Are we in a hunting bubble?

[tt_johnsclist]

The western states are in the middle of an elk/mountain/western hunt bubble fueled by social media and media hype and all the reasons listed above. No different that the late 90’s whitetail/Midwest/tree stand archery bubble fueled by bill Jordan real tree DVD’s , Sportsman channel tv shows, and magazines. Unfortunately the whitetail bubble never burst it just maxed out the leases and deer herds. Now every Midwesterner like myself drives 18 hours straight each fall to chase elk and help max that bubble out. Instead of leases you get creep, more draw units, and NR restrictions. History repeating itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[insanelupus]

For many decades, in so far as non resident hunters are concerned, it has and still is simply a matter of monetary prioritization. Nothing more and nothing less.

In years priorities lie outside of hunting in other states, hunters look to take advantage of opportunities within their own state and/or prioritize things in following years differently.

Many sides to examine of course.

 

[Shupe88]

Bill sf 0094 died. Voted out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[String&stick]

Then next recession will most likely be nothing compared to 2008. . . It will be a minor downturn to reload and reset. It will probably occur in the next year or two and won't make a shit bit of difference to hunting.

Hunting will eventually be only for the elites, unfortunately our beautiful western conservation system will die by way of the capitalism that has allowed all of us to partake over the years. We can only hope it suffers on to a glorious old age.

 

[MuleyFever]

If there is a hunting bubble its a damn tough one that won't pop. Tags cold double in cost, there will be no shortage of people willing to buy them. The popularity of hunting whitetails has left a lot of people with no good place to hunt. Easterners will continue to drive west to hunt. The western population will continue to grow and animal habitat will continue to shrink, along with heard numbers. It all leads to a shrinking resource and there will always be people willing to pay what it takes to play.

 

[YZF_88]

I think bubble would shrink substantially if Instagram, Facebook & monitized YouTube channels disappeared.

 

[elkduds]

Don't be distracted by "bubbles" you see on the surface of the pond, they do not indicate how the whole pond is faring.

The pond here is public hunting on public lands.

Read up on the North American Wildlife Conservation Model . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation
Rapidly-increasing population quickly increases the value of public lands on which we recreate, and competition among users. More than with hunting, technology is improving ease of access to motor sports, mountain biking, even plain old hiking and camping. The trend toward fewer hunters parallels a stronger trend to more of every other kind of recreational user.

Because this is public land, voter #s influence management policy. If you doubt politics, $ and voters can outcompete the needs of native wildlife, consider the loss of winter range in the Rocky Mountain west. It is now ag land, resort and residential development. Or reservoirs. Game management agencies pay millions of dollars of license revenue for game damage claims. As hunters lose influence in public land management decisions, spring recreation overrides elk calving, and half the herd vanishes in short order; which is the current case in the Vail and Roaring Fork/Aspen valleys in CO. Ditto for deer.

We have to look past our noses of self-interest, to the longer view of how public land hunting competes or doesn't with all the other uses: recreational, industrial or agricultural. Hunting will lose out, and not because of PETA or antis. It will happen when there aren't enough hunter/voters to stand up for the North American Model, which has no value to any users except hunters.

Any obstacle to recruiting and maintaining public land hunter #s will accelerate this trend toward pay-to-play hunting on private land, and little or no hunting on whatever public land remains. Example: Chasing off nonresident hunters is short-sighted, unless they can be replaced with new resident hunter/voters, like Idaho is trying. Not going to happen. Montana's ranchers are succeeding at shrinking that state's elk herd. Californian, Texan, Oklahoman, Illinoisan and all other nonresident hunter/voters have influence on management policies on federal lands in the west. Without them, soon enough the only hunting left will be for the King's Deer, on the private palace grounds, costing a king's ransom. Then the defeat of the North American Model will be complete and final.

 

[Trial153]

Don't be distracted by "bubbles" you see on the surface of the pond, they do not indicate how the whole pond is faring.

The pond here is public hunting on public lands.

Read up on the North American Wildlife Conservation Model . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation
Rapidly-increasing population quickly increases the value of public lands on which we recreate, and competition among users. More than with hunting, technology is improving ease of access to motor sports, mountain biking, even plain old hiking and camping. The trend toward fewer hunters parallels a stronger trend to more of every other kind of recreational user.

Because this is public land, voter #s influence management policy. If you doubt politics, $ and voters can outcompete the needs of native wildlife, consider the loss of winter range in the Rocky Mountain west. It is now ag land, resort and residential development. Or reservoirs. Game management agencies pay millions of dollars of license revenue for game damage claims. As hunters lose influence in public land management decisions, spring recreation overrides elk calving, and half the herd vanishes in short order; which is the current case in the Vail and Roaring Fork/Aspen valleys in CO. Ditto for deer.

We have to look past our noses of self-interest, to the longer view of how public land hunting competes or doesn't with all the other uses: recreational, industrial or agricultural. Hunting will lose out, and not because of PETA or antis. It will happen when there aren't enough hunter/voters to stand up for the North American Model, which has no value to any users except hunters.

Any obstacle to recruiting and maintaining public land hunter #s will accelerate this trend toward pay-to-play hunting on private land, and little or no hunting on whatever public land remains. Example: Chasing off nonresident hunters is short-sighted, unless they can be replaced with new resident hunter/voters, like Idaho is trying. Not going to happen. Montana's ranchers are succeeding at shrinking that state's elk herd. Californian, Texan, Oklahoman, Illinoisan and all other nonresident hunter/voters have influence on management policies on federal lands in the west. Without them, soon enough the only hunting left will be for the King's Deer, on the private palace grounds, costing a king's ransom. Then the defeat of the North American Model will be complete and final.

