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

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Btw these conversations are fun and thought provoking. Good stuff being thrown around

 

[omicron1792]

I’m only speaking to Kansas. And I need to be clear. Anyone exercising their right to the law as it currently exists is good in my book. I think there are ways they can improve and those are my thoughts. We don’t have to agree. I am the County Appraiser here so I can speak very specifically to the tax implications here and they aren’t even close. I also think there should be perks to being a resident somewhere. I don’t think that is unreasonable. As all that related back to the thread again, deer are becoming (are) a commodity that goes to the highest bidder. I think the glory days are over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s a really good post. I agree with this even though I am not against out of state landowners. A healthy mix seems to be the best route.

The land I bought had been owned by my wife’s grandfather who lived and worked in the small community for 60 years. When he got old and moved to assisted living his land became the poaching spot central. I have talked to numerous people that said “oh I’ve hunted there, great turkey and deer.” The real angst for most good ole boys was that they lost their free honey hole.

That has died down and most locals accept me warmly these days.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

That’s a really good post. I agree with this even though I am not against out of state landowners. A healthy mix seems to be the best route.

The land I bought had been owned by my wife’s grandfather who lived and worked in the small community for 60 years. When he got old and moved to assisted living his land became the poaching spot central. I have talked to numerous people that said “oh I’ve hunted there, great turkey and deer.” The real angst for most good ole boys was that they lost their free honey hole.

That has died down and most locals accept me warmly these days.

Good point about that. A lot of locals are pissed their free ride ended. They were taking advantage of local knowledge situations and using that to have a free hunting spot. They aren’t upset about some big picture ethos about the future of hunting, they are mad their gig is up.

 

[356]

Seems a good number here don't dread the European model, but rather welcome it

As with a few others on this forum, I have spent quite a bit of time in Europe (over two years, usually a month at a time) and loath their wildlife model. First, weapons are bad in most European nations—be it rifles, shotguns or bows. This creates undue regulatory burden on the hunter. Second, the public trust doctrine means hunting is not just in the hands of the elite. While private land ownership is the goal of almost every member of this forum, most of the students I work with hunt public lands and do not spend a lot of money. Most are successful. So far I’ve harvested two deer on public this season, and not only did I have a blast, the cost was minimal.

In the past five years I have introduced many to hunting by simply asking, “If you had a mentor, would hunting be something you would like to try?” Many have said yes, and their stories have been shared on this forum. That is NOT something you can do in most of Europe, and is why I have hope for the future of hunting.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

People keep referencing votes and losing them? Are yall all having these secret hunting ballots in other states? I’ve lived in 3 states as an adult and don’t think I’ve ever voted on a single wildlife issue.

In some cases there are hunting regulations on the ballot and in other cases they are surveys conducted by conservation departments. I try to voice my opinion for every one that I can.

 

[omicron1792]

Ballot box politics, especially for things that require expertise to manage, is ridiculous. Colorado is a prime example of this.

We live in a republic not a democracy. Elected officials for a particular region making decisions, while not perfect, is way better than a whole state voting on topics that don’t effect them.

 

[SwampCat]

As with a few others on this forum, I have spent quite a bit of time in Europe (over two years, usually a month at a time) and loath their wildlife model. First, weapons are bad in most European nations—be it rifles, shotguns or bows. This creates undue regulatory burden on the hunter. Second, the public trust doctrine means hunting is not just in the hands of the elite. While private land ownership is the goal of almost every member of this forum, most of the students I work with hunt public lands and do not spend a lot of money. Most are successful. So far I’ve harvested two deer on public this season, and not only did I have a blast, the cost was minimal.

In the past five years I have introduced many to hunting by simply asking, “If you had a mentor, would hunting be something you would like to try?” Many have said yes, and their stories have been shared on this forum. That is NOT something you can do in most of Europe, and is why I have hope for the future of hunting.

