Future of hunting on Federal lands

[displacedtexan]

Not a chance. Numbers are going up steadily.

That's not what license sales says... Total number of hunters peaked in the 80s. With a lower total population.

And when you factor in the people who purchase a license in multiple states...

Face it. 15,000,000 is a lot of people. But not compared to 330,000,000...

 

[Will_m]

That's not what license sales says... Total number of hunters peaked in the 80s. With a lower total population.

And when you factor in the people who purchase a license in multiple states...

Face it. 15,000,000 is a lot of people. But not compared to 330,000,000...

I guess that makes sense then.

So percentage wise we have a lower amount of people hunting out of the general population compared to the 1980's, but we have a higher number of people hunting now. Right or no?

I'd venture to guess that the area available for hunting has not made a commensurate increase with the population as well.

Putting it that way sure makes it seems like we are heading for an inevitable end, at least as we now know hunting (more like knew it as recent as twenty years ago). I just don't see how this can end in any other way other than strictly private or highly restricted hunts on public ground. Sad deal.

 

[displacedtexan]

I guess that makes sense then.

So percentage wise we have a lower amount of people hunting out of the general population compared to the 1980's, but we have a higher number of people hunting now. Right or no?

I'd venture to guess that the area available for hunting has not made a commensurate increase with the population as well.

Putting it that way sure makes it seems like we are heading for an inevitable end, at least as we now know hunting (more like knew it as recent as twenty years ago). I just don't see how this can end in any other way other than strictly private or highly restricted hunts on public ground. Sad deal.

Total number is barely down (17 million was max, if I remember correctly).

But percentage of the population is significantly down.

I agree, it seems to be a fading way of life, which is sad.

But the flip side is that we won't live to see it. So the logical part of me kinda doesn't care... As long as it fades away because people change, not because people are told they can't.

 

[WalterH]

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 .

No one is talking about shutting down 20 million acres of public land in Alaska. Not even close.

@f16jack This is a great example of why inaccurate and misleading information can be a disservice if not dangerous.

As for the future of hunting on fed public land. The sky is not falling. Yes there will be some back and forth on on things like endangered and threatened species, methods and means, etc. No big chunks of real opportunity will be lost as a result of federal action in our lifetimes.

The current biggest threats to hunting and fishing opportunities are things like privatization/commercialization of public land, habitat loss, animal population loss, and infiltration of state management authorities by special interest groups. I'm far more worried about these things than the feds making a bunch of new and restrictive laws and regulations, navigating a bunch of government dysfunction, red tape, and public pushback in the process.

 

[venado mula]

The current biggest threats to hunting and fishing opportunities are things like privatization/commercialization of public land, habitat loss, animal population loss, and infiltration of state management authorities by special interest groups. I'm far more worried about these things than the feds making a bunch of new and restrictive laws and regulations, navigating a bunch of government dysfunction, red tape, and public pushback in the process.

This is the largest concern in MT right now. A conservative Republican governor selling off our public land to the highest bidder while encouraging the pay to play privatization of public lands. I would rather have the federal government control my public land than the states who will sell it off to anyone, in my opinion.

 

[WalterH]

This is the largest concern in MT right now. A conservative Republican governor selling off our public land to the highest bidder while encouraging the pay to play privatization of public lands. I would rather have the federal government control my public land than the states who will sell it off to anyone, in my opinion.

Agreed. Like the feds or not, there are a lot more robust protections for fed managed public lands and resources than most states, generally speaking.

 

[diamond10x]

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.

So you don't go to pieces of public land that have any sort of draw to them at all? You're consistently going to the public parcels that only see grazing, hunting, and/or fishing as their sole use, strictly to camp and hike? The argument of "I use public lands for way more than just hunting" is silly in my opinion, when there are huge swaths of public land that the only recreational use they see is hunting.

 

[displacedtexan]

So you don't go to pieces of public land that have any sort of draw to them at all? You're consistently going to the public parcels that only see grazing, hunting, and/or fishing as their sole use, strictly to camp and hike? The argument of "I use public lands for way more than just hunting" is silly in my opinion, when there are huge swaths of public land that the only recreational use they see is hunting.

Unless I'm in grizzly country with my wife, I don't use developed campsites, and avoid established trail systems. Plenty of interesting and beautiful places on NF/BLM land that aren't popular.

Just because the majority of the use sine sees is by hunters doesn't make it Federal Hunting Land.

 

[diamond10x]

The current biggest threats to hunting and fishing opportunities are things like privatization/commercialization of public land, habitat loss, animal population loss, and infiltration of state management authorities by special interest groups. I'm far more worried about these things than the feds making a bunch of new and restrictive laws and regulations, navigating a bunch of government dysfunction, red tape, and public pushback in the process.

