The Case Against Hunter Recruitment

[MattB]

I'll respectfully disagree with the bolded. There are plenty of current hunters that disagree with trapping, and baiting, as well as those that have no interest in firearm legislation because it doesn't affect (yet) their hunting guns. I would say new hunters are less likely to support trapping and baiting than older hunters. Trapping especially isn't very common any longer so less are exposed to it and/or have a skewed view of what trapping actually is.

Much more to the point, do you think new hunters are more or less likely to support trapping and baiting than non-hunters?

 

[MattB]

Who doesn’t do this? It’s a guys opinion. We are all one position of influence away from implementing our personal opinion.

The self-aware.

 

[JeffRaines]

I think almost everyone could agree that seeing more people in our hunting spots is a bummer. While we may deal with it, hunt harder, whatever, it doesn't change the fact that it sucks. Its one thing if its a group of guys you know, but more often than not it isn't. To top it off, there are way too damn many yahoos in the woods.

"oops I forgot my binoculars so let me use my scope to glass". Yes, sounds stupid to us, but I've witnessed it firsthand. I've heard stories of people shooting over other people. People racing to game that has been shot so they can tag it first... and yes, the poachers too. Guys who will roll up on you at a pullout while you're getting ready and bail out so they can get ahead of you. The "long range hunter" that watched a few YouTube videos, took his rifle to the range ONCE and now feels comfortable shooting animals at 800 yards.

Like it or not, its these people that absolutely turn folks off to the idea of more people in the woods. Think about it - if you see another group of guys, what's your knee-jerk reaction? I'd be willing to bet more often we assume they're these types of people because we see it too damn often. If we're recruiting hunters, we also need to be schooling the current generation on ethics, because too damn many of them have next to zero. Why is this? Is it social media posts driving these guys? YouTube videos?

On the flip side, if we keep losing hunters, it's going to quickly turn into a rich mans game. The gear isn't getting any cheaper, and I don't see more gates opening... in fact, in a lot of places(here in Western Washington especially) you've got timber companies who get tax cuts based on recreational access, but then turn around and charge a guy $400 for a permit to access said lands. While this is a far cry from the expenses of hunting leases back east, it's a snapshot of what's to come... because last time I checked, those permits get pricier every year.

I don't know what the correct answer is - I think we, as hunters, need to be more open to helping one another out. Maybe not publicly online, but in person. If someone shows interest, figure out a good way to introduce them. If you've got a guy at work who's bugging you about heading into the hills to hunt, maybe don't take him to your honey hole first year, but lets be honest - how many of us have pins on maps that are unscouted? I know I've got a ton. It's a perfect opportunity to introduce someone to hunting while teaching them ethics, and you get to see fresh country to boot... or even better, depending on how gung-ho they are, maybe they have some spot ideas of their own you could coach them on/scout with them. You guys could have your own honey hole with zero need to show off your place.

 

[CJohnson]

I’ve read a lot of replies and rebuttals, but mostly I see people calling Matt names (ranging from self-absorbed to racist). No one has really addressed two of his points: who goes to their favorite hunting spot hoping to see other people and more hunters inevitably lead to less opportunity.

Those both seem like common sense to me.

I also don’t understand some of the adult-onset hunters who say, “well I never had a (fill in the blank) take me to an awesome hunting spot and show me how to hunt. Most of the R3 events I see advertised are light years better than anything I ever did growing up following old guys through the woods. I sometimes wonder what good it does to take a grown man/woman on a semi-guided or fully guided hunt where they have success and then expect them to check a box and now they are a hunter. I have a much more respect for the guys on here that go out and bust it for years until they figure it out for themselves. Again, I’m not down on the people who have been “recruited” into it, just saying I don’t really understand how you can expect them to feel the same way about hunting as someone who’s figured it out on their own or has been doing it their entire life.

 

[Jbogg]

I feel like Matt Rinella’s views are short sighted on this one. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a tiny bit annoyed when I pull up to the gate only to find another truck has beat me there, but it’s public land, and I accept that.
Here in Georgia our public land opportunities are minuscule compared to what many of you all enjoy out west. One of our larger tracks of public land is Chattahoochee Natiinal Forest which is located in Extreme North Georgia in the Southern Appalachian mountain chain. Our deer and wild turkey populations are virtually nonexistent on many parts of the national forest. There are a variety of reasons for this, but one important factor is the fact that whenever the forest service tries to do any actual forest management like timber cutting, the environmental groups like “Forest Watch” threaten litigation putting an end to sound management practices Before they can even begin. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and unfortunately whenever the forest service solicits public input the tree huggers respond tenfold over the hunting Community.

