Future of hunting on Federal lands

[roadrunner]

Won't be anything close to what it is now in a generation or two.

 

[Afhunter1]

I dunno, as the baby boomers kick off there will be a steep decline in hunter numbers and the opportunities might increase for those left behind. Young hunters now may have some golden years ahead.

I’m curious what the US is going to do when/if we transition into a fast shrinking population. The Govt will have to make do with less.

As for national debt if China invades Taiwan we will just discharge it and tell them we aren’t paying the same way Ukraine just defaulted on its loans to Russia. I don’t think we have any plan to pay it back.

Best thing you could do for the future of hunting is have 3 more kids. Ha ha

 

[displacedtexan]

I dunno, as the baby boomers kick off there will be a steep decline in hunter numbers and the opportunities might increase for those left behind. Young hunters now may have some golden years ahead.

I’m curious what the US is going to do when/if we transition into a fast shrinking population. The Govt will have to make do with less.

As for national debt if China invades Taiwan we will just discharge it and tell them we aren’t paying the same way Ukraine just defaulted on its loans to Russia. I don’t think we have any plan to pay it back.

Best thing you could do for the future of hunting is have 3 more kids. Ha ha

No kids for me.

Tell your's that if they see me in a bar, they owe me a round for the opportunity. Cheap beer and a shot of cheap bourbon

 

[WV Mountaineer]

What do you guys think the future of hunting will look like in a generation or two from now ? Personally not a big federal guy , but as time moves forward i see the federal government getting more involved in management of a state's wildlife on federal lands . I believe hunting on federal land will increasingly attacked from all angles harder than we have ever seen . Obviously the anti-hunting folks use any means . I think the introdution of predators into areas is in the long run to have "natural biomes" where hunters are not needed to manage game numbers . From not running hounds , outlawing bear hunting or mountain lion, to copper only, to i hike/bike and dont feel safe with hunters and guns , too we need to step in and manage your CWD problem on federal lands . All kinds of dripping faucet angles with one goal in mind to eliminate ALL hunting on federal lands . (See also recent post about alaska Nps) . WHAT SAY YOU ?

It’s going to be liberal hunters that make hunting on Public land a thing of the past. Fence riding, middle of the road politics is where the self proclaimed smart claim to be. They vote against hunting more often than they vote for hunting with their political choices. And, we loose ground because of it.

 

[displacedtexan]

It’s going to be liberal hunters that make hunting on Public land a thing of the past. Fence riding, middle of the road politics is where the self proclaimed smart claim to be. They vote against hunting more often than they vote for hunting with their political choices. And, we loose ground because of it.

But "liberals" also vote more for public land...

 

[Banded_spooney]

There is a lot of doom and gloom on this thread. Think back 20 years, how much has actually changed other than increased pressure regardless of how many fewer hunters we are told there are? Maybe landlocked pieces of public that were accessible in the past via landowners looking the other way have become less accessible. But that's not going to get better or worse due to policy change. Might get worse with more corporate landowners, and might get better with more RMEF access projects, who knows?

I expect more of the same—little to no supply change, increased demand. I don't see or understand the sky is falling mentality discussed here. A generation isn't really very long, and congress doesn't work that fast anyway.

The biggest concerns I have are regarding the shutting down of NF lands during fire season. California and southern Oregon have already experienced this. Argue about climate change all you want but mega fires have ripple effects and it's not debatable.

 

[Flyjunky]

But "liberals" also vote more for public land...

Yes, to hike and bike on, but that’s while they’re banning guns.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

But "liberals" also vote more for public land...

If you believe that, you are part of the problem. Don’t use Republican politicians as your proof either. Because there isn’t a conservative among them.

 

[diamond10x]

But "liberals" also vote more for public land...

If you’re not allowed to hunt what good does public land do?

I would venture to guess most hunters care more about their ability to be able to hunt and fish, whether that be on public or private property, than they do for who owns the section of land.

 

[Gutshot007]

There is a lot of doom and gloom on this thread. Think back 20 years, how much has actually changed other than increased pressure regardless of how many fewer hunters we are told there are? Maybe landlocked pieces of public that were accessible in the past via landowners looking the other way have become less accessible. But that's not going to get better or worse due to policy change. Might get worse with more corporate landowners, and might get better with more RMEF access projects, who knows?

I expect more of the same—little to no supply change, increased demand. I don't see or understand the sky is falling mentality discussed here. A generation isn't really very long, and congress doesn't work that fast anyway.

The biggest concerns I have are regarding the shutting down of NF lands during fire season. California and southern Oregon have already experienced this. Argue about climate change all you want but mega fires have ripple effects and it's not debatable.