Respectfully disagree on this. The availability of public lands or not has ZERO to do with opportunities. Anyone can hunt/fish private land if they choose. The BIGGEST threat to hunting and fishing opportunities is the slow and steady erosion of things like not allowing baiting, not allowing hounds, cutting down seasons for politics not science. This is the snowball effect of slowly chipping away at rights that those special interest groups you're referring to and one political party seem to always be on the side of.

 

[diamond10x]

Unless I'm in grizzly country with my wife, I don't use developed campsites, and avoid established trail systems. Plenty of interesting and beautiful places on NF/BLM land that aren't popular.

Just because the majority of the use sine sees is by hunters doesn't make it Federal Hunting Land.

I never claimed it was "Federal Hunting Land". Just because the majority of usage on a piece of public is hiking or camping doesn't make it Federal camping Land. My point is that there are lots of public that the sole recreational usage it sees is hunting because it isn't deemed interesting or beautiful. Which brings me back to my original question of what is public land to lots of users without hunting?

 

[Rifleman86]

Who is more likely to pass a law that ensures Americans the right to hunt and shoot on federal FS and BLM land in perpetuity? Republicans or Democrats?

Everyone knows the answer.

Yes there are Republicans that are terrible on the public land and conservation issue. There are plenty that have zero concept of why privatization of wildlife is bad as well.

But I know quite a few Republicans that are now stark defenders of public land and the North American model after learning about it. Not all, but most change their mind after a little bit of education.

Good luck changing an anti gun or anti hunting Democrats mind.

 

[f16jack]

No one is talking about shutting down 20 million acres of public land in Alaska. Not even close.

@f16jack This is a great example of why inaccurate and misleading information can be a disservice if not dangerous.

As for the future of hunting on fed public land. The sky is not falling. Yes there will be some back and forth on on things like endangered and threatened species, methods and means, etc. No big chunks of real opportunity will be lost as a result of federal action in our lifetimes.

The current biggest threats to hunting and fishing opportunities are things like privatization/commercialization of public land, habitat loss, animal population loss, and infiltration of state management authorities by special interest groups. I'm far more worried about these things than the feds making a bunch of new and restrictive laws and regulations, navigating a bunch of government dysfunction, red tape, and public pushback in the process.

The proposal to eliminate trapping, baiting and predator control on these lands is real. Please let me know how that is inaccurate or misleading.

Disservice or dangerous? Hardly.

It's good you have your priorities on the items you feel most threaten public hunting opportunities. Other folks, with the same goals, may prioritize differently than you do. Because they may have a different approach than you doesn't automatically make them wrong. It's a big tent. Working together we can try to preserve opportunities for future hunters.

 

[displacedtexan]

I never claimed it was "Federal Hunting Land". Just because the majority of usage on a piece of public is hiking or camping doesn't make it Federal camping Land. My point is that there are lots of public that the sole recreational usage it sees is hunting because it isn't deemed interesting or beautiful. Which brings me back to my original question of what is public land to lots of users without hunting?

The same thing it is to the VAST majority of Americans already.

 

[displacedtexan]

Good luck changing an anti gun or anti hunting Democrats mind.

I interact with quite a few democrats/leftists on a regular basis. Some are very good friends of mine.

They like my hunting dogs, they love pictures and stories from hunting trips, and most of them own guns.

 

[jiminco]

Agreed, it looks bleak. I've had this conversation with some of our state wildlife folks and they are also concerned we just aren't seeing the numbers for new hunters.

 

[sneaky]

For anyone thinking that transferring land back to the states is a good idea, just read up on what Nevada did with the millions of acres they were given. Last I checked they started with around 4 million acres under their control, they were sitting around 20 thousand acres of that remaining that they haven't sold yet. Hunting as you know it in this country will disappear if federal lands are transferred to state control.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Stalker69]

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

I hit the like button, but I believe your correct. China is buying up U.S. land right now.

 

[Hnthrdr]

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

In Co, born and raised here. I’m 33, it feels like a different country from my youth. I hunt 99% on public mostly fed land. If it dried up I would SOL the wolf worshippers (gov’s husband) stated he wanted wolves to replace hunters. That is a long ways off but that is their intent

 

[jmez]

Does anyone really believe that they give a flying F about the national debt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't and never have. They also do not, and never had any intention of paying it off.

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I hate to say it but the real threat is at the state level, not the federal government. Look at the trend with state wildlife commissions and legislatures in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California. Under the heavy influence of anti-hunting animal rights organizations, enabled by progressive, urban politicians, they will chip away at seasons, method of take, and the NAM. This would be entirely too difficult to accomplish at the federal level, but could easily be accomplished during our lifetime at the state level with supermajorities in many western states. Hunters need to quit worrying about what happens in DC and get involved at the state level. Write and call your representatives incessantly, join local and national hunting organizations, and attend/comment at wildlife commission and legislative committee meetings when able. You can make a difference but it requires engagement. It is critical if we intend to preserve hunting for future generations.