Darned if you do, darned if you don't... dilema

[MarshBum]

Ok, so here's a good example of what I've been sort struggling to understand now for a few years...

Two posts on here that seem to conflict, to me anyway (I'm not picking on the individuals that posted or have expressed opinions. This is something that I've been thinking about for a few years now only this last week or so has there been an example of it)

Post: Just Say NO!!!!
Gist: Having a hunting show highlight good hunting areas will spoil the hunting.

Post: This is a call. (Duckers Unite)
Gist: We need to get more people into hunting because our numbers are falling off.

Those are my impressions of the two threads anyway... hopefully I'm close.

Anyway, to me, those two threads are at odds with each other.

On the one hand, no one wants to give up their secret spots... and even more, no one wants to deal with crowds. The more hunters, usually, the worse the hunting (depending on various factors of course).

However, I think everyone would agree that we need more hunters, and we need to try to introduce new people to the sport for our own sake... for the sake of the sport.

So, how then can we, I, you, whoever, say in one breath, "Yes, I will take out new people for sure this season and try to get them hooked on duck hunting" and with the next breath say, "I don't want anyone talking about the areas I hunt because it will be broadcast all over the country and then people will be set up in my spots and it will be crowded and it will ruin the good hunting"?

And I think it's a little disingenuous to say the two are not related because broadcasting my spots all over the country is only going to get experienced hunters to come out here and ruin the hunting vs. bringing a new person into the sport. Where then is this new person supposed to hunt? In areas you've don't hunt in?

And while I'm on the "hood of the truck" I'm going to add... for the love of all that's holy, why do people think that talking about or passing along info about Sauvie Island is such a friggin crime? It's THE BEST place for people that have never hunted to get a taste. If you think that you have a secret spot on the island (east side/west side), you're naive. It's public hunting, play the game, or go somewhere else.

How can I get new people into the sport if it's generally unacceptable to talk specifics about the sport. Am I supposed to get a guy all geared up, ready to go and excited, and then say either "you can come with me, but you'd better never be setup here" or "ok now, go forth and seek your duck somewhere out there-ish, see ya"?

Bleh... I must be cranky today.

We all act sometimes like no one ever taught us anything.

Geoff

[duckboy]

Very good points there Geoff,

I suppose that there is no "right answer" to them.

There are lots of factors that you bring to light.. Cheifly, there may be declining numbers of hunters, but there are exponentially smaller opportunities to access public lands and hunting opportunities outside of private clubs from year to year (just like hunting is in Europe).

Over there it is mostly a private deal, fancy lodges, and big fees.

I'd hate to see that happen here.


I have access to large areas of huntable habitat, as do others on this forum.

some of it is private, most of it is public but very hard and dangerous to access to most folks, because of tidal influences, big water, and the sheer aspect that a guy can get turned around out there and never make it back.

I do not own the places I go, we all do, but that is not to say that I'd like to broadcast them to the world either and roll up on their decoys set there at 5 am.

I'd rather take a few folks that I know wouldn't be able to get out otherwise for a day of hunting and just to take it all in.

Mostly like to take out some young folks so that they will get something to offset the videogames, and shopping mall culture.

I bet that with the gear you (Marshbum) and I have, we could get some kids out for an awesome hunt.

Something to think about... we could lead by example (might be something that makes us feel good abotu the sport, and its continuation after we are gone)...

Something to think about ..

[jvp]

i am just kidding

if it is someone you know you are trying to take out for first timers take them only to your 3-5 choices of places to go. never and i mean never take anyone not related/blood only to you to spots 1 and 2.

Same applies to your children until you are sure they will not spill the beans and remember to always tell them. i brought you into this world and i can take you out. if they have grown numb to that threat use. i'll take you but you may never come back.

tongue out of cheek now.
excellent points made.

[CombinationLicense]

It's pretty simple IMHO, one mentality contributes to the steady decline and eventual elimination of sport hunting in America and the other actively works toward reversing the trend. As the old saying goes, don't expect to get different results by employing the same methods that caused the problem. Try something new! Which in this case is reaching out to anyone and everyone that will listen and maybe participate. Oregon's hunter replacement ratio is 32% which means that for every three retiring hunters only one newcomer joins the sport. How long will hunting last here at that rate? Projections say about 50 years.