I dont like to be all doom and gloom , but i do believe "attitudes" towards hunting on Federal lands are changing for the worse . The general population is either indifferent or against . I believe at one time hunting was the predominant activty on federal land and each year there is increasing pressure from other users for their piece of the pie . There will be more court cases and anti-hunting legislation . Some groups are in it for the long haul and will keep chipping away. Loose one case . File another. There is a post about 20 plus millon acres of Federal land in Alaska that they're talking about shutting down . I do agree regarding increasing demand vs stagnating supply .

 

[displacedtexan]

If you’re not allowed to hunt what good does public land do?

I do a whole lot more than hunt on public land.

Hike, camp, fish...

 

[roadrunner]

There is a lot of doom and gloom on this thread. Think back 20 years, how much has actually changed other than increased pressure regardless of how many fewer hunters we are told there are? Maybe landlocked pieces of public that were accessible in the past via landowners looking the other way have become less accessible. But that's not going to get better or worse due to policy change. Might get worse with more corporate landowners, and might get better with more RMEF access projects, who knows?

I expect more of the same—little to no supply change, increased demand. I don't see or understand the sky is falling mentality discussed here. A generation isn't really very long, and congress doesn't work that fast anyway.

The biggest concerns I have are regarding the shutting down of NF lands during fire season. California and southern Oregon have already experienced this. Argue about climate change all you want but mega fires have ripple effects and it's not debatable.

20 years ago, people weren't confused on what gender they were...

 

[Will_m]

*reintroduction of predators

I think there will be a lot less hunting, because people don't want to hunt as much.

Particularly the hunting we enjoy on public lands out west.

It's hard, it's frequently uncomfortable, it's not cheap...

I'm 40... The vast majority of hunters I know and see are older than me.

Not a chance. Numbers are going up steadily.

 

[sneaky]

I see the Federal Government selling off public land to pay off the national debt.

That wouldn't put a dent in it. After its sold then how they gonna pay debt? Taxes. Taxes, and more taxes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[diamond10x]

I do a whole lot more than hunt on public land.

Hike, camp, fish...

My point is that there are plenty of outdoorsmen who would not support public land if they aren’t allowed to hunt or fish on it but yet mr hiker camper is allowed to tromp all over the place. I know I know “their loss” but I would venture to say that a lot of people that use public land for hunting aren’t into hiking and camping unless it is to hunt or fish.

How much of that public land are you using to do other things besides hunting and fishing that aren’t some sort of tourist attraction? i.e. well known swimming hole, rock formation, trail system, etc

 

[Swamppirate]

It’s OUR land. We pay for it. So I/We will hunt it.

 

[Fatcamp]

The same type of people who think the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act was solid work will be the doom of public lands and game.

Some of them hang out here.

 

[Blammo]

You guys that live in western states would you have much access if Federal land "dried up" ? Eastern states majority is private with some "government " . Obviously land is expensive everywhere , but best bang for the buck , affordability, and opportunity to purchase in the long run may be east ? As stated above with the current climate toward hunting in our country it may happen within 20 years (?) . There are also alot of other " hobbyist" groups using Federal lands . Hunters dont have the place to themselves and there will be many other legislative influences/lobbyist

Hey Gutshot, good question. In California, quite a bit of BLM land here. Hoping it remains unchanged its a big resource. Protected, free camping etc. I always feel like I am using something I am already paying for when hunting or target shooting Federal Land. One thing people could do to help the cause is pack out shells and target waste. BLM has a leave no trace philosophy which I can get my head around. Unfortunately, some of the target areas look like picture of Fallugah.

 

[displacedtexan]

My point is that there are plenty of outdoorsmen who would not support public land if they aren’t allowed to hunt or fish on it but yet mr hiker camper is allowed to tromp all over the place. I know I know “their loss” but I would venture to say that a lot of people that use public land for hunting aren’t into hiking and camping unless it is to hunt or fish.

How much of that public land are you using to do other things besides hunting and fishing that aren’t some sort of tourist attraction? i.e. well known swimming hole, rock formation, trail system, etc

Although it is a sizable chunk of people who's support for public lands hinges on their ability to hunt and fish it... By the data, that group is not the majority of users.

Personally, very little. If we want a tourist attraction, we'll go to a National Park. But I'll admit that we're in the minority there.

 

[displacedtexan]

Hey Gutshot, good question. In California, quite a bit of BLM land here. Hoping it remains unchanged its a big resource. Protected, free camping etc. I always feel like I am using something I am already paying for when hunting or target shooting Federal Land. One thing people could do to help the cause is pack out shells and target waste. BLM has a leave no trace philosophy which I can get my head around. Unfortunately, some of the target areas look like picture of Fallugah.

Amazingly I've heard hunters say that they don't pick that stuff up so they can let everyone know they were there.