Outlook on Hunting in the U.S.?

[Coyote Commander]

So linked articles from government on populations vs your “probably.” And you truly think you’re right.

This board cracks me up.

You believe everything the government tells you?

This board does in fact rarely disappoint.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Do you believe estimates of populations from 200+ years ago?

I dont!

Read Lewis and Clarks journals, game was plentiful in places but completely void in many others.

2008 in the Dakotas there were more deer than theres probably ever been in history.

Even if the numbers were halved it still is a significant decline.

As for Lewis and Clark, just because they didn't see any, doesn't mean they weren't there. Read anything about the long hunters (Boone, Skaggs, Mansker, etc) and how many deer and elk those guys killed and it may give you a bit more perspective.

As for your comment on deer in the Dakotas, that may be true, but it is easy for them to populate when they don't have to compete for resources with elk and bison. However, I see a lot of recency bias when it comes to deer populations. They are great in a lot of states these days. But ask anyone who hunted in the 60's what it was like compared to today.

 

[Slickhill]

The real devastation of bison was via brucellosis or some other cattle born disease.
Even if estimates back then were 4X actual populations the hide yards didn’t ship enough hides to cover the calf crop of the year.

As for deer populations back in the 60’s. My Grandfather and his buddies were going to Co and buying multiple mule deer tags and filling them all. They didn’t hunt locally for deer because there were none. Now we can shoot 8 per year or thereabouts.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Even if the numbers were halved it still is a significant decline.

As for Lewis and Clark, just because they didn't see any, doesn't mean they weren't there. Read anything about the long hunters (Boone, Skaggs, Mansker, etc) and how many deer and elk those guys killed and it may give you a bit more perspective.

As for your comment on deer in the Dakotas, that may be true, but it is easy for them to populate when they don't have to compete for resources with elk and bison. However, I see a lot of recency bias when it comes to deer populations. They are great in a lot of states these days. But ask anyone who hunted in the 60's what it was like compared to today.

Without a doubt we over hunted a lot of stuff before we knew any better.

I’m just skeptical of “estimates” made from hundreds of years ago. Many of which are just underhanded attempts to say “white man bad”.

Heck, I read once they “estimate” there were over 300 million Indians here before the evil white Europeans wrecked everything.

Mmmhmm.

Estimates and exploits. Remember too, Davy Crockett killt him a b’ar when he was only three!

 

[Coyote Commander]

The real devastation of bison was via brucellosis or some other cattle born disease.
Even if estimates back then were 4X actual populations the hide yards didn’t ship enough hides to cover the calf crop of the year.

As for deer populations back in the 60’s. My Grandfather and his buddies were going to Co and buying multiple mule deer tags and filling them all. They didn’t hunt locally for deer because there were none. Now we can shoot 8 per year or thereabouts.

And let’s not forget, we’re supposed to believe the shooters were able to all but obliterate a bison population that was “estimated” (there’s that word again) to be as high as 60 million, and they did it in less than 20 years.

I don’t buy it.

 

[HandgunHTR]

The real devastation of bison was via brucellosis or some other cattle born disease.
Even if estimates back then were 4X actual populations the hide yards didn’t ship enough hides to cover the calf crop of the year.

As for deer populations back in the 60’s. My Grandfather and his buddies were going to Co and buying multiple mule deer tags and filling them all. They didn’t hunt locally for deer because there were none. Now we can shoot 8 per year or thereabouts.

And let’s not forget, we’re supposed to believe the shooters were able to all but obliterate a bison population that was “estimated” (there’s that word again) to be as high as 60 million, and they did it in less than 20 years.

I don’t buy it.

Gents, there are many verifiable sources to show that the hide hunters killed bison in the millions.

This isn't a "white man bad" thing. It is a "left to their own devices, men (regardless of color) will strip away natural resources until they are gone, as long as someone is paying" issue.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Early settlers killed stuff like crazy, bringing many species to the brink of extinction or extirpation, but they didn't wipe out the bison herds with Sharps rifles. Disease did that.

 

[Hunt eat repeat]

I think about all these things quite often. Everything is a mess and I feel like we are barreling down hill and no brakes.
But then I think what if hunters put all of their differences aside and just put their foot down on this anti hunting BS and put access and animal health over everything. A pipe dream I know but all this passion could move mountains !!!

 

[displacedtexan]

So linked articles from government on populations vs your “probably.” And you truly think you’re right.

This board cracks me up.

*people

 

[Rich M]

It’s simple.

We will continue to commercialize it, price out the “average joe”, pubic land experience will continue to deteriorate, and we will continue a march towards the European model.

My children will not get to experience what I got to experience.

Agreed.

 

[Rich M]

Even if the numbers were halved it still is a significant decline.

As for Lewis and Clark, just because they didn't see any, doesn't mean they weren't there. Read anything about the long hunters (Boone, Skaggs, Mansker, etc) and how many deer and elk those guys killed and it may give you a bit more perspective.

As for your comment on deer in the Dakotas, that may be true, but it is easy for them to populate when they don't have to compete for resources with elk and bison. However, I see a lot of recency bias when it comes to deer populations. They are great in a lot of states these days. But ask anyone who hunted in the 60's what it was like compared to today.

I started deer hunting in the 1970s in the NE. Way less deer than current day.