Be part of the solution, reach out and take someone hunting, otherwise we're just part of the problem.

"CL"

[canes_venatici]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

It's pretty simple IMHO, one mentality contributes to the steady decline and eventual elimination of sport hunting in America and the other actively works toward reversing the trend. As the old saying goes, don't expect to get different results by employing the same methods that caused the problem. Try something new! Which in this case is reaching out to anyone and everyone that will listen and maybe participate. Oregon's hunter replacement ratio is 32% which means that for every three retiring hunters only one newcomer joins the sport. How long will hunting last here at that rate? Projections say about 50 years.

Be part of the solution, reach out and take someone hunting, otherwise we're just part of the problem.

"CL"

From a statistical standpoint, you can't say that we are losing X number of hunters each year. You have to state it as a percentage. From that vantage point, you will always have hunters. Even if you take away half of anything every year, you will never run out. It just isn't possible. Again this is from a purely numbers standpoint. Realistically, it is possible.

However, if the 50 year projection is correct... in year 49, you would have to have only 1, possibly 2 hunters. Year 48 would have 2-4 hunters, etc... (of course this is variable depending on the rate of hunter loss) I just don't see it happening from a logical standpoint.


Addressing the bigger issue, I think a common theme to both threads is this: Establishing quality, sustainable hunting for all who wish to take advantage of it.

There are many folks trying to accomplish that goal. What we see here are two different approaches to the issue.

[duckboy]

Originally Posted by canes_venatici

From a statistical standpoint, you can't say that we are losing X number of hunters each year. You have to state it as a percentage. From that vantage point, you will always have hunters. Even if you take away half of anything every year, you will never run out. It just isn't possible. Again this is from a purely numbers standpoint. Realistically, it is possible.
.

Actually, it is possible to determine that we are losing x # of hunters, based upon Waterfowl stamp sales. In order to hunt waterfowl, you need the stamp.

I am sure that there are a very few stamps sold to collectors, and non-hunters, but the vast majority are sold to gun toters.


I was shocked by the numbers... Looks like the only flyway with growing #s of waterfowl stamp sales is the PNW.

[canes_venatici]

Originally Posted by duckboy

Actually, it is possible to determine that we are losing x # of hunters, based upon Waterfowl stamp sales. In order to hunt waterfowl, you need the stamp.

I am sure that there are a very few stamps sold to collectors, and non-hunters, but the vast majority are sold to gun toters.


I was shocked by the numbers... Looks like the only flyway with growing #s of waterfowl stamp sales is the PNW.

True.

However, for projections, you cannot say, we lose 50 hunters every year... or something similar to that. You say, we are losing 10% of hunters every year...

You can't talk hard numbers. You must talk in percentages.

[Chesapeake]

I just think of it this way.

#1: There are no secret spots. If you think you are the only one that knows about a place you are probably just ignorant to what others know.

#2: No matter what, eventualy (if your secret spot is good) people will begin to use it. Wouldnt you much rather those people be friends that you introduced to the place.

[Headhunter]

SI is no secret spot for sure. I think the issue folks have is that when you boradcast in print or TV about the hunting on SI, you have more people putting in for reservations or putting their hand into the chip bag, thus reducing your chance for a quality hunting spot. It's not the loss of a secrete spot, just more people competing for the same well known resource.

[beardbuster]

Couple things:

I work with a TV show. We are not out to exploit one persons hunting spot or take advantage of a hunter who has spent numerous hours fine tuning an area. A show usually runs 4 times a week. Usually only with one decent time slot, but not always. The chances of over exposing someones place to hunt is very slim. Its not like a magazine that oneone can pick up and keep in their pocket OR photocopy and give to friends.

This kind of reminds me of the bumper sticker that say "Thanks for visiting, no go home!" Every one of us enjoy watching hunting shows and videos and belive it or not, that's how you get onto some of these spots.

A good camera man can make a field in Oregon look like one in Kansas. Basically you are saying "Today we are hunting geese in Western Oregon" no GPS coordinates.

