hunters going extinct

[baltz526]

our numbers are shrinking so fast, we hunters will be gone in a few years. so take your neighbors hunting or fishing. take them camping in hunting/fishing country. we need to push our hunting/fishing heritage harder than we are. get that older hunter, back into the experience. get your neighbor, who has not fished since he was a kid, to go for the day with you.get your brother, to go. get your adult coworkers involved. because these people will bring their kids next time. we all need to get our friends, reinterested in hunting and fishing.

[Coldfinger]

I haven't seen any shortage of people out in the hills during hunting season, there are more people out there than there is room for already, the only reason I can think of to want even more people hunting / fishing would be financial or political.

[Lucky one]

Do some research, there are fewer people out there hunting then have been since the 50's. Why do we want more people enjoying the sport? So the sport lives on and our way of life lives on.

[uhmw]

I dont mind at all -less hunters more deer and birds for me and my kids. sounds like alarmist polictics created by folks at the department worryied about their jobs because they realized they cant keep jacking the cost of hunting tags and licences to justify their deer and elk stocking programs. Or can they ???? licence fees + restrictive regulations + gas tax = Burden on the poor and middle class created by people who claim to look after their intrest. Just my ramblins sorry for the rant.

[ehunter]

Why does it seem so crowded is because the hunting season are more condensed or have we lost hunting grounds. I know for a fact that bowhunting has got more crowded?

[baltz526]

I haven't seen any shortage of people out in the hills during hunting season, there are more people out there than there is room for already, the only reason I can think of to want even more people hunting / fishing would be financial or political.

a part of the answer to your responce. when hunter numbers where at a much higher level, we also had more game to hunt, we had pheasant raising programs, quail raising programs, many more voters backing hunting and fishing programs. more access to private property hunting areas. look at it this way. for every licensed hunter voter, in direct contact with several nonhunting voters. gives us a very strong lobby for our sport. with the loss of one hunter, we lose several voters on issues we care about. and we lose the hunting tax dollars that each hunter supports wildlife with.the reality is the more hunters in the field we have, the more game we will see in that field.how many hours, did each of you put back into our wildlife this year, building guzzlers, planting winter range food plants, removing old fence, building wood duck boxes, writing letters to the editor in your local papers, bring up wildlife related issues. did you join oha this year, did you pay your final life membership payment to rmef. if you do not want more hunters in the field, then you personally need to do the work of ten sportsmen, to make up the loss.when you become a pitbull for hunting issues, like some members of this forum already are, we will need a few less sportsmen to get it done. until then, we need to gather all the hunters we can get, to help stop our sports quickly growing spiral to extinction

[Coldfinger]

Yep...Political.

Will decide how many of your points to respond to as my finger picks away here...

I think it ridiculous that people think game animals need money to live on, anything money can fix was messed up by people in the first place.

Less people out in the woods makes for a more natural and enjoyable experiance for those of us who do go out.

You admit less game, and less accessable ground, yet still want to round up more people to go ? !!!

Why ?
Do you make any portion of your income from sportsmen ?


"Spiral to extinction" ha ! Heraldo Rivera couldn't have said it better !

In my opinion the threats to wildlife include habitat loss and mismanagement by the wonderfull government(which you want to send money to by the boxcar load), and the threats to hunting as a sport are from the degradation of the AVERAGE "hunter's" ethics, and the Liberal animal rights misinformation.

[Lucky one]

"liberal animal rights misinformation". Good term, and don't you think it would be to our benefit to have more hunters out there to laugh in the face of the animal rights activists when they try to feed us a line of bull?

I can't believe what I'm hearing, "fewer people means more for me!" That's sick. Maybe the "ethics of the average hunter" arent the problem. Maybe its people out there concerned with only killing something during each and every season.

[Coldfinger]

oops, I almost forgot !

How do you figure RMEF is helping the big game or the big game hunters by promoting the reintroduction of wolves in the lower 48 ?