I am not as confident as you. I am speaking of my own case. I moved to AR in 1980. Timber company land was common and was open to hunters with no leasing. All through the 80’s I killed up to 200 quail per year. I havent seen 200 quail in the last 20 years. Friends had rabbit dogs. We would kill 20 or more rabbits in an afternoon hunt. I could kill more deer now in an afternoon than rabbits. Arkansas turkey harvest has dropped almost 50% in last 20 years. It was common to kill limits of ducks off public land a mile from my house or off my own waterfowl impoundments. Ten years ago, the shooting from the duck hunters would wake us up. Now, I have to pay a high dollar lease, drive an hour, to maybe shoot a couple of ducks a hunt. Even my hogs are gone. We now have only squirrels and deer in number.

I think a lot of potential hunters who might like duck, bird, or rabbit hunting find deer hunting boring. It is boring. I would gladly go back to hunting small game like we had in the 80’s - and shooting nothing but spikes like we did in the 80’s.

 

[BenA]

I bought a piece of property the locals didn't want. It was underpriced even by local standards. A local sold it to me. Now, I'm supposed to not hunt or limit my hunting on it because I don't vote there? If that's the case, I'll put multiple trailer homes on it to put more voting locals on it. I'll just be benefiting the locals.

 

[gjs4]

Every situation is different and anecdotal. I know several large out of state landowners in my area. They pay disproportionately to their uses in taxes. They also; buy feed locally, buy seed locally, buy groceries locally, go out to eat locally, use the local processor, use the local water and electric department, use local contractors, etc. I also know that according to the latest census 20% of the county is below the poverty level. So economically 20% of the county is a net negative. Those landowners are contributing way more than someone who just happens to live there

OH just raised their NR tags from 275$ to 400$ as residents cry the NRs are ruining things. Residents do not need to buy a license if hunting their own land- so they dont. You can legally put a bait pile in your yard and hunt it for "free" and handwrite your tag. As a NR landowner- I get nothing for a perk (despite all of the local inputs youve mentioned and $2500 in property tax) and the county i am in was the poorest in the state just a few years ago. Local service providers lick their chops at abusing anyone that comes to the area for any reason . Most NRs hunt public- which isnt managed for anything but oaks and almost entire resides in poor af coal country. Three years owning there- and maybe 8-9 years of buying licenses and tags....and havent used one there since around 2010. The locals kill nearly everything and a few neighbors will shake my hand and be nice...then sit the property line, kill indiscriminately, only to MF NRs at the next hunting conversation. Crates full of hippos.

Where I live, we are in the some of the highest taxation in the US ($4500 on my 40 of rec). Local people hunt and you need to buy a $120 license for a marginal deer hunting experience and NRs have to pay $50-75 more. Game law enforcement, let alone penalty is a joke. Public land is a joke and they basically mow paths through whatever for anyone to use- hunting, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, etc.

As you've stated- NRs are never praised for what they bring in and are always the scapegoat for residents looking to point the finger.

The (group) question I have is why arent outfitters hated? They con locals, rape the resource (in more instance than not) and put nothing into the resource and minimally into the local economy? Seems like theyre they cornerstone on the "pay to play argument"

 

[hillrunner]

OH just raised their NR tags from 275$ to 400$ as residents cry the NRs are ruining things. Residents do not need to buy a license if hunting their own land- so they dont. You can legally put a bait pile in your yard and hunt it for "free" and handwrite your tag. As a NR landowner- I get nothing for a perk (despite all of the local inputs youve mentioned and $2500 in property tax) and the county i am in was the poorest in the state just a few years ago. Local service providers lick their chops at abusing anyone that comes to the area for any reason . Most NRs hunt public- which isnt managed for anything but oaks and almost entire resides in poor af coal country. Three years owning there- and maybe 8-9 years of buying licenses and tags....and havent used one there since around 2010. The locals kill nearly everything and a few neighbors will shake my hand and be nice...then sit the property line, kill indiscriminately, only to MF NRs at the next hunting conversation. Crates full of hippos.

