold not have a connection to that land? Sure they did, several generations of family land. But they damn sure cashed out when big money developer wanted the farm. Locals are only as invested in an area as their opportunities allow them to be for the most part. There’s always outliers but most of those “principled” farmers would get out of dodge the second someone waved a stupid contract in their face.

 

[BenA]

Of course we don't, I don't want to ban anyone in this country from being able to buy land anywhere they want. I have several out of state neighbors and I have zero complaints about any of them. I do like to see some advantages to the locals though. If none of the local voters have connection to the land, they are not going to vote to conserve it.

So make licenses higher for people living in Warren or Dallas counties that hunt in Appanoose county. Those voters don't vote there.

 

[homerj]

Great discussion about European game management

 

[BenA]

Great discussion about European game management

I don't agree with it or like it. But, I don't see any way around it with the trajectory of populations compared to rural land. I don't think limiting hunting rights for one group of American citizens to make it more equitable for another group is the way we should solve things though. We have a fundamental problem in America, and equity isn't the answer.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

It’s an inconvenient fact we are just a few years behind Europe. What happens there, happens here. Socialism, mass immigration by third world people, Muslims taking over, insane cost of living. It’s all taking form. Hunting isn’t far behind.

 

[omicron1792]

It’s an inconvenient fact we are just a few years behind Europe. What happens there, happens here. Socialism, mass immigration by third world people, Muslims taking over, insane cost of living. It’s all taking form. Hunting isn’t far behind.

We have enough good people left to fight the change. You have young kids. I do too. We must stay positive and make good decisions everyday to leave our kids a world they can excel in.