Opinion On New Hunters

[chasing_animals]

Do you guys think that having more or less hunters would be better for Western hunting in the long run? We are all feeling the pressure of tags getting harder to get while also feeling like hunting is being looked at less favorably by the public officials. What are yall's thoughts on new hunters and the impact that they have?

 

[CorbLand]

You would have to set what defines “better” for this to be answered.

 

[glock233]

There’s an equilibrium. Tag availability and hunting experience would be better at around 50-75% of the current levels.

In terms of revenue, conservation, and public support, the more the merrier.

 

[Macintosh]

It's a bit of a double-edged sword. Would you rather have a continuously-shrinking portion of the population with a connection to hunting (financially, politically, etc), even more so than we currently have--OR would you rather have more hunters on the landscape? Pick one, afaict those are the only two options unless we stop growing our population.

 

[tipsntails7]

new hunters are not the problem. New internet influencer dime a dozen hunters are the problem. And we have not added enough new hunter numbers or votes to offset the damage that’s brought with it.

The internet has done more damage to hunting than anything ever will. Every swinging dick with a cell phone videos or take photos of their stuff it seems. Either doing unethical shit, glorifying killing in a less than appealing way, burning spots, or just general profiteering off hunting and the hunting community at large while doing almost nothing to be a net positive, to hunters, hunter education, conservation or the general perception non hunters have.

Add to that tag applications sites, hunting spot burning magazines, and the general commercialization of hunting overall has brought us to where we are now.

People have forgot why we hunt, or at least why I do, and what it’s about.

I wish hunting would become less popular among “hunters” then maybe we wouldn't have the glaring spotlight of public perception directly shined on individuals that don’t really represent us.

 

[307]

It would be wise to put effort and attention into increasing Eastern US hunting. If the status raises, the attention, $, and boots will follow.

This is where we need the influencers to influence.

By population, there's far more availability, at a far more accessible price, for a larger number of people east of the Mississippi river.

MEHGA!

Maybe instagram models in tree stands would be a place to start...

 

[bighornbor]

I started hunting 4 years ago, I've had old hunters walk past my truck then between a bugling bull and I, bull spooked. Had old hunters lie to my face about an animal not being legal then chase after it when I left. Had old hunters mess with my trail cameras. Seen old hunters try to get a native friend let them shoot cow moose. Seen old hunters trespassing. Seen old hunters leave messy camps.
If a new hunter proceeds ethically, courteously, and respects the environment is he really worse for the sport than the "old hunters"?

 

[Jimmy]

More hunters is always better. We need the public votes and support.

Might be more tags to go around if there wasn't so many hunters applying in 3-7 states. Probably not a popular thing to say, but is it true? It doesn't feel like we have a lot more hunters than when tags were easier to draw. I know some tags numbers are cut, but we have had a real boom in hunting out of state.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

More hunters is always better. We need the public votes and support.

I think the opposite is true, less hunters is absolutely what we need. To add to it we need to start policing our own and stop allowing people to share “their” story on social media, I know rokslide is social media but my wife, neighbor, kids teacher, etc. aren’t scrolling through rokslide. For every 9 “good” things related to hunting posted on the insta, there is 1 thing that paints most if not all hunting in a negative light, and the reality is there is already a large enough segment of the population we will never win over even if 100% of hunting images/stories shared to social media are tasteful. I used to think we could win at the ballot box if we just told the right story, but there are just too many people out there who lack the common sense to ask, “will my behavior move the narrative forward or set it back”. The sooner we have a smaller hunting population, hunting more ethically, and doing so without screaming look at me from the mountain tops the better, and if we don’t do that hunting will be lost forever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

@Andrew12gauge why does having fewer hunters have anything to do with hunting more ethically? I can’t disagree with the ethical argument, I’m just not clear what that has to do with the topic of whether more hunters is a good or bad thing, I just dont see the connection. Could you clarify?

 

[Kurts86]

We need more casual, 2 weekend a year hunters in the Eastern US. Those guys identify as part of the hunting community but aren’t creating the competition across 5 states per year. The problem is they have largely been displaced because the place they used to hunt for free with 10 other guys is now exclusively leased by one guy managing for trophy deer. They don’t want it bad enough to hunt public or find another place.

Western hunting just really doesn’t support that much hunting opportunities compared to much of the East acre by acre. Its aspirational and cool but it’s not the bread and butter of the greater US hunting community.

 

[rclouse79]

I like them, as long as I don’t catch them in my spots.

 

[1jeds]

I think more hunters are always a good thing, but the opportunities and animal populations would need to increase as well. We like to fight against ourselves, but when bigger issues pop up like trying to take public lands or hunting rights away, we will want more voices on our side.

 

[fatlander]

We need more active to hunters to care more about the resources and less about their own consumption of said resource. Hunting as a resident is too cheap. 6 deer, 3 turkey, and 1 bear tag cost me less than a box of premium 6.5 cm ammo this fall. That’s a problem. Most state wildlife management agencies are struggling financially. To them, more hunters equals more money. If we all cared enough to chip in more, at home, we’d all be better in the long run.

It’s hard to make an argument against non residents when they keep the lights on for fish and game management in your home state.

The fox is also in the hen house. The hunting industry, that funds all the once great non profits, pays for R3. They want more hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Will_m]

I can’t believe this is a real question. No, more is not and, in general, never is the correct answer.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

@Andrew12gauge why does having fewer hunters have anything to do with hunting more ethically? I can’t disagree with the ethical argument, I’m just not clear what that has to do with the topic of whether more hunters is a good or bad thing, I just dont see the connection. Could you clarify?

I guess that may be selfish on my part, less crowded woods, more opportunity for me and my kids. On the other hand less people hunting is less opportunity for people to do stupid stuff and turn more of the tide against us as hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HookUp]

NFL viewership is up 10%. people want sport hunting is a sport, plan on making more to spend more.

 

[Maverick1]

Doesn’t matter. Don’t care.

 

[7mm-08]

Forget the hunters and their numbers - target the soccer moms and their votes. That demographic will determine if we have the privilege (remember, its not a right) to continue to hunt in the United States. I agree that the vast majority of hunters who post on social media are (possibly unwittingly) offending this demographic.

 

[sky657]

More hunters overall is better long term for Western hunting hands down.
Fewer hunters shrinking political clout, less license revenue for habitat conservation Pittman Robertson funds, and weaker push back against anti hunting policies, land grabs, or re introductions that kill opportunities wolves, R3 efforts recruit, retain reactivate are pushed hard by agencies because declining numbers threaten the whole system hunting funds most wildlife management in the West.
But yeah, we're feeling the squeeze: tags tougher harder to draw, more pressure crowding on public land especially OTC units, point creep insane, non res limits rising Montana cut NR deer tags in 2026, Oregon Colorado tweaks too. New hunters add to that short term especially influencer types burning spots, overcrowding, or poor ethics that sour public perception and make officials restrict more.
Sweet spot More thoughtful, ethical new hunters who get mentored, hunt responsibly, and vote pro hunting boosts our side without overwhelming herds units. Pure numbers without population habitat growth hurts quality. Less hunters might ease your tag odds now, but kills the future agencies chase revenue, anti groups win.