As a TV personality you have to serve a dual purpose.

A: Get footage that no only makes a show, but also promotes hunting in a positive light and makes people want to try it for themselves.

B: This postive light, makes people spend money on gear that they need to be successful. This helps your sponsors which is the only reason you have a show to call your own in the first place.

By not making hunting look enjoyable and interesting its hard to gain the new hunters to the sport. No new hunters each year means that sporting goods companies will soon be closing their doors since there is no revenue to keep the factories operating. Stores too.

If the hunting industry declines, you will see fewer hunting supplies on shelves at your local stores. This is some thing that I think a lot of people overlook.

Whoever comes out to film will probably find a spot. If they are not from here, then they will film for a couple days and then had down the road. You dont have to worry about them setting up in your spot.

I too read these threads and declined to comment. This thread made me chuckle a bit, so I had to finally ad my

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by canes_venatici

From a statistical standpoint, you can't say that we are losing X number of hunters each year. You have to state it as a percentage. From that vantage point, you will always have hunters. Even if you take away half of anything every year, you will never run out. It just isn't possible. Again this is from a purely numbers standpoint. Realistically, it is possible.

However, if the 50 year projection is correct... in year 49, you would have to have only 1, possibly 2 hunters. Year 48 would have 2-4 hunters, etc... (of course this is variable depending on the rate of hunter loss) I just don't see it happening from a logical standpoint.


Addressing the bigger issue, I think a common theme to both threads is this: Establishing quality, sustainable hunting for all who wish to take advantage of it.

There are many folks trying to accomplish that goal. What we see here are two different approaches to the issue.

CV - I'm not much into arguing over the semantics of weather there's 1, 100 or 1000 hunters left when the end comes - because the exact numbers are completely irrelevant. When hunter numbers decline to a point where the sport becomes "marginalized", we will simply be voted into extinction. IMHO, that's likely to happen long before there is just one hunter left, or 100, or 1000.

The problem is widespread enough that three national organizations have been studying it for 10 years - The National Wild Turkey Federation, The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the US Sportsmen's Alliance. They have compiled data on all 50 states and Oregon ranks very near the bottom in hunter recruitment. The results of their study can be found at FamiliesAfield.com.

Fewer hunters nationwide not only means less revenues for sporting goods manufacturers and retailers, it directly affects wildlife management efforts in every state. Currently many, if not all, state natural resource departments are looking at alternate sources of funding to stop the bleeding (Teaming With Wildlife). Many states (including Oregon) have implemented the recommendations from the Families Afield program and are making it easier for kids to become involved. That is a step in the right direction but hunters have to lead the charge to reduce the trend.

No matter how you slice it, hunting is in trouble and our enemies are working overtime to eradicate it forever. They capitalize on our complacency and and exploit "hot button" issues to foster "in-fighting" amongst us. Hunter apathy has to go, selfishness has to go and no longer can we sit back and say "someone else will take care of it" - because that mentality is why we're at this point today

"CL"

[thehunt]

I agree with the "just say NO" thread cause those guys are, well at least the show is pretty darn cheesy. Obviously a show only created cause someone had enough money to make it. I am sure they will have no problem hiring a guide if they really want to film in the NW.

On the other hand, I get great pleasure and enjoyment taking kids hunting. They are our future and I will take them all to the X, no matter where it is, and hopefully hook them for life!! Last season we got a kid his first goose, another his first canada goose, and a friend his fist layout experience and limit of geese and two their first Toms. I loved these hunts. All were very special and I look forward to more of the same this season.

Please pm me if you have kids that want to hunt and you can't get it done. The youth hunts are a great way to make this happen so early contact is better. If those don't work out, there is always room for a kid on our hunts.

[LuckyStrike]

I would personally rather give up my spots to people who would appreciate it, not just someone with too much money who has hunted "everywhere". So don't ask me...

There are no ducks over east anyway.

[HuntNFishAddict]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

I would personally rather give up my spots to people who would appreciate it, not just someone with too much money who has hunted "everywhere". So don't ask me...

There are no ducks over east anyway.