 

[4BarN]

The little rectangular gadget in your hand has tremendous responsibility in this. Be it social media, mapping/GPS, intel, multiple state applications/harvesting, etc. Technology and the ability to gain knowledge quickly through a mobile device has and will continue to impact the future of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tt_johnsclist]

The hunting industry that has grown exponentially over time will continue to self-consume our sport at the expense of game numbers and availability.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

The only thing better nowadays in the “hunting world” for me is watching my kids develop a passion for it and fill our freezers. Luckily, they still have a lot of opportunities, albeit not as many as I had. Otherwise, not much is better than it used to be with regard to hunting. Tags are harder to get with less animals overall on the landscape, habitat is in worse shape, and social media chest pounding as a motivator is at an all time high. Meanwhile society in general is getting further and further away from using and conserving land and game for sustenance. With regard to hunting, our future generations will unfortunately be worse off.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I started deer hunting in the 1970s in the NE. Way less deer than current day.

That was my point. It is what most would consider to be "great" these days, but from 1900 until about the late eighties, early nineties, it wasn't great at all.

That is what I meant by recency bias. People thinking that because deer numbers are good these days, that it must not have been as bad as everyone says it was 60 years ago and that the population estimates were being reported intentionally lower in order to pass restrictions or laws, or whatever.

 

[Predator_SD]

Two short responses for you. First, order yourself a copy of the Sand County Almanac with the Round River essays by Aldo Leopold. It was published around 1948. Within that publication, read the essay on Wildlife in American Culture. Eighty years ago, he was expressing the same concerns (gadgets, the sporting goods industry, and the degradation of the sportsmen’s skill set as a result) that you are pondering. It is a good thought stimulating read.

Second, regarding Tribal hunting, it is important to start that conversation by recognizing that in many (probably not all) of the treaties that transferred land ownership, the tribes retained their hunting and fishing rights. Sport hunting was not really a part of the landscape at that time. For example, the treaty that transferred the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan and part of Wisconsin was signed in 1842 (Michigan didn’t start regulating deer harvest until 1895). That treaty clearly states that the Tribes retain their hunting and fishing rights until such time as the lands “are needed for settlement”. There is much discussion about what that phraseology means. What the Tribes may tell you, however, is that, taken by itself, their overall harvest across that seceded landscape is not a conservation concern.

In many cases, we non-natives tend to point the finger at the tribes when, in fact, our activities collectively take more animals than theirs. And, our forefathers signed an agreement maintaining their rights to the harvests. I believe the conversation is valid and worthy. I also believe it needs to be approached from a different angle than we have historically taken.

FWIW….

The hunting in the very Sand County Leopold was talking about is far degraded from the time he was discussing how technology and gadgets were going degrade it. He wouldn’t recognize the area today and not because it got so much better.

Really, the decades since that time have only proven Leopold to be correct in his assessments. So being that trend will continue instead of reverse, i mean those under 35 now refer to crossbows as bows and seriously think they’re bowhunting with them, the hunting will continue to degrade over the next 50 years as well. The only question will be how bad will it get?

Social media proliferation, self promotion, and the thought more tech is better (without adjusting seasons or bag limits in any way) WILL destroy hunting as you and i know it today.

 

[Predator_SD]

That was my point. It is what most would consider to be "great" these days, but from 1900 until about the late eighties, early nineties, it wasn't great at all.

That is what I meant by recency bias. People thinking that because deer numbers are good these days, that it must not have been as bad as everyone says it was 60 years ago and that the population estimates were being reported intentionally lower in order to pass restrictions or laws, or whatever.

Late 80s through the entire 90s was the absolute best hunting the state of WI has ever seen. I was there to see it myself. It has gone downhill quite a bit since those days. I’ll never quit but i understand completely why younger guys tend to not stick with it.

 

[Will_m]

Other than volume (the sheer number of different outlets), how is this any different than the rise (and subsequent fall) of all of the various hunting magazines and shows of the 1920s through the early 2000s?


I honestly believe that this has been bitched about since the advent of black powder. I, personally don't see the technology improvements of today having even half of the impact that things like rifling, bolt action design, and smokeless powder had on hunting and the efficacy of hunting.



While I do believe that greed and selfishness have always played a role in the negatives surrounding hunting, I don't believe that it any worse today that it always has been. Look at the American Bison. There is a reason why they are not a free-ranging huntable species today. Similarly if it wasn't for some forward thinking conversationalists, we probably wouldn't be hunting whitetail deer and elk today. Heck we still have very limited opportunities in the East for elk, where once they were plentiful. Neither of those two things happened in the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

In my personal opinion, the number one threat to hunting is the same as it has always been. Urban sprawl. As more and more people create urban areas near enough to the wilderness areas, they will be called to them. It is human nature and is encoded into our DNA. Not all of those people have the desire to kill animals. In fact, many don't want the animals killed at all. So, it is when those two worlds collide that opportunities go away. Some due to restricting access to areas, some due to pushing the game to areas that are all but inaccessible to humans.
There is a reason that certain people can go into public spaces and continuously kill good game animals. I know some of them. They don't hunt easy.

This is hella dumb. You need to think through your points a little more thoroughly before trying to grab so much low hanging fruit in one quixotic swoop.

 

[omicron1792]

This is hella dumb. You need to think through your points a little more thoroughly before trying to grab so much low hanging fruit in one quixotic swoop.

I totally agree with him. Urban sprawl and city dwellers with no upbringing in hunting are the enemy. Not new technologies.

 

[Jpsmith1]

In the OP, there was nary a word about what I think the single most important piece of hunting opportunity and the ability to shift it for the good or the bad.

HABITAT.

If we, as hunters, stand idly by, and allow the destruction of these habitats, we will never get them back.

From public land divestitures to the push for extractive efforts in sensitive areas to the defending of agencies that exist solely to preserve these spaces, we stand at a crossroads and need to choose wisely.