Here in the south east there are more hunters than ever due to a huge influx of people arriving here over the past 30 years. However, as a percentage of the overall population Hunter numbers are way down. I realize that the percentage of people that actually hunt will always be in the minority, but if we are going to continue to have a say at all as to what happens to our public lands then New Hunter recruitment is going to be an important part of that Strategy.

 

[MattB]

I’ve read a lot of replies and rebuttals, but mostly I see people calling Matt names (ranging from self-absorbed to racist). No one has really addressed two of his points: who goes to their favorite hunting spot hoping to see other people and more hunters inevitably lead to less opportunity.

Those both seem like common sense to me.

Of course no one is addressing his questions because they are red herrings. The US population is growing and they are not making any more land, so increased crowding should be expected. It is simply an unfortunate reality.

A question more on point in considering R3 is: would you rather be able to hunt legally or not? If the US population grows and hunter percentages do not keep pace, we lose political clout and opportunity will continue to erode around the edges. Running hounds, trapping, baiting, hunting predators, bowhunting - which of those is Matt Rinella willing to sacrifice so he can see fewer people in the woods?

 

[CJohnson]

Of course no one is addressing his questions because they are red herrings. The US population is growing and they are not making any more land, so increased crowding should be expected. It is simply an unfortunate reality.

A question more on point in considering R3 is: would you rather be able to hunt legally or not? If the US population grows and hunter percentages do not keep pace, we lose political clout and opportunity will continue to erode around the edges. Running hounds, trapping, baiting, hunting predators, bowhunting - which of those is Matt Rinella willing to sacrifice so he can see fewer people in the woods?

I have trouble believing that numbers is the answer to having more political clout. There’s a ton of groups right now that have political clout despite having relatively low numbers.

If we’re worried about political clout, then wouldn’t it make more sense to bring more money into a pro-hunting lobby? One pro-hunting billionaire that spends money in DC would do more good than thousands hunters writing form letters to their congressmen.

 

[bsnedeker]

One pro-hunting billionaire that spends money in DC would do more good than thousands hunters writing form letters to their congressmen.

Ok, I'll take one for the team. If every hunter in the country sends me a couple hundred bucks that should do it. I would then use my wealth to advocate for hunting.

Who's with me!?!



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[JeffRaines]

Ok, I'll take one for the team. If every hunter in the country sends me a couple hundred bucks that should do it. I would then use my wealth to advocate for hunting.

Who's with me!?!



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Listen guys, this guy is trying to charge you too much! Just send me 100 dollars each. That’s all, and I’ll do the exact same thing!

 

[MattB]

I have trouble believing that numbers is the answer to having more political clout. There’s a ton of groups right now that have political clout despite having relatively low numbers.

If we’re worried about political clout, then wouldn’t it make more sense to bring more money into a pro-hunting lobby? One pro-hunting billionaire that spends money in DC would do more good than thousands hunters writing form letters to their congressmen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand. Greater number equals more votes, but more importantly more people to contribute financially translates to more money.

But to address your point directly, do you think it makes sense to only recruit billionaires? To me that sounds like complete idiocy. Rinella would love it - all the money and none of the crowding, but it is entirely unrealistic.

Here is a quote from an article on the NRA's influence which may help paint the picture.

"Sheila Krumholz, of the Center for Responsive Politics, said it's not just money that gives the NRA influence, but its membership of nearly five million activists.

"The money is a megaphone for another significant asset: a powerful base," she said."

NRA's big spending pays off with clout and wins in Washington

The powerful gun lobbying group spent a record amount on politics last year, and it's paying off.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CJohnson]

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand. Greater number equals more votes, but more importantly more people to contribute financially translates to more money.

But to address your point directly, do you think it makes sense to only recruit billionaires? To me that sounds like complete idiocy. Rinella would love it - all the money and none of the crowding, but it is entirely unrealistic.

Here is a quote from an article on the NRA's influence which may help paint the picture.