I can not even believe that is going on ! It would be bad enough if the wolves naturally expanded their range into some places they used to live, but for people to bring them in is absurd ! I think if you wanted the species and populations back like they were 100 or 200 years ago, that you would have to do them all for it to make any sense to anyone...but not too many people are going to peel up all the pavement, tear down the homes and schools, and march back to the other side of the Mississippi River !

[Coldfinger]

Lucky, you mixed comments from two people together in your response.......

Counting me as greedy is silly, get to know me better ....

I get a lot more enjoyment out of being outdoors when there are animals in veiw rather than people, and I'm not affraid to plan my outings with that in mind.

[Coldfinger]

If we are going to continue to "sell" hunting as a game management tool, which is enjoyed by sportsmen, then how can we be shortening seasons and bag limits and recruiting for new participants at the same time ?


When the Animal Rights folks outnumber the rest of us, then we will just have to come up with a different system for making rules...

[Lucky one]

Coldfinger the reply wasn't meant for you only. I don't know you and don't presume to, I can only react to what is posted.

I understand that you like to see animals in the woods, so do I. But the woods don't belong to me alone. And getting other people to enjoy them isn't a bad thing.

[rimrock]

I can't believe what I'm hearing, "fewer people means more for me!"

I got to agree with LO. :whazzup: I realize we all like feeling we are out in the woods all alone, but maybe the overall point is escaping some.

Fewer hunters is not a good thing for the sport; unless I guess you’re main concerned is about a much smaller picture.

[Lucky one]

Maybe this will expose my mental capacity as being zero, but what bag limits where lessened? As far as the seasons go didn't we just add on three days to deer seasons over east?

[baltz526]

Do you make any portion of your income from sportsmen ?

no, i do not. i make my money in the construction industry, being an general contractor. i do remodeling and repair, and most of my customers are nonhunters. on a guess about 10% of my customers are active sportspeople.

Less people out in the woods makes for a more natural and enjoyable experiance for those of us who do go out.

you are fooling yourself if you think that less, sportspeople, buying less license/tags make your experence better.

You admit less game, and less accessable ground, yet still want to round up more people to go ?

less access is being driven by less participation, if property owners where hunters, or had hunting friends, we would have better hunting access. the numbers of game where higher when we had a larger percentage of the population in the field hunting.. where do you think the hunting population percentage should be. 1%, 3% if you think hunting is not a political sport, you need a little drive to learn the facts of life, in the world you live in.if where you hunt now is not an over grazed dust bowl, or is a roadless wilderness area, thank political hunters, because they saved it for you.

[Coldfinger]

rimrock,
I guess we can pretty much agree then, that THE reason to want higher numbers of hunters is indeed political, more hunters have a larger voice on policy issues which effect hunting.

Can we also agree that adding people to the mix who have no recent family traditions relating to hunting adds nothing to the sport of hunting in itself......seeing more people per day is not a benefit, increased impact by sheer numbers of hunters is not a benefit either,(unless you get $).

[Beeatease]

Maybe what's needed is a stable funding BASE for ODFW and then hunter's fee would add to that rather than being the sole source.

If the state won't do this for schools they sure won't do it for wildlife....

[Coldfinger]

Lucky,
There is really no benefit to addressing your opinion of someones mental capacity in place of a point in a debate....

I seem to recall the Western Oregon general season being shortened by roughly 5 days..........

I was around when Eastern Oregon deer tags went over the counter too.........

[baltz526]

Can we also agree that adding people to the mix who have no recent family traditions relating to hunting adds nothing to the sport of hunting in itself......seeing more people per day is not a benefit, increased impact by sheer numbers of hunters is not a benefit either,(unless you get $).

no, i can not agree with this opinion, new hunter begin there own traditions, in relation to the people they hunt with. they add an equal amount to our hunting heritage. and yes there dollars are needed.

