Elk Tag Future

[Roadtrip]

AP has an interesting article out this morning regarding hunting and fishing licenses. Nationwide there is a decline in sales of hunting and fishing licenses and that is causing a strain on state budgets & conservation funds. Consider these statistics: AK dropped from 345k to 319k licenses. PA (big loss) dropped from 1.3 million in 1981 to 946k last year. Oregon down 100k fishing adn 70k hunting. West Virginia is off 17%. Listed causes are video games and growth in structured activities such as sports.

So...what effect is this going to have on the price and availability of Elk Tags?
Will non residents have to bear all the price burden of these losses? What about the effect of aging baby boomers that still buy licenses but may rarely take the field? Taxes and budgets are already strained. West Virginia has some school districts offering hunter safety courses and they are targeting girls as a method to turn these numbers around. Will Elk tags become more available as less people choose to hunt? Will anti hunting groups be offering non hunting methods such as sterilization and birth control to reduce herd sizes as hunting declines?

I know it is a lot to ask...but I am curious as to other hunters opinions on this issue. Article printed today, author was Dave Gram, Associated Press. I'll post this on MM also.

Cheers,
Roadtrip

 

[shoots-straight]

That doesn't seem to be the trend in Montana, where we have more people taking to the hills every year.

 

[AZ402]

Doesn't seem to be the case in Arizona either.

 

[noharleyyet]

I don't see elk hunting opportunity/price overwhelming demand in their indigeneous states.

The threat/reality of private property states such as mine will continue to erode hunter census and perpetuate the demographic shift to the higher income bracket 'hunters' and captive 'hunting' styles.

 

[Big Fin]

Residents need to suck it up. Our inflation indexed fees, at least in MT, are waaaayyyy too low. If gas rose at the price of our resident hunting and fishing fees, we would still have gas at 60 cents per gallon.

MT has dealt with it in two ways:

1) Cut budgets. Employees went three years, with a total of 4% pay increase. Whether you like state government or state employees, you cannot pay them 4% over a time when the cost of living has went up 12%-15%. And, they are letting people retire, without hiring replacements.

2) Put the hammer on non-residents. Every year, NR revenues as a % of our FWP budget goes up.

The next time I hear a MT resident bitch about their fees, I will probably tell him to go pound sand. The "something for nothing," or almost nothing, notion isn't gonna work if we plan to keep this conservation model in tact. The alternative for states is to go the European model, where guys with big bucks will pay huge amounts, but they want some privlege for the big bucks they are paying. :BLEEP::BLEEP::BLEEP:

I do not know what the reasons are for less youth participation, such as video games, etc. But, I think urbanization is the biggest cause. Look at all of us and the things we were allowed to do while growing up.

I grew up on a river and after school every day, I was hunting, fishing or trapping. I would walk main street carrying a .22 to get to the marsh where I checked my beaver and muskrat traps. I took my shotgun on the school bus to many "away" football games so my uncle could pick me up after the game and take me duck hunting near where we played. None of that can happen today without someone going to jail and getting expelled from school.

If my son did what I did when I was a teenager, I would be at the juvenile center at least once a month to bail him out for a firearms or knife violation. I would have every neighbor south of town bitching about my son shooting gophers or tweety birds. Even if he rode his bike to the river to fish, he would have someone bitching that he crossed their property, or he disturbed their dog, or some smart ass "true fisherman" would cuss him for keeping a fish or crowd him out of the riffle.

Considering how much the societal and physical landscapes have changed, I am surprised that we have as many kids getting into hunting as we do. Thank god there are lots of guys getting their kids, neices and nephews, neighbors, and others into hunting. It is way harder to get them invovled than when we were kids, so it impresses me when I see guys taking that extra effort to do it nowdays.

Just one man's thoughts. I am sure it is a trend that will continue. Who knows, twenty-five years from now, hunters may be in such lower numbers, that the tags will be easier to draw. Given that the reductions in habitat are occurring faster than the decline in hunting numbers, I suspect tags will get harder to draw, every year.

Regardless, go hunting. And take a kid with you.

 

[elk_hunter]

+1 Randy

 

[pa mt man]

After 40 years of hunting in Pa I quit when they went a new direction with the deer herd. I know quite a few who quit for the same reason. I'm glad they are hurting for money here.

 

[MarvB]

I'll be 49 this year and out this way it's what Finn's said all over again....things I got to enjoy as a kid would get you a record nowadays

 

[BuzzH]

I also believe that leasing is hurting hunter recruitment.