"Sheila Krumholz, of the Center for Responsive Politics, said it's not just money that gives the NRA influence, but its membership of nearly five million activists.

"The money is a megaphone for another significant asset: a powerful base," she said."

NRA's big spending pays off with clout and wins in Washington

The powerful gun lobbying group spent a record amount on politics last year, and it's paying off.

www.usatoday.com

I don’t think I said recruit only billionaires. Just pointing out that money has a disproportionate effect vs numbers. I think counting on a small group of people to rely on just numbers is a poor strategy.
Hunters are probably a little more diverse than the NRA when it comes to issues. Using myself as an n=1, a few years ago I could’ve cared less about selling off federal land, putting roads in roadless areas, etc. It didn’t really affect me living in the southeast, and at the time I didn’t view it through the lens of me personally losing any hunting opportunity. The NRA doesn’t have that hurdle to overcome.
All that being said, I’m down to take almost anyone hunting/fishing with me anytime.

 

[Gobbler36]

Some decent counterpoints in the article but I still believe we're weak without hunter numbers. And this statement:

"Basically, until we start hearing about landowners who have gobs of turkeys and deer on their property but can’t find anyone willing to come hunt for them, let’s stop fretting about attrition."

Is not a great vision forward to me.

But glad to hear the other side.

No we’re weak because the other sides has entrenched itself and been very successful at corrupting our youth vis the education system no matter how many hunters we have I feel that the sicial acceptance isn’t going to change

 

[Gobbler36]

We will always be the minority in society. We have plenty enough hunters as it is!! Think about it, instead of R3 what if we came up with a way to encourage more to actually get involved with political issues and donate more to non profits. Right now the vast majority of hunters just complain about their rights being taken on the computer or the bar stool and don’t actually get involved to stop/solve. That would be a far better project than recruiting more, non outdoorsmen/women, that show up to my honey holes sky lining themselves and camping in the middle of the prime feeding grounds ruining the hunting for everyone. They have all the fancy gear and do cross fit but have zero clue how to not pressure all the game out of the mountains. I always say, I’d rather share a basin with 10 Remi Warrens than just 1 newb because the newb will blow out all the deer and elk on the first day.

I’ve always said this exact thing. we don’t need more bodies but more from the people that are here

 

[Gobbler36]

The US in general has been moving towards more of a pure democracy (mob rule) for years. We hear politicians constantly using buzzwords like “our democracy.” it seems like the hunting community as a whole has increasingly been beating the drum of strength in numbers. I would agree with Matt that the battle is never going to be won by a greater portion of the population being into hunting. Just look at the recent “democratic” loss in Colorado. All it took was 50.91% of the population to legislate a devastating blow to hunting in CO and neighboring states. We will never be the majority and if we ever were to become the majority there would be no opportunity. The preservation of hunting IMHO will come from the general population having a understanding of wildlife conservation and ethics, not from perceived strength in numbers. There’s a cap to how many hunters our landscape can sustain and we’re closer to reaching it every season

Best post award

 

[pyrotechnic]

I just read this thread and some of the posts make me pretty sad.

I understand the frustration of running into multiple hunters on public land. It sucks, adding accessibility might alleviate it a little, to do that you need political clout, you need numbers for political clout. You also need numbers to get more money for these projects. Or, as mentioned in another post, we just can wait around for a wealthy patron to take up this issue and dump a bunch of money into it. You'll be waiting a while. You get numbers and money by recruiting new hunters and getting them to care about these issues. This will negate the gains from increasing access, so we need to come to terms with the fact we'll see other people on public land.

The argument of "new hunters suck, are unsafe, blow out all the game, are wannabe snipers, yadda yadda" is frankly quite tedious. "New hunters" certainly don't have a monopoly on being assholes. And maybe if we did a better job of taking time to educate people and mentor them we would have a higher percentage of responsible hunters who care about safety, ethics (however that looks for the individual), and conservation. That would take time, and effort, not to mention we'd be taking some unworthy peasant out on "our" public land. Its much easier to just bitch about it on rokslide.

Hunting has been attacked from several fronts for a while now, in Montana we've had a slew of bills that would further commercialize our wildlife. Luckily several have been stopped or slowed by a large number of people getting involved. This happened in California as well with the proposed bear hunting ban. Although that attack came from outside the hunting community.

