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

And before anyone comes at me about "R tags" and "population growth" look at R big game over the same trend, 5196 additional hunters. So we have had DOUBLE NR hunter growth relative to R, while having a booming growth state that attracts people who want to hunt. If you wish to blame anyone, start in helena, and then follow the breadcrumbs from there.

 

[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.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

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

I think you are giving to much credit to the average hunter. I could be way wrong on that. But I grew up in rural Pennsylvania a place so steeped in hunting culture your considered a freak if you dont hunt. Pretty much none of them give two shits about what goes on behind the scenes or understands the how and why the animal they are hoping to shoot is there in the first place. Its just a 30 rack of Genny Light, a gun, a bullet, sometimes a spotlight and a dead deer to them.

You know how many hunters I hear bitching about how they get asked multiple times to donate to access yes and so on when they go online to buy their licenses. Its alot. If they cared so much why ya bitch so much. "I already paid them a $1000 and they have the balls to ask me for a donation?" They aren't forcing you to donate their just asking but the mere thought of donating pisses them off, but yea they care about the resource so much.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

Ultimately - its on the state game agency, legislature, and citizens of MT to ask for better hunting.

Has nothing to do with influencers, really. They might have accelerated it, but in my mind technology/information would have made it available regardles.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

but yea they care about the resource so much.

The thing is they do care, but they wont realize that they care until its taken from them and then its to late for caring and then the blame game starts and that blame should start with numero uno.

 

[rjthehunter]

I think you are giving to much credit to the average hunter. I could be way wrong on that. But I grew up in rural Pennsylvania a place so steeped in hunting culture your considered a freak if you dont hunt. Pretty much none of them give two shits about what goes on behind the scenes or understands the how and why the animal they are hoping to shoot is there in the first place. Its just a 30 rack of Genny Light, a gun, a bullet, sometimes a spotlight and a dead deer to them.

You know how many hunters I hear bitching about how they get asked multiple times to donate to access yes and so on when they go online to buy their licenses. Its alot. If they cared so much why ya bitch so much. "I already paid them a $1000 and they have the balls to ask me for a donation?" They aren't forcing you to donate their just asking but the mere thought of donating pisses them off, but yea they care about the resource so much.

I used your 10% and 90% split in my previous mention, but the same would apply here. Sure some hunters don't care, but on the flip side, a lot of hunters do care. For every 9 hunters that just deer hunt and don't care how or why they can, there's probably 1 who is thoughtful about it.

Being asked to donate at the register isn't the most effective way to raise money. How many people would say "yeah I know what Access Yes is and does". The most effective way to raise money for causes is to go talk to rich people. I've done a fair amount of fundraising for different things, and there's 2 directions you can go. You can A. go up to every guy you see and try to sell him a $10-$20 raffle ticket, or B. you talk to businesses and business owners and create some way for them to benefit from supporting a cause they already want to support. I've raise over $20k doing this every year for a small local fundraiser. There is a lot of big game hunters who have a ton of money. They'd love the tax write-off.

In the end, I truly believe there is more good than bad people out there. I hope things turn around and we stop losing hunting opportunities and areas, but I think most people just prefer to try and blame an individual or an org for what's happening instead of taking a step back and figuring out the real problem. I know MeatEater or Fresh Tracks aren't the problem hunters are facing right now despite what many on this forum and Matt Rinella think.

 

[NR_Hunter]

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

The jump in turkey license numbers is wild. Yes I’m sure there’s logical fallacy I’m committing here, but I don’t see how the jump in turkey license sales isn’t tied to online influencing.

I mean, there are’t MORE turkey hunters because of habitat loss…

 

[brockel]

The jump in turkey license numbers is wild. Yes I’m sure there’s logical fallacy I’m committing here, but I don’t see how the jump in turkey license sales isn’t tied to online influencing.

I mean, there are’t MORE turkey hunters because of habitat loss…

Take a drive through areas that have been pimped out in the spring time and ask questions. 100% YouTube caused.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Take a drive through areas that have been pimped out in the spring time and ask questions. 100% YouTube caused.

You need to be influenced to go turkey hunting because it’s such a stupid hunt. It’s like hunting a stupid deer that only yield a few pounds of meat.

I think our brains our hacked by online influences way more than we would like to admit, I know I’ve been at certain points in life.

 

[brockel]

You need to be influenced to go turkey hunting because it’s such a stupid hunt. It’s like hunting a stupid deer that only yield a few pounds of meat.

I think our brains our hacked by online influences way more than we would like to admit, I know I’ve been at certain points in life.

I know some turkey hunting nuts. I think Montana charges like $110 for a non resident turkey license. Expensive chewy bird

 

[NR_Hunter]

I know some turkey hunting nuts. I think Montana charges like $110 for a non resident turkey license. Expensive chewy bird

All the turkey hunting nuts I know are also field hunting for geese nuts. Literally the two easiest hunts there are. (Unless it’s a snow goose hunt)

 

[Pucky Freak]

You have a problem with new hunters ?

I take new and newer hunters afield with some regularity. I’m happy to share everything I know. I give away my spots & waypoints. Ok, not my best cottontail spots…

What I do not do is actively recruit new hunters. It is almost entirely pointless because if they want it, they’ll find it.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

These valid points of late could almost be copy/paste from last year: https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/are-hunter-numbers-down.323348

It’s good though, very good we’re still acknowledging aging hunters, new hunters and how to navigate loose lips in the Information Age.

 

[Pucky Freak]

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.

People quit hunting d/t lack of access to quality opportunities. You recruit one new hunter, you push another one out. Build it any they will come. Habitat, new access to public parcels builds opportunity and new hunters fill the void. Anecdotally I’ve talked w/ dozens of former hunters and it is the same story over and over again: I lost access, I lost access, I lost access. Maybe 1 in 10 has a different reason.

R3 was well-intentioned at the outset, but it has been entirely hijacked by the outdoor industry. They want new hunters to buy their gear and services. It is generally irrelevant to them if these newcomers have access to quality hunting opportunities.

Kind of like ESA, R3 has long since migrated away from its original function. I took R3 for granted for a long time - of course we need more advocates….right? But having 10% or 20% more hunters doesn’t accomplish much. In broad strokes, if there are 14M hunters in the US, 20% more is 16.8M, all squeezed into a shrinking box. Something like 85% of Americans are in support of hunting for food - 275 million non-hunters.

It seems like recruiting this block to our values has a lot more opportunity. Things like pushing for all images of killed animals off SM platforms, condemning hunting personalities who break the law and have terrible ethics. Millions of Americans have no clue about wanton waste laws - they think we just kill things for fun, and don’t actually eat game animals. Seems like a huge untapped opportunity to me.