I agree with Dan on this one. I for one am glad that there are no ducks on the east side of the state, otherwise I wouldn't get any work done in the winter.

I also know that guys like Geoff, Dave, Todd, and a whole lot more, have put a lot of effort into hunting particular areas and becoming skilled at what they love. Sooo for that reason, I understand why they don't like to share specifics.

My personal opinion is find people you like to hunt with and get them out with you. I have made a few wifes from church mad because I have gotten their husbands hooked on Honkers and Divers.

Can't wait till my 3 daughters are old enough to go. They don't quite make waders small enough yet. Look out in a couple years though.
Jason

[Hawk]

I think people would be less concerned about divulging honey holes and hunting areas if there was a better chance of actually having some success of getting an animal.

Realistically, why would anyone start a sport (like hunting) which can be darn expensive to get into and participate in, when the State manages the things you hunt (upland birds and big game in particular) so poorly? Why bother?

After they've seasoned as hunters, and understand what the "total hunting experience is about", harvesting game is less of the objective. But, just like new hockey fans go to see the fights, new hunters get in the sport in hopes of getting some action, and that just doesn't happen in Oregon much any more.

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I think people would be less concerned about divulging honey holes and hunting areas if there was a better chance of actually having some success of getting an animal.

Realistically, why would anyone start a sport (like hunting) which can be darn expensive to get into and participate in, when the State manages the things you hunt (upland birds and big game in particular) so poorly? Why bother?

After they've seasoned as hunters, and understand what the "total hunting experience is about", harvesting game is less of the objective. But, just like new hockey fans go to see the fights, new hunters get in the sport in hopes of getting some action, and that just doesn't happen in Oregon much any more.

ODFW manages for maximum opportunity. They do this so as many people as possible have an opportunity to get out there and hunt. It is up to the individual tag holders how serious they want to work at it. The guys who are serious and put their time in are the ones who fill their tags consistently. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for them.
We have a ton of hunting opportunity all around us and anyone wanting to get into hunting has more choices in Oregon than most other states.

[lor]

Originally Posted by beardbuster

Couple things:

I work with a TV show. We are not out to exploit one persons hunting spot or take advantage of a hunter who has spent numerous hours fine tuning an area. A show usually runs 4 times a week. Usually only with one decent time slot, but not always. The chances of over exposing someones place to hunt is very slim. Its not like a magazine that oneone can pick up and keep in their pocket OR photocopy and give to friends.
.....
A good camera man can make a field in Oregon look like one in Kansas. Basically you are saying "Today we are hunting geese in Western Oregon" no GPS coordinates.

In principle I agree with everything above that was said.
However, I work part time in TV as well.
Yes a good camera man can do wonders, but he should also get good B-roll footage so a successful product can be created. Unless the camera man is also the editor or even the producer of the show, you can't guarantee that some little B-roll wide angle shot doesn't inadvertantly give away a guys spot. Especially if the editor is some dude who didn't even attend the hunt, to him its just footage in a stack of tapes to use for his TV spot.

I agree with the people who didn't want some TV show crew in there spot because they worked hard for it. They feel the same about a camera crew in there blind as you would if you found out a TV crew was planning to film in your favorite elk/deer area which you worked hard to learn and develop. Just because its a duck or goose, doesn't make the effort and value less than some hot wallowa, spring, canyon, or good spot in deer/elk country.

Most of my Oregon hunting experience is big game, but last year I started hunting ducks. As a group, I do know that waterfowlers as a whole are significantly more forthcoming about places to hunt, and taking total strangers out to hunt, teach, and introduce to the great sport of waterfowl hunting. The only people on this forum who are more forthcoming are fisherman.

I would cut the duck guys some slack on this issue.
Its not like you see alot of open seats for deer/elk hunts.

[DTSportsman]

Originally Posted by HuntNFishAddict

I agree with Dan on this one. I for one am glad that there are no ducks on the east side of the state, otherwise I wouldn't get any work done in the winter.

I also know that guys like Geoff, Dave, Todd, and a whole lot more, have put a lot of effort into hunting particular areas and becoming skilled at what they love. Sooo for that reason, I understand why they don't like to share specifics.