Maybe someday I won't get to go do my preferred style of hunting because it's now illegal, or it's become so cost prohibitive that I cannot afford it. When that happens I don't want to have to look in the mirror and say: "You don't get to hunt again because you're a selfish piece of shit who didn't want to share".

 

[540-Virginian]

Some decent counterpoints in the article but I still believe we're weak without hunter numbers. And this statement:

"Basically, until we start hearing about landowners who have gobs of turkeys and deer on their property but can’t find anyone willing to come hunt for them, let’s stop fretting about attrition."

Is not a great vision forward to me.

But glad to hear the other side.

sounds crazy but in virginia (at least my area code) it is hard for some farmers to get hunters to only shoot does. I get all my does for free by hunting farms where the farmer needed them taken out. All of them had expensive hunting leases with hunters, they just wouldn’t hunt does. Got 4 in one day from one farm this year.

 

[peterk123]

This is such a complicated problem and discussion. Where to even start. I think it can be argued that hunter numbers need to drop because the habitat that is available for hunting is declining. At some point in the future, hunting will have to disappear because the human population will need most of the land for housing. I know it is a bit of an extreme view on my part, but what else can happen if we continue to populate at the current rate? Much like every other problem we seem to be faced with today has to the with our population. It is a very uncomfortable discussion and can go to a very dark place very quickly, so I will leave it at that. But just look at the news. Most of the world is full..... the US is the only thing left. Oh, and we need the support of government to help with preserving open land....... good luck with that. You guys think you got it bad? Come hunt Massachusetts. I consider myself blessed that I am averaging a deer a season, and possibly a turkey.

As for some of the issues we have with "new" hunters that have been stated in above posts. It is no different than any other sport or activity these days. Heck just stand in line at a ski resort and you will experience the same attitudes. Part of this is an education problem. Part of it comes from the fact that the family unit barely exists today and we are not passing on proper etiquette to our kids. Part of it is that culturally we are just deteriorating. Man I sound old.

I started hunting in my thirties. I always fished, thanks dad, but I was on my own for hunting. I loved the journey. For me it is all about the entire experience. Scouting, set up, hunting an area, getting closer and closer each time I go out. Finally, in year two or three, knowing it well enough to harvest an animal. Tracking and harvesting. Butchering and packing the meat. Cooking it, eating it. Along the way I learned about plants, harvesting mushrooms, conservation, etc. This right here is what it is all about. I do not know how we instill the entire experience, but we need to.

Maybe experienced hunters need to be less secretive about their spots and organizations mentioned above should place greater emphasis on partnering new hunters up with experienced hunters so they can learn what it is all about. Maybe it ends up in less trail conflict and we would actually not mind seeing each other in the woods or the mountains.

 

[Aginor]

Nice rebuttal from Outdoor Life

https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/hunter-recruitment-rebuttal-meateater-opinion/

Thanks for posting this. The 2nd and 3rd rebuttals were bad though. They either put words in Matt’s mouth or argued against points that Matt wasn’t arguing for. Also, Matt is not MeatEater. Just because they gave him a platform to give his argument doesn’t mean that that’s what MeatEater believes. Indeed, the original article states that in the first section written by Steve. So when Alex is attacking Matt’s argument by saying MeatEater is benefitting from it or when John starts attacking MeatEater saying they’re trying to distance themselves from the locavore movement, that’s not at all the case or argument. Just a straw man. Andrew’s arguments are reasonable and pointed at least


My own opinion is on the side of needing more hunters. If you’re having trouble finding places without a sea of orange, then frankly you’re not actually trying to get the solitude his main point was centered around. There are plenty of places out there that you can get to that have no people if you’re willing to work for it. Hell, he’s even got llamas to help him get there. I don’t really have sympathy if you’re looking for solitude right off the road or at some trailhead where 99% or hunters are.


That point aside, we need more people to care about these issues and being educated and being ambassadors to those that aren’t. Otherwise, you have your Vancouver cat ladies outlawing grizzly bear hunting because of either ignorance or their _feelings_.