When I was growing up, I could hunt ducks, geese, and deer after school on some local private land anytime I wanted to.

Most of those same places are now leased by duck hunters, archery deer hunters, etc.

Kind of tough for a 12-13 year old kid to compete for a lease...and a close place to hunt.

 

[IDHunters]

Its not just leasing, its a combination of everything. Not the least of which is higher population. Where I grew up we tried to ask permission to hunt geese but if we didn't know who owned the ground or couldn't get ahold of them, we just went anyway. There were only 2 or 3 groups hunting in the area, and no one really cared if you were on their place-just some local kids, no big deal. Now, there are groups all over the place, out of stater's, out of towners, etc. There is very little leasing, but the guy who doesn't know the landowners personally has very little chance of permission. There are simply too many groups hunting and the population has changed so that it just isn't the neighbors kids anymore.

Lack of ability to get onto private property, whether its leased or just tough to get permission, has to be one of the main reasons, along with crowded public access areas, low game numbers, lack of 2 parent families & the "passing on the traditions". Gun laws, etc.

Really, put yourselves in the position of a young adult who didn't grow up hunting or fishing. Where do you even start?

 

[drahthaar]

I agree with Big Fin, MT residents in many cases don't know how lucky we are. Cheap tags, and tons of available land to hunt w/o leasing. I think the lack of land to hunt and the prices of leases in much of the country is driving guys out of hunting. As far as sticking it to NR, that will continue as long as there are more people putting in than there are tags.

One thing that irritates me, and I just recently got into it with my recently transplanted from CO, bunny hugging, ultra libral, artist neighbor, is the fact that hunters and fishermen have to pay for everything, keeping our state game agencies afloat, with licenses and fees, excise taxes, etc. People like him and is "girlfriend" hate hunters and trappers. They are always out hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, whatever. I told him they are basically mooches, enjoying what hunters have payed for and are responsible for(Teddy Roosevelt, Grinnell, Pinchot, national forests, licenses and fees). And that I think anyone and everyone who uses the forests for hiking, bird watching, x country skiing, whatever should have to go at the very least buy a conservation license, that we hunters have to buy to even get a tag. Then they can say that contribute SOMETHING. They feel they contribute by not killing, they can't get past the blood. They should have to at least do that. Because they don't contribute any other way. They aren't members of any orgs, like the Mule deer Foundation, sheep foundation, RMEF, whatever.
Anything, to help with costs of conservation.

 

[BuzzH]

drahthaar,

Nice try, but you're wrong. Your bunny hugging neighbors pay just as much for federal land management as you do. If their income is higher...they likely pay more than you.

They are not mooches, they are enjoying THEIR public land that hey have as much right to recreate in as you do.

Your MT state hunting licenses do not pay for the management of federal lands. Also, why should a person that doesnt hunt or fish have to buy a conservation license? They are non-consumptive users of the STATE owned wildlife. Hunters are consumptive users and should have to pay state fees.

If you start down the road of "user" fees for federal lands...guess who else will be buying ANOTHER license?

If you're going to argue with your "libral" neighbor...being well informed will be a good start.

 

[1_pointer]

But, I think urbanization is the biggest cause.

This I thnk is the key. Very few folks anymore have family, that they know of, are involved in any type of agriculture or live in the 'country'. Heck, country living now consists, in many areas, of a 1 acre lot in a planned subdivision.

Similarly, IMO, there's very few 'heroes', celebrities (either music, film, or TV), or athletes who truly and openly promote hunting and fishing. The ones that do, are pretty much vilified by the media and Oprah. Where's the John Wayne blowing the pheasant out of the air in Comancheros? Or Clark Gable getting his photo taken with Roy Weatherby and his beautiful new custom rifle? Or Teddy Roosevelt traipsing all over the world hunting and fishing after leaving office? Or Ted Williams slapping his name on most shotguns and rifles coming out of Sears?

 

[Bambistew]

I've lived in probably 2 of the most contrasting areas of the US as far as hunting opportunity is concerned. I grew up in BFE Montana and now live in Baltimore Maryland.

I went from unlimited opportunity on public lands plus hunting on half the neighbors ranches, to small chunks of crowded public and near impossible private opportunity unless you have $$$ and want to share 3-400 acres with 10 other guys. I lucked out and kind of fell in to a small farm (40 ac) that I can hunt for free, but that will be over soon I have a feeling. The hardest part is finding the connections to get in on leases or even free places. Not many big chunks of property and very few places that aren't hunted. I've literally hunted back yards just to have a place to go. One place was 2 acres of woods! The deer were there however.