My personal opinion is find people you like to hunt with and get them out with you. I have made a few wifes from church mad because I have gotten their husbands hooked on Honkers and Divers.

Can't wait till my 3 daughters are old enough to go. They don't quite make waders small enough yet. Look out in a couple years though.
Jason

Kristi thought that was funny!!!!

[DTSportsman]

My shiny new .

If the X is a private Club that I am a guest on my mouth is sealed , and I believe any guests should be because of how cutthroat the Waterfowl game is, there is always somone who is willing to pay the landowner more money for that honeyhole next season.

If its public, you might not want to take me because the area is PUBLIC, and I will be back with my Daughter, Nephew, or a Buddy that is learning the addiction, that is how I got hooked and learned the game and that is how I believe it should be played, first come first served there is plenty of public area out there you just have to go look for it.

Daryn

[SImudBogger]

I have learned how to hunt because others took me to there good spots (capn dan, buckhuntraj). I have taken lor to my good spots a few times. As long as we practice the "you don't tell ANYONE this is the spot" rule we will be ok. (even though you know they will)

Privately disclosing your honey hole to a few close trusted friends is ok in my book. its when someone in F&H news talks about how awesome a certain unit on the eastside has been lately, or someone gets on ifish and says what a great day they had on mudhen #12 that we start having problems. Massive amounts of vague information given to inexpeirenced people is the undedrlying issue.

I'm all for taking a kid hunting. if i knew more people with kids i would take them. Hell im only 21, anyone one show me how it's done?

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by DTSportsman

My shiny new .

If its public, you might not want to take me because the area is PUBLIC, and I will be back with my Daughter, Nephew, or a Buddy that is learning the addiction, that is how I got hooked and learned the game and that is how I believe it should be played, first come first served there is plenty of public area out there you just have to go look for it. Daryn

And if someone is gracious enough to invite you to a public land hunt to a location they have researched and scouted for many years, I would hope you would have the courtesy to inform them of your views before accepting their offer to join them.

You see, I like to take people hunting and fishing on public land, since I can't afford to hunt or fish private land. Most of time the areas I go to are no big secret, except every once in awhile I discover a really great location, a location that is worth protecting to enjoy for hopefully many years to come. Now if I take you and you share that with a few friends and they in turn share this with their other friends, the area soon becomes part of the past since it's now over run by people. I've seen this happen and it's happened to me. As long as you state your intentions up front then the invitor can make an appropriate decission.

What anyone truely hates (me included) is being taken advantage of and this does cover public lands. I've been fortunate to be on the recieving end a few times and had some wonderful hunts and fishing trips on public land and was asked specificaly to keep these locations a secret and I was certainly happen to oblige and have never shared the locations with anyone.

Honesty - it's something everyone should learn and what should be taught to those new to the outdoors.

peace,

Gregg

[DTSportsman]

Originally Posted by Hookset

And if someone is gracious enough to invite you to a public land hunt to a location they have researched and scouted for many years, I would hope you would have the courtesy to inform them of your views before accepting their offer to join them.

You see, I like to take people hunting and fishing on public land, since I can't afford to hunt or fish private land. Most of time the areas I go to are no big secret, except every once in awhile I discover a really great location, a location that is worth protecting to enjoy for hopefully many years to come. Now if I take you and you share that with a few friends and they in turn share this with their other friends, the area soon becomes part of the past since it's now over run by people. I've seen this happen and it's happened to me. As long as you state your intentions up front then the invitor can make an appropriate decission.

What anyone truely hates (me included) is being taken advantage of and this does cover public lands. I've been fortunate to be on the recieving end a few times and had some wonderful hunts and fishing trips on public land and was asked specificaly to keep these locations a secret and I was certainly happen to oblige and have never shared the locations with anyone.

Honesty - it's something everyone should learn and what should be taught to those new to the outdoors.

peace,

Gregg

Gregg,

I wont take advantage of anybody, if you invite me and ask to keep it a secret i'll do just that, I just feel that when it's public land the public should be able to hunt it. I'm all for finding a secret spot, but also would like others to be able to join in the fun when those spots are becoming few and far between. I believe part of our loss of hunters is due to this, there is too much "work" involved to find a good spot, and the new generation is too lazy to go do that work (myself NOT included). I'm in that generation so I can say that! (although on the fringe). My lips are sealed, I promise.

