The issue isnt inherently with R3 - its a failure of agencies and legislatures.
If I’m an outdoor company, I need NEW hunters who don’t have any gear, in order to maintain a revenue stream. BHA focuses on college campuses, young people, and more the granola-type hipster than other conservation orgs. The donated products aren’t for “conservation” - they’re to recruit product-buyers. Local chapters focus on recruitment more than anything else - no other focus comes close.
True, but lately the pedal is to the floor. At least close to home for me. The money spent is mindblowing.
I feel so bad for people who have never had to go toe-to-toe with a gobbler on public in the Southeast.
I do the same, and while I do enjoy helping them i can't help but wonder about the hole I'm shooting in my foot simultaneously.
BHA does a lot to make sure we still have public lands on which those other groups can fulfill their conservation missions and places for those college kids to use their gear.
I’m not saying it isn’t speeding up, and that also becomes a chicken or the egg issue. Are people leasing because of lost access? Trying to get in while they can? FOMO?
The most lucrative advertising market for outdoor companies is handing out free gear to small fry douchebag influencers, who are out their killing and posting everything they can manage to in order to boost their follower count. Companies should feel free to do whatever they want to. It is consumer behavior that matters. If I subscribe to an influencer who gets free products, I am fueling hunting markets. If I buy from companies who hand out free gear to influencers, I fuel hunting markets. It is hard to find companies to buy from that aren’t caught up in this crazy scheme, but there are a few out there.
Around here its mostly because you ain't really hunting unless you have a big price you can manage for big bucks, food plots etc. You know just like the guys on TV (dated myself there, shoukdve said social media). It's funny the last few new hunters including the two brothers I took out this last weekend. One of the first things they mention is they can't wait to lease or purchase there own property. But I agree with your chicken or egg sentiment. One thing for sure its not going away anytime soon.
I think people are doing it because hunting, especially with a majority private land ownership, are over hunted.
What is the hole shot in your foot, so to speak?
They are doing it because they can, and they want to kill big bucks. The blueprint has been set for decades.
Competition for access at least around home.
My bad, did I derail?
Not at all that is the future of public land hunting in the west at least.
In the east were pissing on the ashes of that train wreck lol.
Maybe someone can educate us all on what happened in the 2023 legislature?
Post in thread 'Non resident Landowner incentive.' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/non-resident-landowner-incentive.318189/post-3583054Maybe someone can educate us all on what happened in the 2023 legislature?
I cant think how pathetic it is that opposing this benefitted exactly 0 constituents.
2023 Legislative Session Recap - Montana BHA
Congrats! We made it through the 2023 Montana Legislative Session! Thanks to the tireless efforts from our chapter leaders, staff, and lobbyists in the Capitol - and more importantly thanks to YOU! - we were able to successfully influence dozens of bills this session. As you read through the...www.backcountryhunters.org
"SB 525 – Generally revise laws related to hunting licenses and permits - sponsored by Sen. Flowers (D - Bozeman). Bill would have directed FWP to set reasonable caps/limits for licenses, tags or permits that are currently unlimited for nonresidents. This would not have impacted moose, sheep, goat, antelope, deer or elk tags/permits for nonresidents since those are already capped or limited. According to FWP, the number of nonresident hunters in Montana have jumped 80% over the last decade. This bill was designed to help prevent that number from climbing much higher. Additionally, the bill would have strengthened prohibitions on selling/transferring licenses or permits, and it also would have required FWP to give residents an opportunity at surplus permits rather than giving those to nonresidents automatically (as is current practice). The bill was voted down on party lines in the Senate Fish & Game Committee."