This post should be sticky ...

 

[923]

Don't see the bubble popping unless the economy takes a catastrophic hit

 

[OMB]

I do sort of have to believe some of the major issues with point creep or the costs of adventure hunts in Alaska/Canada rising 10%+ each year will go away as the older, Baby Boom generation hunters age out. They're hitting the perfect storm right now of a roaring economy and near retirement age (youngest boomer would be 55). I'm optimistic that things could be looking up in 10 years for people under 35 and things might get more relatively affordable. On the flip side, I'm also glad I booked my first sheep hunt 2 years ago because the same hunt is about 20% more expensive if I had waited just even until this year.

 

[Kindo]

Funny you posted this. I had this exact conversation with someone yesterday regarding the bubble.

 

[wildwilderness]

Baby Boomers contribute. They have the time and most important the money. The top end hunts are increasing since they have always been limited supply. Now the demand has shot up. Maybe it’ll slow down in 10-15 yrs. but I doubt it come down unless there’s another depression.

 

[805Bowhunter]

Well, not everyone in CA is "rich" or lives on the beach. I would venture to say that most hunters live in smaller, more rural areas, not big cities where prices are sky high. The median income here is about 75k, the rest of the country is about 62K. You cannot base everything about CA on the coastal areas of LA and SF.
Oh, and gas is only 3.05 here in Sacramento

Essentially my point exactly. Basic economics. You're excited because gas in Sac is 3.05....well gas in Jackson Mississippi is $1.95. I dont care if they are rural or city (you're probably right about more hunters living in rural communities). Simply put, California as a state has more money overall than other states. To your point of the average income of 75k vs 62k. Take the Wyoming increase just proposed (and thankfully shot down), tag increases from that proposal would have hurt a lot of the people in the 62k bracket far more than 75k. Another way to look at it..that's two guided hunts a year that a Californian (on average) can afford that someone out of state cannot.

I was obviously overgeneralizing in some of what I said as clearly not all Californians are rich. But to my earlier post, I just dont think that matters when you have a limited amount of tags, and far more people than those tags willing to throw down serious coin. Sadly, it takes the people not making as much (doesnt matter what state or community they live in, California included) out of the hunting game. Money will continue to drive tag prices (basic capitalism/supply and demand) and therefore, it will be harder for some to buy. With the cost of living in California (rural or not) being so high, there simply is more money here. Compare minimum wage in CA to the rest of the country. For every person working their ass off swinging a hammer to hunt elk each year, there is some wanker in "LA or SF" who is shooting their "stickbow" and getting back to their "ancestral roots" while drinking a startbucks latte after a yoga session. I only say that half joking.

 

[TheCougar]

Then next recession will most likely be nothing compared to 2008. . . It will be a minor downturn to reload and reset. It will probably occur in the next year or two and won't make a shit bit of difference to hunting.

Hunting will eventually be only for the elites, unfortunately our beautiful western conservation system will die by way of the capitalism that has allowed all of us to partake over the years. We can only hope it suffers on to a glorious old age.

That basically sums up my concerns...

 

[S.Clancy]

Disclaimer: this question is not intended to sport bitch about NR costs, tag allocations, hunting opportunity, or general NR entitlement . That’s for you, Buzz!

I’ve been reading a lot recently about increases in tags fees and decreases in quotas for NR. It got me thinking about how this situation may be artificially stimulated by a booming economy and the current “fad” of western hunting. Many states seem to be stacking their chips in the NR economy - namely packing more and more revenue into a shrinking segment of the hunting population. I also am fully aware of the engine of capitalism: supply and demand, in addition to the inability of legislatures to plan beyond their collective noses. Much in the same way nearly every state (except for NM and ID - god bless you) have created various Ponzi schemes with point structures. Sounds great for revenue generation in the short term, but ultimately crushes Hunter recruitment - and therefore long term revenue - by relegating the youngest hunters to the worst units during the peak of their health and formative period- whether resident or nonresident.

So are we in an artificially created bubble? Does it pop when the economy hits the next recession or when western hunting is no longer the #HotThing? If so, what does it look like when an increasingly small group who fund an increasingly larger portion of budgets, no longer do so? Do we ever actually get there? Is there ever an impetus for states to reverse their thinking on funding budgets and tag allocations? Is there ever a point when a state recognizes a train wreck and abandons a point structure to benefit the new rather than the established?

Just offseason musings...

In short, yes, I think you are right. Once the next recession dynamics will change.

 

[SoDaky]

Said above but IMO only a 'prepper' type catastrophe will alter anything.If the economy continues favorably,next year will be worse.

 

[rayporter]

things are changing thats for sure. when you see a trail head full you just think there are more hunters-but that is a short range view that concerns the moment.

else where the numbers say otherwise. and the dollars lost must be made up somehow. or else?????
other recreation gets a free ride on hunter dollars way too often.

 

[805Bowhunter]

and the dollars lost must be made up somehow. or else?????
other recreation gets a free ride on hunter dollars way too often.

I wish that the hunting community was more vocal about this towards our legislative body. The outdoor community needs to pay their fair share and have some skin in the game. They've been on a free ride for a really long time and we take the brunt of the negative. It's a win win for everyone.

 

[Quin]

I wish that the hunting community was more vocal about this towards our legislative body. The outdoor community needs to pay their fair share and have some skin in the game. They've been on a free ride for a really long time and we take the brunt of the negative. It's a win win for everyone.

I understand the sentiment but at the same time, I can see this backfiring. As hunters' contributions become a smaller share of conservation & wildlife budgets, hunters' voices become correspondingly less important.

 

[rayporter]

"hunters' voices become correspondingly less important."

yes, and no doubt a goal of many

​