There's plenty of hunt clubs that cost well over $6-1000 a year just to hunt deer, and if you want in on a good duck/goose lease... Break out the checkbook. Public bird hunting is limited at best.

Having to work for what you get is a daunting task. The first year I lived out here I had no idea were to even start. I had more public land hunting within 5 miles of where I grew up than there is in this whole state.

Personally I see it getting worse, the more demand there is for elk/mule deer the more leases and hunt clubs are going to spring up, regardless of LO tags, NR tags, etc. Get enough guys together to lease a ranch and they no longer have to deal with the ever increasing public land pressures.

Personally I see the whole Montana outfitter/eastern MT elk hunting thing backfiring. I'll bet in the next 10 years you'll see more and more ranches leased, not to outfitters and NR but to private hunt clubs. Its sweeping the nation and nothing can be done about it. I know guys that have leases in KS, and IA for whitetails, and live in other states. Everyone wants to kill the biggest critter, and in order to make that happen you have to control the habitat and hunting... private land allows that.

I'd be more than willing to come up with some extra $$$ to pay for a lease in any state out west if the hunting was as good or better than public land if I didn't have to deal with Joe public. It could be worse hunting and I'd still pay it just to not have to worry about some jack azz on an ATV. There's a lot to be said for solitude and control of how an area gets hunted.

Luckily at this point there is still ample public land out west that doesn’t get too much pressure, but its just a matter of time. The wilderness area I grew up hunting has seen easily 10 fold increase in hunting pressure in the last 10 years, maybe more. I used to be the only bow hunter many weekends in a drainage that was 2 miles wide and 7 long... now I'd have to share it with 10-15 guys. Still plenty of room, but it sure is different. The last rifle season I hunted, I saw boot tracks in places I had never seen them before, and lots of them too.

It seems like there are a lot more people willing to push the extra mile or two these days. I think they realize what they can have if they try a little harder. I hope that the number of 'go getters' stabilizes because if it doesn't the wilderness will be no better than the roaded areas.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'll bet in the next 10 years you'll see more and more ranches leased, not to outfitters and NR but to private hunt clubs. Its sweeping the nation and nothing can be done about it.

There might be some things that can be done if the public is willing. Such as putting any land that's being leased into commercial status and taxing it more. The money that comes from this higher taxation could be put in the fund to compete with the leasing from hunt clubs. Block management. TAX the piss out of those that lease lands for hunting purposes.

 

[drahthaar]

No Buzz, I don't give a rip about them paying for using federal land, I should have stated that differently, I am well informed on this and know the differences well. I shouldn't have said that. People like that sit around cracking on hunters like we are detrimental to wildlife, while we are supporting state game agencies and starting organizations to enhance habitat and promote species. He does nothing. I think consumption can mean different things too, over and above killing one and taking it home. An artist stomping around the woods taking pictures and selling them is consuming them as well. Making money off them is consuming them IMO.
I just think state game agencies need more help than what hunters can keep giving. Following the original post, things aren't going to get better.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I just think state game agencies need more help than what hunters can keep giving.

Buzz was right, you need to get edjumacated on the subject. Once Agencies start accepting General Tax money, then they will have to be subjected to control by the legislatures and governors that allocate the General Tax money. Your solution would put even more politics into management of game. Not a good thing for hunters.

 

[BuzzH]

drahthaar,

I agree that more people should support wildlife conservation, but the fact is they arent required to. You are not required to, by any law, to buy a hunting or fishing license, unless you want to hunt or fish.

I think the trade-off that hunters get for what they give is a pretty good deal. Pretty tough for your neighbor to bitch about wildlife when you know you pay for just about 100% of its management.

Thats what I would focus on, I wouldnt ask them to also donate to wildlife as they then really do have a legitimate reason to bitch. Keep it lop-sided.

Just keep in mind that your neighbors view of wildlife may differ, but their desire to have PUBLIC LAND may be right in step with yours. If they enjoy hiking, snow shoeing, etc. they very likely would agree with you that public lands need to be managed correctly. They also probably place a high value on public lands...the very public lands that support the States Wildlife that you like to hunt and kill each year. The people I worry about are folks like those from Texas that think the federal government should sell all public lands off and everything should be private. I worry about that more than a hippy neighbor and is surely more of a threat to hunting. Down the road, you and your hippy neighbor may be fighting for public lands TOGETHER...most likely for different reasons...but in the end seeing public lands staying in public hands is the most important thing.