Frankly after thinking about it all weekend, I think his arguments are pretty naive and probably more selfishly motivated than he’s willing to admit. Do I enjoy the fact that tags are pretty much impossible to draw anywhere at this point? Do I like the fact that non res prices are skyrocketing while tags are getting cut. Absolutely not. It makes me stay home and hunt Washington’s OTC opportunities instead of doing a multistate plan like everyone dreams of doing. But what I do love is the fact that there is a quickly growing movement of people becoming invested and united in furthering the public interest of good, healthy wildlife and utilizing our land. Hopefully it consumes them and becomes a major issue they care about and maybe makes them think twice about voting for that bimbo who is restricting hunting and gun rights or that @$$hole trying to allow a mining company to open up next to a fishery.

I think if less people cared about antlers and just cared about the meat then this wouldn’t be an issue. That should be what we as hunters should be pushing for in my opinion. If hunters did care more about the meat, they wouldn’t be driving to the other side of the country and spending thousands of dollars to hunt for trophies over going across the state to shoot some does. Crazy enough, I’m actually heading to Wisconsin and Ohio this year for deer season because I can take several deer for cheap. I could give a $hit less about what’s on the things head. I just hate paying $1,500 for a half cow out here when I can pay half that and bring home a half dozen deer

One final point is that I do sympathize with the fact that more hunters could lead to an imbalance of predators to prey, but I leave it up to state game agencies to ensure that doesn’t happen. Some are more... incompetent * ahem WDFW * than others, but in general that is their main function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

Maybe experienced hunters need to be less secretive about their spots and organizations mentioned above should place greater emphasis on partnering new hunters up with experienced hunters so they can learn what it is all about. Maybe it ends up in less trail conflict and we would actually not mind seeing each other in the woods or the mountains.

How about no on the spot deal....getting someone into hunting or teaching them (or the general public looking to get into hunting) has nothing to do with having to share your spots. I think that is 99% of where todays hunter recruitment or customer base recruitment is wrong. Stop spoon feeding people. Teaching general tactics etc is fine. Informing people of the difference in preference vs bonus points is great.

I draw the line at screaming into a mega phone...HEY EVERY ONE GO TO XYZ FOR EASY (species) TAGS...then what happens? Magazines were bad enough but now days nobody reads them like they used to. So these Youtube hunters get on and break down the state they hunt (sometimes the exact areas), then posts that they have OTC licenses and here is the price and what place has the best meal deals on Saturday night. I have personally seen it increase traffic in two states I hunt and I guarantee if it continues they will go from guaranteed tags to draw tags in a couple years. Not too mention the increased pressure has created more posted land and less landowners willing to let people on.

Call me selfish or whatever but I have brought new hunters and hunted those places and the understanding is they don't not give anyone even a hint of where we were. I have seen a spot that nobody ever hunted get over ran because one idiot didn't keep their mouth shut.

I prefer Quality over Quantity. Maybe Social media is swaying me more than not wanting to run into 15 guys at a spot (probably not). Right now the R3 movement seems to be about quantity and developing a robot type base that spews the same stupid crap all over eachother (#organicmeat, #publiclandowner, #spoonfeedmeyourspots, #imanexpertafter1season, #conservation)

 

[fort fireman]

I don't really have much to add except his reference to NC and it's hunting population. He compared the hunting population of the 80"s to 2010 and said there was a large jump.. In that time the population across the board in the state has jumped dramatically. In fact it has almost doubled from 1980 to 2010. Along with that it brings folks that hunted back home and wanted to continue here. I don't believe it has a darn thing to do with deer population ,simply more people moving here and wanting to continue hunting. I also know many that have moved here and don't hunt anymore because of many reason that many quit. No access, high club prices, crowded woods with yahoo's around, you name it. I went for many years without hunting here and spent a lot of my vacation every year to go back home and hunt with my dad. I still have a hard time finding those little honey holes close to the house like I had back home some 23 years after moving here.

Do I want to see more hunters in the woods while I'm hunting. No, not really. Do I think we need more hunters to be able to continue the traditions? Yes I do. That being said I also think we need more land to hunt on, and better access. That is where the groups come in handy and to fund that they need to recruit more money because all that costs money. It's the vicious cycle of the whole thing. It all takes money and money comes from people and that means more orange in the woods. It would be AWESOME if we had the same amount of hunters with 3 times the land to hunt in, especially in NC, buuuut............ I don;t know the right answer.