[Limbhanger]

Baltz is correct in every sense. Our numbers are shrinking. You dont have to read it in the paper or see it on the news to know it. In my company of 300 people there are a small handful of us that hunt. Very few people that live around me hunt. I went to my Wifes Christmas Party and out of the 15 couples that were there 1 guy fished and 1 guy hunted.
I will admit that I dont like to compete for a spot to hunt either and dont care to see other people while I am in the woods. I go as deep and as far as needed to get to the type of hunting I like. We need to belong to the clubs, organizations, federations etc. As much as no one wants to admit it, when the smoke clears it is about $$$$$.
Baltz, maybe something to incorportate into next years Ifish Chukar hunt would be for each person to make an attempt at bringing along 1 person that is new to hunting or bird hunting. Skein is all over it with the predator youth hunt. That was a great idea.

[Coldfinger]

baltz,

I've tried to "get involved", but it's just to much B.S. for me.....

Take the NRA for example, all they are doing is milking bazillions of dollars out of a crisis that they keep at a state of crisis. If the NRA hasn't already received enough money to solve the problem, then what is another few billion going to do ? We already had all the Rights the NRA is "fighting" for(and more), but some genius politition negotiated them away. If someone wants to stand up to the Gun Control crowd for REAL, then I'm in.......but pussyfooting around at the Country Club and deciding which concessions are okay this time is just too fake for me ! I have more repect of the Founding Fathers than that. The hunting issues are similar in the way those who hunt will listen to nonsense from Animal Rights people, as long as we are the majority they can be ignored, same thing will still work when they become the majority......and if you think they won't you are not realistic! Go outdoors now, this is the good ol' days !




How's that for Heraldo style panic talk ?

[skein]

I love it when a guy bursts on the scene with an attitude.

I figure he's trolling us, guys, and will most likely fade away back to where he came from. Especially when we no longer rise to the bait.

Skein

[Coldfinger]

Nope, not trolling, just an honest dislike for politics.

I will try to stay away from these topics, but I do have a hard time not expressing my opinion sometimes.

I spend most of my efforts on teaching my kids to hunt, fish, and trap, and to respect animals, people, and their property.........I believe my time and money is much better spent that way than by paying "professionals" to argue the point with other "professionals" whom neither of which probably even have true feelings on the subject.

[rimrock]

Can we also agree that adding people to the mix who have no recent family traditions relating to hunting adds nothing to the sport of hunting in itself......seeing more people per day is not a benefit, increased impact by sheer numbers of hunters is not a benefit either,(unless you get $).

I believe I understand where you are coming from, but I would disagree with this point. Be it a one/two/three/… generational family hunting tradition doesn’t give precedent over a “newbie”. I understand numbers for the sake of numbers isn’t of value in of itself. More hunters be them new or of a multi-hunting tradition who learn the sport to value being a conservationist-hunter AND who become actively involved in more than their own personal gratification is needed.

Yes money is part of the game, a big part; more important is growing conservationist-hunters who have demonstrated over the years they are far and away the leaders in supporting the enhancement of wildlife for the public trust as a whole. The decline of this way of thinking over time will hurt wildlife, habitat and the like for the sportsman and non-sportsman alike. IMO when hunters focus on merely hunting we can lose sight of this important aspect of our future.

The point is we need more people but more specifically more conservationist/hunters.

[Coldfinger]

Rimrock,
I think we have a lot of common ground here...

I don't mean that a "newbie" has less right to the sport or the game animals, I meant that dragging uninterested folks out there isn't a benefit to anyone.

I agree that if more people shared our concern for the welfare of animals and their habitat, and still knew the difference between conservation and preservation we would all be better off too.


I still can not savvy how you guys are going to cram more hunters in the field when we have already agreed that the "field" is getting smaller, and there is less game...

I think much of the hunting opportunities we enjoy today will be gone in the future no matter how many times you pass the hat, it is a feature of human population growth. I will admit that having a higher "grade" of hunters (ethical)in the field will lengthen the time frame, but the writing is on the wall.

[Salmo trutta]

I love it when a guy bursts on the scene with an attitude.

I figure he's trolling us, guys, and will most likely fade away back to where he came from. Especially when we no longer rise to the bait.

Skein

Yep for sure not much info on this guy!!

[Coldfinger]

What kind of info are you seeking Salmo ?