We are detrimental to wildlife, we've manipulated the animals and habitat to suit our agenda. We kill and consume a lot of wildlife every year. Hunters build their homes on winter range all the time. If you think what we have now in regard to wildlife and habitat mangement is in the best interest of wildlife...I think you arent very well informed.

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you that more money from more sources other than hunters would be helpful...very helpful to wildlife. But, keep in mind that the WILDLIFE is half the equation...habitat is the other half. Your hippy neighbors may very well support public lands (habitat) as much or more than you do.

My point is that from the tone of your post, you'd be much wiser to deal with your neighbors in a constructive way rather than a confrontational way. You "getting into it" with them will not help your/our cause...and in the future may actually do more harm than good.

 

[drahthaar]

Buzz was right, you need to get edjumacated on the subject. Once Agencies start accepting General Tax money, then they will have to be subjected to control by the legislatures and governors that allocate the General Tax money. Your solution would put even more politics into management of game. Not a good thing for hunters.

You need to learn to read, I never said anything about tapping into the general fund. Wait, I was told to ignore you.

 

[drahthaar]

drahthaar,

I agree that more people should support wildlife conservation, but the fact is they arent required to. You are not required to, by any law, to buy a hunting or fishing license, unless you want to hunt or fish.

I think the trade-off that hunters get for what they give is a pretty good deal. Pretty tough for your neighbor to bitch about wildlife when you know you pay for just about 100% of its management.

Thats what I would focus on, I wouldnt ask them to also donate to wildlife as they then really do have a legitimate reason to bitch. Keep it lop-sided.

Just keep in mind that your neighbors view of wildlife may differ, but their desire to have PUBLIC LAND may be right in step with yours. If they enjoy hiking, snow shoeing, etc. they very likely would agree with you that public lands need to be managed correctly. They also probably place a high value on public lands...the very public lands that support the States Wildlife that you like to hunt and kill each year. The people I worry about are folks like those from Texas that think the federal government should sell all public lands off and everything should be private. I worry about that more than a hippy neighbor and is surely more of a threat to hunting. Down the road, you and your hippy neighbor may be fighting for public lands TOGETHER...most likely for different reasons...but in the end seeing public lands staying in public hands is the most important thing.

We are detrimental to wildlife, we've manipulated the animals and habitat to suit our agenda. We kill and consume a lot of wildlife every year. Hunters build their homes on winter range all the time. If you think what we have now in regard to wildlife and habitat mangement is in the best interest of wildlife...I think you arent very well informed.

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you that more money from more sources other than hunters would be helpful...very helpful to wildlife. But, keep in mind that the WILDLIFE is half the equation...habitat is the other half. Your hippy neighbors may very well support public lands (habitat) as much or more than you do.

My point is that from the tone of your post, you'd be much wiser to deal with your neighbors in a constructive way rather than a confrontational way. You "getting into it" with them will not help your/our cause...and in the future may actually do more harm than good.

Well geez Buzz, hard be constructive when you get bitched at for anything and everthing you do. Hard to go easy when he tells me he pays for wildlife mgt through the general fund. Hard to be constructive when you take the high road(because your wife doesn't want a war with the neighbors) and offer to show his artwork in your office for nothing. Or ask him to donate a small painting or print to the RMEF banquet(because you mistakenly thought a struggling artist may want to get their name out there in the name of habitat), but they promote hunting, so no.
Its not only hunters who build their homes on winter range. Killing some game animals is part of management. What are you saying? Stop hunting? What are you refering to when you say things are not being done in the best interest of habitat or wildlife mgt? What are hunters doing poorly, not oil/gas companies, or logging companies, or whatever? Because when it comes to habitat, there is not a whole lot that can be done to stop winter range(which is mostly private) from being developed, other than buying it yourself or talking the owner into conservation easements. As far as federal lands here, the tone that I see is lock it up, the best management is no management, eventually turn it into some sort of "recovered" wilderness, once all the roads are grown back in.
You are obviously the informed genius, what are your solutions to getting state agencies some more cash, or reversing the trends pointed out in the original post? Or is the outlook so gloomy you would just rather tear apart anyone else's ideas, and just wait around for the end to come.