Is social media hurting the great outdoors experience?

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm going out on a limb and saying that a "hunter" in the 1950's was not a star struck gear junkie like a "hunter" in 2021. And the raw increase in numbers of hunters have mainly been western states hunters.

Instagram stars of the era...

The medium is different but it's the same thing...

Hunters making a living by telling the story of their adventures, and selling them to magazines, who in turn make money running adds to get us to buy stuff.



How on the nose... literally a 1955 cartoon that pokes fun at hunters being gear junkies.

 

[cedahm]

but 20-30 years ago that didn't matter as much because there was less pressure on public, general units.

I dont disagree, because I have seen it in very localized areas down here, and as a caveat, you said (very distinctly):

Now it's just boots on the ground observation, not official data.

The OP’s overall discussion is on Hunters being influenced and their numbers growing as a population and the Montana numbers don’t bear that out at a population level. Certainly macro-biology management decisions coupled with (or resultant from) outsized influence by various special interests have changed game land use dynamics, but it’s not a problem of ‘more hunters in the field‘:

1990:



2020:

USFWS- WSFR Historical License Data

 

[BlazerBeam]

So, the premise of "hunting media is bad for animal populations" is just a ruse for one owner trying to cut a fellow co-owner out of an equal chance to share the enjoyment of their shared resource. But then again, so many other parts of the western big game hunting game are being done for the same reason.

Ahhhh the "public land owner" t shirts and bumper stickers.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That's quite the decline in hunters...

also wow were we whacking a lot of cows...

 

[BlazerBeam]

I dont disagree, because I have seen it in very localized areas down here, and as a caveat, you said (very distinctly):



The OP’s overall discussion is on Hunters being influenced and their numbers growing as a population and the Montana numbers don’t bear that out at a population level. Certainly macro-biology management decisions coupled with (or resultant from) outsized influence by various special interests have changed game land use dynamics, but it’s not a problem of ‘more hunters in the field‘:

1990:
View attachment 195894


2020:

View attachment 195895

USFWS- WSFR Historical License Data

Who knows what role COVID played in a 2020 chart. But the 1990 hunter is definitely different than the 2020 hunter is all that I can say. The 1990 hunter bought a tag, yes. But I know many 1990 hunters who only bought a deer tag to rifle hunt during thanksgiving, who are now in 2021 hunting 50 days a year beginning with archery antelope and elk and finishing up with late season cow tags. I feel that only the people who have seen the same areas from year to year can understand this. Someone not from MT can post a chart and say otherwise, but I put more stock in what I have seen with my own eyes than what some chart based on phone calls to hunters in May about last September tells me.

 

[Point Creep]

Wrong subject

 

[Sytes]

Social media has harmed those dialed in their personal hunting zone. For the rest of the world, the hunting world has opened to the impulsivity of modern times.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ahhhh the "public land owner" t shirts and bumper stickers.

And it only took 5 or 6 posts with references to public nature of land for you to catch on.

But equally public ownership (via state trust) of the animals shot on private as well.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Who knows what role COVID played in a 2020 chart. But the 1990 hunter is definitely different than the 2020 hunter is all that I can say. The 1990 hunter bought a tag, yes. But I know many 1990 hunters who only bought a deer tag to rifle hunt during thanksgiving, who are now in 2021 hunting 50 days a year beginning with archery antelope and elk and finishing up with late season cow tags. I feel that only the people who have seen the same areas from year to year can understand this. Someone not from MT can post a chart and say otherwise, but I put more stock in what I have seen with my own eyes than what some chart based on phone calls to hunters in May about last September tells me.

And people enjoying their land and bounty in a shooting sport for more days a year is a negative? Sorry to state the obvious, but it will never be 1958 again (and lots of folks are thankful for that).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Social media has harmed those dialed in their personal hunting zone those who have decided public land is theirs and theirs alone. For the rest of the world, the hunting world has opened to the impulsivity of modern times.