I'm a white male, 39 yrs old, logger, married, two kids, sled boat(recent purchase), stack of rifles, fishing poles, traps, and a Mathews Outback with about 3 dozen arrows............Heat my place with woodstove, let the cat in anytime he wants, got a lot of holes in my driveway and not likely to fix'em soon.

Did I leave too much to the imagination ?

[Coldfinger]

I don't want to see hunting go the way of Spring Chinook fishing, I think there are some true sportsmen who love fishing, that just about don't go because it is a circus anymore......plenty of money, and votes, and fancy hatchery programs for all the polititions though

[ORsouthpaw]

Do hunters want more hunters? or do the people who appropriate hunters' dollars want more hunters?

While I support both the Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation and OHA which both promote our sport of hunting I don't really feel that we need even more over crowding in the dimishing land we have left. Yes, I know it's better for our sport to have more people but let's face it when have you seen or talked to someone who wants to share thier favorite hunting area or fishing hole.

How can state agencies expect more people to want to hunt or fish when they make it more difficult to do so each season. I can remember elk seasons that were generous in length, when you could have the oppourtunity to hunt either a doe or a buck with simply DEER tag. Fishing and actually catching fish. All the changes I have seen simply appear to me as way of increasing the burden of wildlife management costs while reducing the actual opourtunities.

Maybe it's time that the non-sporting crowd help support the wildlife they claim to love so much. Maybe the sportsman shouldn't be the only source of revenue. Viewing, Hiking and biking licenses to offset the reduction in sportsman numbers. Hmmm!

[Lucky one]

I'm sorry coldfinger, I was merely stating that it might reveal my short memory, I was not alluding to anyone else's mental capacity.

As for the western deer season, I haven't hunted it in years and didn't know this had happened. When was the season shortened?

I remember buying tags over the counter. So should we just open up the state and let people hunt where they want? Is this what you are offering to help alleviate crowds?

I'm glad to hear you are continuing on a hunting tradition in your family. Should I not introduce a friend to hunting because it will add to the crowds? Whats your solution?

[gottafish]

What kind of info are you seeking Salmo ?

I'm a white male, 39 yrs old, logger, married, two kids, sled boat(recent purchase), stack of rifles, fishing poles, traps, and a Mathews Outback with about 3 dozen arrows............Heat my place with woodstove, let the cat in anytime he wants, got a lot of holes in my driveway and not likely to fix'em soon.

Did I leave too much to the imagination ?

IMHO Welcome, your my kind of guy. I am not going to jump in this. I just po somebody

[Rank Amateur]

I think Coldfinger is making a point, to return to the number of hunters of the past with the amount of game of today would be a disaster. A lot of people are dropping out of the sport because of the low numbers of wildlife and the crowding during the seasons.

I'm all for getting the deer numbers back up, both east and west, I would gladly wait till the third week in October to go deer hunting like I used too. We could afford a lot more hunters back then, because we could spread out. We could manage the hunts this way now if we had the will to do so, but we will be limited in doing so with the current game populations.

[TonTo]

I say go ahead and introduce a friend to hunting,if you believe this friend would enjoy it,why not I wouldn't suggest try'n to drag hords of people afield that realy don't enjoy the sport.Instead I would try to get the friends you have that already hunt/fish more involved,atleast get em to vote.The animal rights actavists are just that "active",they never rest.When an anti hunting measure is defeated,we tend to think they have gone away,but they are already writing the next,and gathering suport.The only way to compete is to get the people that already love their sport involved.I'm sure everybody here knows somebody that isn't a register'd voter,they always say "whats the point?",but they love to hunt/fish,well get that point across to them,and then take em hunting.

[baltz526]

the more hunters we have supporting our wildlife, the more wildlife we will have to hunt. it is really that simple. in a large group of people, there will always be a small percentage that do all the work, to enhance the experence of the majority. so the larger the base is, the better our representation will be.

[twodux]

Coldfinger, I like your style!

