Great article funded by onX Hunt. I’ve seen just about every topic in the article argued on this forum. Here’s the data to both support and disupute those debates:
@Jordan Budd
@Jordan Budd
Last edited:
yep, I get the same messageAnyone else getting "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below."?
I tend to get frustrated w/ a lot of these surveys because they take a complex topic and try to simplify it, generally to promote whatever it is they are selling (product, subscriptions, memberships, etc.). Definitely a little misleading, as is the case w/ most statistics (a person/group can manipulate the numbers to convey a certain message) but the key word is primary. I don't feel that it is unreasonable though that the primary motivation for 40% of hunters is the meat and that for less than 5% of hunters the primary motivation is trophy quality. For the average hunter I feel that meat is more important than antler size but, I guarantee that for just about everyone, if given the opportunity, they would rather take the larger animal.40% to supply meat and 0% of new hunters primarily motivated by hunting trophy animals...? Only like 3% of experienced hunters are primarily motivated to harvest trophy animals...? Hmm, just can't grasp that as truth. Heck, like 3% of the hunting population has instagram, facebook and tic tok to post videos of harvesting trophy animals. Seems like they wouldn't have to put so much time and money into hunting if it was primarily for the meat. Change my mind
The increased pressure frankly has made some areas un huntable. First time in 32 years i witnessed two younger hunters trespass then argue with the landowner when caught. Then proceed to walk 25 yards passed me making more noise than a herd of elephants and all by 0630 on opening day. These guys appeared to be early 20s, so Gen Zers? Talking and staring at their phones the whole time they walked by me so don’t see how anyone involved (me, them, or the landowner) had a positive experience.
More numbers isn’t always a good thing guys. More “conservation money” is worthless when the QUALITY of the hunts erode. In some spots it’s just been terrible to the point i won’t hunt certain areas anymore and that’s after 3 decades afield. So how is that a positive to drive hunters looking for quality hunts away in favor of just packing public lands to the point no one is enjoying it much?
Sorry, i’m looking forward to things returning to how they were and new hunters taking to the field because they’re being mentored by hunters not Youtube, social media, and spurned on by boredom.