 

[idahohuntr]

Here is the point you are missing. Fairness amongst shared owners and the effect of hunting on the limited animal population doesn't change between scenarios of 1,000 applicants for 500 tags vs 10,000 applicants for 500 tags. The biology of the limited resource is the SAME. And if done randomly, the resulting fairness/equity for all the shared owners is the same.

What is different is that if one of the original 1,000 could somehow block the extra 9,000 hunters from applying - then their personal odds would be much better while having ZERO effect on animal populations. And how could we achieve this? Well, what if we give the vested initial hunters extra chances in the draw that keep them ahead in the drawing process for much of a lifetime, or maybe let hunters have their parents buy them preferential draw status when they are still in diapers, or maybe half our population (women) shouldn't be encouraged to hunt, or maybe the 80% of the population who don't live within easy access of hunting should be discouraged from even trying, or what if folks from other places have to pay more, or what if nobody knew how to do it unless their father taught them because we over-tax and regulate 1A protected speech of public hunting advocates who use modern media, or we give outfitters and landowners transferable tags to "sell" to their long time clients, or what if minorities were not welcome, or, or, or . . .

So, the premise of "hunting media is bad for animal populations" is just a ruse for one owner trying to cut a fellow co-owner out of an equal chance to share the enjoyment of their shared resource. But then again, so many other parts of the western big game hunting game are being done for the same reason.

Not every state/hunt is managed on a quota basis; in fact, a significant portion is OTC. A lot of hunts are over the counter and state bio's are not empowered to just curtail seasons on a timescale commensurate with the impacts...in fact there are extroardinary political and administrative forces preventing them from doing so. As such, there are plenty of instances where increased promotion and popularity, at least partially brought about via constant social media content, have been or could be a significant detriment to the limited resource and the user experience. That said, I do not believe all social media is bad - which is why I advocate tighter regulation/enforcement...not some blanket ban. I'm not a fan of big government/taxes/regulation...but I view commercial, for profit exploitation of finite public resources as something that lends itself to close regulation. The history of wildlife and wildlife management in this country suggests we ought to err on the side of caution when commercial exploitation of our wildlife resources is in play.

 

[Sytes]

That's a quality revision @wllm1313 .

 

[BirdManMike]

Do you realize that you just hit a double off of Satchel Paige?

I was trying to kick a slam dunk, but Ill settle for the touchdown.

 

[noharleyyet]

I was trying to kick a slam dunk, but Ill settle for the touchdown.

Satchel never forgets...

 

[hank4elk]

Ahhhh the "public land owner" t shirts and bumper stickers.

I resemble that remark...and damn proud of it for 66 years.

 

[cedahm]

Who knows what role COVID played in a 2020 chart. But the 1990 hunter is definitely different than the 2020 hunter is all that I can say. The 1990 hunter bought a tag, yes. But I know many 1990 hunters who only bought a deer tag to rifle hunt during thanksgiving, who are now in 2021 hunting 50 days a year beginning with archery antelope and elk and finishing up with late season cow tags. I feel that only the people who have seen the same areas from year to year can understand this. Someone not from MT can post a chart and say otherwise, but I put more stock in what I have seen with my own eyes than what some chart based on phone calls to hunters in May about last September tells me.

The data I snipped and provided a link to are real license sales reported to the USFWS by the states, not random harvest survey data.

I'm not from MT, correct. But I'm also not 'saying otherwise' - that is real, actual data on license sales. If you go take a peek, you will immediately note that the total number of discrete licenses, permits, stamps (the 4th data column) is much higher now because in 30 years nearly every state in the West has sub-divided what used to be 'general' or 'sportsmen's' tags into species/unit/season permits and added all kinds of stamps. So - the data at a population level supports your statement that people used to buy fewer individual licenses.

I don't know the role COVID played and it's likely we can't get to it discretely - but the fact is that Montana had 31,085 fewer people purchase ANY hunting license last year (the first column is individual license holders and does not count multiple tags) than they did 30 years ago.