Where I live, we are in the some of the highest taxation in the US ($4500 on my 40 of rec). Local people hunt and you need to buy a $120 license for a marginal deer hunting experience and NRs have to pay $50-75 more. Game law enforcement, let alone penalty is a joke. Public land is a joke and they basically mow paths through whatever for anyone to use- hunting, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, etc.

As you've stated- NRs are never praised for what they bring in and are always the scapegoat for residents looking to point the finger.

The (group) question I have is why arent outfitters hated? They con locals, rape the resource (in more instance than not) and put nothing into the resource and minimally into the local economy? Seems like theyre they cornerstone on the "pay to play argument"

I think outfitters are universally hated by local hunters anywhere they are in this country.

 

[gjs4]

I think outfitters are universally hated by local hunters anywhere they are in this country.

Agreed- but theyre like taxes; everyone complains and nothing every happens

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I think a lot of the issue with outfitters is their effect is only felt by people in their immediate area. So if you are out of the reach of their devastation it’s the ol out of sight out of mind deal. Additionally states don’t care about the resource. They only care to the point the masses are pacified. What percentage of Kentucky or ohios or New Yorks representative hunt? 5-10% tops. Some flaming lib representative from the city couldn’t pick a deer out from a llama and we expect they will dig into the nuance of outfitters effect on herd quality?
This goes back to the fallacy that locals have some deep connection with the land. No, they care to the point their financial resources are maximized like I stated earlier. If locals didn’t lease to outfitters there would be none. 1% of all outfitters own enough land personally to run an operation. And i guarantee they aren’t leasing from out of state landowner by and large. It’s locals

 

[BenA]

Somebody local must love outfitters. How many outfitters own all their own land? And, aren't they usually state residents too? Which resident do you need to please?

 

[Bowsnbucks]

My point above is, if a ballot initiative showed up tomorrow that asked if hunting should be allowed, I would vote no. And I am an AVID hunter. I see where this is headed and if Kansas won’t reward me for staying in Kansas by holding back one thing for me, I sure as heck don’t intend to safeguard it for the use of folks that I don’t know. No disrespect to anyone of course. I’m not a rich man so I don’t intend to defend a rich man’s sport if it comes to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"A rich man's sport" as you said above. Going back some years, the Wensel brothers warned of such a thing happening to hunting in the U.S. and elsewhere. They feared the end of fair chase, open land hunting, and the rise of "pay-to-play" hunting where to enjoy a good hunt, it would cost big-time. The Wensels even called that "a spreading cancer" in hunting - because they could see it coming. How many outfitters have turned hunting into just that?? $2000 to $10,000 for a "trophy" deer??? The bigger the "tip" to the guide, the better buck you get to see???

Won't EVER play that game. Even with a lottery jackpot.

 

[gjs4]

Somebody local must love outfitters. How many outfitters own all their own land? And, aren't they usually state residents too? Which resident do you need to please?

100% Ben. The shyster I am near in OH asks for hunting permission and then will guide on that property calling clients friends. And yup- theyre all out of state folks who are too lazy to cultivate their own opportunity so when they shoot their biggest buck, its going to be a two yo. When coupled with a bait state- where guides just have to pour the plot out, its a disaster.

To me the bad hunters are the dirty diaper but get viewed as the crying baby needing to be changed.

Social media is the delivery means to end hunting...and the Wensels were absolutely right. While I think the world of those guys, lets also point out they rather hunt in IA than where they live in the northeast for deer too. The conversation started last year was how many sides of a property having a fence make it (considered) a "high fence"....and apparently for the ethical scholars its all four.

Its simple to me- the more social (quality experience hunting access specifically here) sought after, the greater the divide as those at the bottom of the pyramid consume it. This really scares me...and is something we also see....as the lawlessness, and lack of enforcement, will ramp up under Robin Hood justification. Whether its a LuLu Lemon store robbed in Chicago, or some guy just shooting meat for his family off a Lee&Tiff farm....the enforcement side of it will continue to get more lax as the barrier to entry increases. Id love to be wrong on that though..