My take on your statement about new hunters without a family tradition is this. The more people who appreciate the same things we do, the more people who will fight to keep our tradition alive. But there are drawbacks. Some if not most of the newbies will want instant success. They won't take the time to learn to hunt right. They'll buy the latest 1,000 yard shooting rifle or some other gimick that's guaranteed to make them successful. They know nothing of hunter safety. They'll ride their ATV anywhere they please. They won't respect property rights. They haven't learned hunting ethics. They haven't learned to take care of the meat once they harvest an animal. They are more interested in getting an animal, than how they got it. Let's just say to sum this up, they are more likely to be the slob hunter that can turn the non-hunting public against us. I'd guess that these people would be more apt to go "shoot" an animal in a canned farm situation. (I won't call that hunting. I don't want to be associated with that industry)

Now these people are the bread and butter of the stores that sell hunting gear. They'll buy anything that claims to make them more successful, but in reality what makes you more successful if the time you spend in the field observing animal behavior. There is no quick way to become a good hunter.

People who come from a long line of hunters have peer pressure as they learn to hunt to shape them as go.

Now after all that, am I against new hunters? Not at all, but I'm against people who give what I'm doing a black eye. I'm more than happy to take new people out with me, but they are going to do it my way if they want to hunt with me. I'm happy to show them how to hunt, but they'll be learning some ethics at the same time. I won't neccesarily be showing them my honey holes, but I will show them how to find their own.

By the way, my sentiments about the NRA are really close to yours. You can't support one Constitutional right at the expense of all others. They all support each other. Lose one and they are all weaker. I can't support a candiate for office who is for gun rights, but thinks "unreasonable search" or spying on Americans without a warrent is ok. If it was the National Constitution Association I'd be right there with them.

Rick

[TheRogue]

baltz, you're right on, thank you for your posts on this one!

If anyone believes we're better off with spiraling down to a tiny percent of the population being hunters, you're sadly mistaken. We fight a constant battle of perception and politics, a battle which will get tougher and tougher. And yet, we continue to loose our soldiers that fight that battle. Would we have lost the right to hunt cats and bears with bait/dogs 50 years ago? Heck no......because the percentage of the population that hunted at that time was much greater. What's next?

PETA, animal rights wackos, and their ilk, have really messed with seasons in many eastern states.....and most of these places are absolutely filthy with deer! Even to the point of being considered nuisances. What do you suppose a concerted effort by a well-funded group of fruitcakes could do in this state, especially 10-15 years from now? I'm worried.

It's no different than fishing......if you think it's better to have less people around you, you're also sadly mistaken.

My .02

TR

[baltz526]

My take on your statement about new hunters without a family tradition is this. The more people who appreciate the same things we do, the more people who will fight to keep our tradition alive. But there are drawbacks. Some if not most of the newbies will want instant success. They won't take the time to learn to hunt right. They'll buy the latest 1,000 yard shooting rifle or some other gimick that's guaranteed to make them successful. They know nothing of hunter safety. They'll ride their ATV anywhere they please. They won't respect property rights. They haven't learned hunting ethics. They haven't learned to take care of the meat once they harvest an animal. They are more interested in getting an animal, than how they got it. Let's just say to sum this up, they are more likely to be the slob hunter that can turn the non-hunting public against us.

a couple of thoughts on this. new hunters are more likely to take hunters saftey courses, and learn the basics of hunter ethics. as long as they are not starting their hunting experence with slob hunters. a slob hunter would tell them, they do not need to do that. if they start hunting with an ethical hunter, in their group. the odds are they will practice safe and ethical hunting practices. and learn the basics of weapon handeling.i have no problem with taking a non gun knowledgable person hunting, but they will get a basic education, before they go in the field. i have hunted with new hunters, after they have taken a few trips with a slob hunting group. they have all left my camp happier hunters. so my point is, if we can educate new hunters and save the majority of badly trained hunters, we will gain in our battle to save our sport. each of us can do a small part, in growing the numbers of good hunters.rescue a slob hunter, start a new hunter off in the right direction,get a old hunter back in the sport.take a single mother and her kids hunting,camping,fishing with your family when you go. do the little things and big things can happen.

[dla]

+1 TR