Again - the OP topic was a macro question, and the point many are trying to make is that the question has little to do with increased traffic at your favorite drainage or mine (and as I mentioned - I have absolutely seen a large increase in some of my favorite areas, and twice this year was asked about the neighboring unit by strangers that had watched some YouTube videos with poorly disguised footage of where they were - and subsequently that part of that unit has seen a huge increase in traffic, but it's a small part of a big unit in a big state in a big region). Individual drainages or trailheads are more or less irrelevant in discussions of population level. Or as my wife likes to say - a tree doesn't make a forest.

 

[mtmuley]

Note to self. No pics, keep mouth shut. mtmuley

 

[np307]

Who knows what role COVID played in a 2020 chart. But the 1990 hunter is definitely different than the 2020 hunter is all that I can say. The 1990 hunter bought a tag, yes. But I know many 1990 hunters who only bought a deer tag to rifle hunt during thanksgiving, who are now in 2021 hunting 50 days a year beginning with archery antelope and elk and finishing up with late season cow tags. I feel that only the people who have seen the same areas from year to year can understand this. Someone not from MT can post a chart and say otherwise, but I put more stock in what I have seen with my own eyes than what some chart based on phone calls to hunters in May about last September tells me.

Do you, and I'm just spitballin' here, enjoy the pursuit of the mountain?

 

[Trap]

Social media has definitely led to an increase in gear and high end camo sales. It’s like a fashion show in the woods a lot of times. I feel like people are actually being convinced to buy way over priced hunting clothes for the hunts they are actually doing. A lot of the Instagram and you tube I have watched has been focused on the trophy picture and likes. I know of a few great young hunters who seem miserable right now trying to get their elk They have had good success in the past but seem miserable trying to get the next trophy pick to post. I see it right down to shed hunting and people being militant about it. The craziest ones always need to immediately post their new finds. That’s a negative of social media and I can see it taking the real joy out of just the hunt itself for some people. That is mostly from a lot of social media focusing on the kill or trophy. Social media definitely also created the craze for western hunting and all the associated problems. Then you have meat eater and I think he has done a great job of promoting all aspects of the hunt and putting food on the table. I think Randy is a pretty good advocate as well. It’s a mixed bag but there is definitely more negative to social media and hunting than good.
Technology is taking a lot of what I would call woods skills out of the picture. OnX, gps, google earth all make getting in the backcountry fairly easy. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. I hate having more company in my hunting spots every year. It’s public ground so I can’t really get pissed about that. I don’t like people exploiting public land and wildlife for profit but I watch hunting shows ha ha. So it’s more bad than good in my opinion but there is definitely 2 sides to the argument. Any social media from Utah has been 100 percent bad

 

[BuzzH]

It is a loose parallel to the view of some who repeatedly pose OP's viewpoint. Subsidize my personal interests and then stay away from me. People like it when they personally benefit from the resources of others.

I believe that a few tens of thousands of hunters - hunters who grew up with hunting parents in hunting country (winners of the sperm-lottery as one HT-member calls them) expect hundreds of millions of fellow citizens to pay for their public lands, pay for their wildlife conservation, support regulations and laws that uniquely benefits hunters, etc, etc, but sure as hell don't want to see them out in the field. And somehow, cuz grand-pappy used to hunt this valley none of a guy's 330 million fellow wildlife co-owners should be able to do the same. What is democratic or equitable about hoarding access to public land or information helpful in engaging in a great hobby using what is supposed to be a shared public trust.

For some hunting, fishing, trapping is one whole hell of a lot more than a "hobby"...and IMO/E, that's a big piece of the problem.

Too many that view it as nothing more than running a hook or bullet through something a few days a year or a cheap piece of organic food, or worse yet a "like" on social media. I don't know that all this promotion of hunting/fishing/public land is actually producing all that many advocates. If it is, they're awfully scarce at the GF meetings, public comment periods, Forest Planning, Legislative sessions, etc. etc. Its producing a whole bunch of wildlife consumers, but real advocates??? I'm not sold so far that is working. However, I realize there will be an expected lag between new hunter/fisherman and advocate....but while the clock ticks, the same faces are doing 95% of the work.