Matt Rinella knocking it outta the park

[rjthehunter]

1. Loss of habitat
2. Loss of access
3. Social media/influencing
4. Technology

What's the most to blame?

If fewer people hunt or take an interest in hunting, does that lead to a faster loss of habitat and public access?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

If fewer people hunt or take an interest in hunting, does that lead to a faster loss of habitat and public access?

I dont think so. I think thats over dramatized.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I dont think so. I think thats over dramatized.

If you look historically on the funding, drive and national determination to conserve, it was led by primarily hunters. Most states have their conservation efforts directly tied to hunter dollars, as does our federal funding for things like PR and DJ. It was hunters who have stopped every significant attack on public lands, and it's been hunters who have led on some of the most groundbreaking conservation efforts to date. You can't conserve anything if there is no funding. Asking legislatures to continue to make legacy investments in conservation is more than difficult without a solid backdrop of hunter orange and camouflage.

So fewer hunters = fewer acres open for access, fewer dollars put into habitat restoration. Our national history is clear. While I may have some reservations around R3, the cry to end it is as short-sighted as the call to go all in on it. We need more young hunters. We're aging as a demographic. If we don't recruit new people to the fold we have fewer wildlife and public land advocates, fewer states rights advocates and fewer gun rights advocates.

@Ben Long nailed it. It's the habitat, stupid. Hunter numbers have gone from a peak of 17 million (roughly) in the early 1980's to 14.5 million in 2024 (all approximate numbers). In that time, the amount of land developed in the United States has been astronomical, with less grazing and crop land (along with changing ag practices) than the late 1940's and a serious problem with forest conversion to development, etc.

Additive to that is climate change, invasive species, noxious weed infestations, etc - it will take a lot more people that care about wildlife and wildlife habitat to step up in the future to simply maintain the slow loss we have today. In 1974, there were 2.8 billion humans in the world. In 2025, there are 8.5 billion humans. The US alone accounts for an extra 150 million from 1972-2024.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

If you look historically on the funding, drive and national determination to conserve, it was led by primarily hunters. Most states have their conservation efforts directly tied to hunter dollars, as does our federal funding for things like PR and DJ. It was hunters who have stopped every significant attack on public lands, and it's been hunters who have led on some of the most groundbreaking conservation efforts to date. You can't conserve anything if there is no funding. Asking legislatures to continue to make legacy investments in conservation is more than difficult without a solid backdrop of hunter orange and camouflage.

So fewer hunters = fewer acres open for access, fewer dollars put into habitat restoration. Our national history is clear. While I may have some reservations around R3, the cry to end it is as short-sighted as the call to go all in on it. We need more young hunters. We're aging as a demographic. If we don't recruit new people to the fold we have fewer wildlife and public land advocates, fewer states rights advocates and fewer gun rights advocates.

@Ben Long nailed it. It's the habitat, stupid. Hunter numbers have gone from a peak of 17 million (roughly) in the early 1980's to 14.5 million in 2024 (all approximate numbers). In that time, the amount of land developed in the United States has been astronomical, with less grazing and crop land (along with changing ag practices) than the late 1940's and a serious problem with forest conversion to development, etc.

Additive to that is climate change, invasive species, noxious weed infestations, etc - it will take a lot more people that care about wildlife and wildlife habitat to step up in the future to simply maintain the slow loss we have today. In 1974, there were 2.8 billion humans in the world. In 2025, there are 8.5 billion humans. The US alone accounts for an extra 150 million from 1972-2024.

So many layers to this topic. Im not trying to discredit what hunters and anglers do. I am one. I write letters and I bitch and moan with the best of them. I just feel the narrative that a few less hunters will lead to faster deterioration of habitat and public access is a crock. Some things we just cant stop or control and besides that I bet 10% of hunters and anglers do 100% of the heavy lifting for habitat and access outside of the money spent on licenses and tags by the other 90%.

 

[rjthehunter]

I dont think so. I think thats over dramatized.

I think influencers leading to loss of access is over dramatized. I think it is shitty people that lead to the loss of certain access.

No group demonstrates greater care and commitment to wild animals and wild places than those who are directly invested in their continued existence and responsible use. Hunters and anglers are that group of people. Some goon in Chicago who doesn't utilize these areas, likely doesn't care about them.

Some things we just cant stop or control and besides that I bet 10% of hunters and anglers do 100% of the heavy lifting for habitat and access outside of the money spent on licenses and tags by the other 90%.

10% of 10,000 hunters and anglers is 1,000. 10% of 1,000,000 is 100,000. So we'd have more people pushing for the best interests of hunters and anglers... Continued interest in hunting is ESSENTIAL in maintaining or expanding opportunities. If more people cared about elk hunting, would wolves have ever been brought in to CO?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So many layers to this topic. Im not trying to discredit what hunters and anglers do. I am one. I write letters and I bitch and moan with the best of them. I just feel the narrative that a few less hunters will lead to faster deterioration of habitat and public access is a crock. Some things we just cant stop or control and besides that I bet 10% of hunters and anglers do 100% of the heavy lifting for habitat and access outside of the money spent on licenses and tags by the other 90%.

We've seen a decrease in hunters in the last 40 years. We've also seen a loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If fewer people hunt or take an interest in hunting, does that lead to a faster loss of habitat and public access?

I used to agree with this take.

The problem (at least here in MT) is simply that LOs dont want their ranch or phone completely over run with hunters and want to see wildlife. No matter how much funding there is - it is very hard to compete with the problems associated with over use and over access.

The max payouts for bma have went from 12.5k to 50k in short order with no discrenable trend break, and the funding model is further broken if more properties were to enroll now. Some of the additional pressure has come from the uncapped tags, upland, bears, turkey, youth, etc have only made this problem worse:

Heres the numbers
NR Upland:
2016- 8718
2024 - 12776

Black bear:
2016 - 1306
2024 - 2735

Youth deer
2018 - 451 (year 1?)
2024 - 1118

Migratory bird
2016 - 3777
2024 - 4666

Turkey
2016 - 978
2024 - 4456

Edit:
Elk B tags (recall those are also unlimited)
2016 - 2234
2024 - 3832

Thats over 10,000 new hunters in montana (who dont live here) in 8 years - so i guess im not in the camp that hunters around here are on the decline or are even properly limited.

Hunter numbers are a very hard statistic to draw any conclusions from - one hunter might be hunting several states, which was uncommon a few decades ago.

License Sales Reports | Montana FWP

All reports are based on the FWP license year, March 1 – February 28th or 29th (leap year).

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

We've seen a decrease in hunters in the last 40 years. We've also seen a loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

But weve also seen an increase of 115 million people in the United States in the last 40 years. Hunters and anglers cant control that and that 50% growth has to live somewhere. I dont believe more hunters would of made a difference to be honest.