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

100% Ben. The shyster I am near in OH asks for hunting permission and then will guide on that property calling clients friends. And yup- theyre all out of state folks who are too lazy to cultivate their own opportunity so when they shoot their biggest buck, its going to be a two yo. When coupled with a bait state- where guides just have to pour the plot out, its a disaster.

To me the bad hunters are the dirty diaper but get viewed as the crying baby needing to be changed.

Social media is the delivery means to end hunting...and the Wensels were absolutely right. While I think the world of those guys, lets also point out they rather hunt in IA than where they live in the northeast for deer too. The conversation started last year was how many sides of a property having a fence make it (considered) a "high fence"....and apparently for the ethical scholars its all four.

Its simple to me- the more social (quality experience hunting access specifically here) sought after, the greater the divide as those at the bottom of the pyramid consume it. This really scares me...and is something we also see....as the lawlessness, and lack of enforcement, will ramp up under Robin Hood justification. Whether its a LuLu Lemon store robbed in Chicago, or some guy just shooting meat for his family off a Lee&Tiff farm....the enforcement side of it will continue to get more lax as the barrier to entry increases. Id love to be wrong on that though..

Your last point is a good one. I’ve heard of wardens trying to dissuade people from pressing charges cause “aww man he’s just a local guy who use to be able to hunt here and done messed up”. Rumor is our warden is a big a poacher as anyone. But he’s a local and been a local his whole life. He’s too close to situation to be objective. Enforcement is nonexistent and pointless.

 

[BenA]

Another thing I hear about non-residents is "maybe they'll fix their own state". That would be nice, but how are you going to convince people to try and grow soybeans on ground that's not capable of making any kind of crop? The Midwest has a resource that many US residents can't get where they reside. It would be like Florida residents telling Louisiana residents to not come here, fix your beaches. Not the same.

 

[hillrunner]

Somebody local must love outfitters. How many outfitters own all their own land? And, aren't they usually state residents too? Which resident do you need to please?

We have very few outfitters in Iowa. That's 100% due to the low cap on non residents. If they opened those flood gates it'd be game over for the average resident.
We have bills brought forth every single year to try and get outfitter tags. If they ever succeed, that's the beginning of the end.

 

[hillrunner]

Another thing I hear about non-residents is "maybe they'll fix their own state". That would be nice, but how are you going to convince people to try and grow soybeans on ground that's not capable of making any kind of crop? The Midwest has a resource that many US residents can't get where they reside. It would be like Florida residents telling Louisiana residents to not come here, fix your beaches. Not the same.

Or like Western states restricting non residents who want to hunt elk, or sheep, or moose, or pronghorn..... I can't hunt those things here but I still don't get to show up and hunt there like the residents can. I do have the option to move there though.
The resource isn't infinite, if you care about your state and want to keep your best residents from leaving, they need advantages.

 

[hillrunner]

I think a lot of the issue with outfitters is their effect is only felt by people in their immediate area. So if you are out of the reach of their devastation it’s the ol out of sight out of mind deal. Additionally states don’t care about the resource. They only care to the point the masses are pacified. What percentage of Kentucky or ohios or New Yorks representative hunt? 5-10% tops. Some flaming lib representative from the city couldn’t pick a deer out from a llama and we expect they will dig into the nuance of outfitters effect on herd quality?
This goes back to the fallacy that locals have some deep connection with the land. No, they care to the point their financial resources are maximized like I stated earlier. If locals didn’t lease to outfitters there would be none. 1% of all outfitters own enough land personally to run an operation. And i guarantee they aren’t leasing from out of state landowner by and large. It’s locals

Very few farmers care about the deer herd past the point that they dislike them. That's who is leasing to outfitters. They do care about the land though. Those are two separate issues.