The deeper think thought I had in my sleep last night- How many people quit hunting due to regs, versus change in their experience?
I'd suspect very very few have over regs, but will over having to do more for what theyve just expected (access, scouting, etc).
We have many hunters in our ranks that want an outcome with little to no effort needed, we have some (?most) that like the effort as much of the outcome, and others that desire the outcome so much that the biggest effort/toll they can afford without concern. We are fractioned beyond solidarity, and attempts to unite not only fail but result in exponential losses. While we can argue-discuss-whatever on baiting ask yourself this; If the fed decided to put a bill up for a final vote to ban all/any hunting.....how many hunters, and from what buckets, would do something to try an stop it?
Saw Skip on the Legacy Acres Land Podcast and he brought up OH and said something to the effect of "OH states they need baiting to stop from losing hunters (and their votes), because theyre losing so many hunters and votes (with baiting)". Regardless of where one has their preference, what are you hunting for, where is your effort and how has baiting improved that for you, and how has it (Baiting) improved it for hunting itself