Daryn

[LuckyStrike]

Thanks for the heads up DT.

PS. Jason, come over anytime and I would love to hunt again with you. Maybe next time we can hit some of my "private" haunts. How about some geese? I will try and PM you with a photo of the "spot" a week after you were here. Loaded with birdys.

Dan

[Swamp Puppy]

Interesting thoughts Geoff. while i can see where a comparison can be drawn, it is possible to both scorn the idea of televising hunting spots and still be proactive in getting new people involved.

Just because a person doesn't want their hunting spots televised to 1000's of people doesn't mean that same person doesn't take a person out to the marsh with them or get involved with youth programs.

personally, i think we could do with a few less people in marshes. i know, that sounds defeatist, but how many people do we really need? is more better? will we eventually have so many hunters crowding into dwindling public access areas that hunting itself will be ruined?

Geoff, Todd, we slop through a lot of the same mud as does a number of other people..imagine if everyone who hunts where we do took one new person out with them this season. the number of hunters would mathematically double, though in reality not everyone would continue to return.

the next year, we encourage all the people (newbies included) to bring more people...and more people the year after that.

remember that conditioner commercial? and she told her friends...and they told their friends...etc.etc.

is that what you want?

i am all for supporting the future of the sport. the Youth. and i am willing to help out someone who has an interest in the sport with info and advice to get them going. i am not a supporter of overcrowding the few public areas we have just because we can.

[bajadan2000]

Lets face it, most people look for the easy way out, and that includes many hunters and fishermen. There are many lazy hunters who always look to do as little as possible to fill their limits.

Just because someone knows about a good area does not mean they know how to hunt it. Local knowledge and hunting skills goes a long way towards success.

Why do some people make the assumption that because others know about a good spot, everyone will fill their limits at that location??? Hunting is so much more than knowing were to kill something.

Often I have watched people that know an area produces well come out short because they did not make the effort to learn the skills to hunt that location. Same with fishing, I have watched a person catch 80% of the fish on a boat while others on the same boat just watched. Did the others adjust to what they saw, no, because it meant doing a little more work...

I stopped worrying about others knowing my hunting and fishing honey holes. Most do not know what they are doing to be successful anyway. The successful hunters and fishermen already know how to look for good spots, then how to hunt and fish those spots.

People looking for the easy way out are missing out on so much of the pleasure that comes from hunting and fishing.

Teaching new people to hunt is more about teaching them the skills to hunt rather then showing them the good spots that have worked in the past.

[DTSportsman]

I think I came across the wrong way. I'll put it simple. If i'm a guest I wont tell anybody where you hunt. If its my favorite public spot i'll share with anyone, so they could share in the fun. I was meaning to come across as not tight lipped about my spots which i'm still locating. I have 4 secrets though.

Lucky Strike Jason will vouch for me on my loyalty.

Daryn

[LuckyStrike]

DT, sorry just a little gun shy. Been chewed out for saying how well I did for springers up here.

LS:grin:

[DTSportsman]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

DT, sorry just a little gun shy. Been chewed out for saying how well I did for springers up here.

LS:grin:

No problem. Your secrets are safe with me :grin::grin::grin:.

Daryn

[Capin' Dan]

I know where you are coming from Jeff, I took a guy out a few years ago. we had an awesome shoot. I'm thinking the next morning of going back for seconds so to speak. Well there in the blind was you guessed it the guy I took out the day before. He waved but didn't even offer to share the blind with me. I was lucky enough to be able to cut him off and he fired one shot until I was done.

Last year I took some one out to a very special spot for me. I notice the other day that he is getting a new boat a very nice duck boat that can handle what our area throws at us. I'm now dreading the day I find him set up in my special little spot of heaven.

I like to take new folks out and show them around and hunt with them but it is going to start coming back on me some day soon. I guess then it will be time to find a new little spot.

[baltz526]

new hunters = voters. you vote prohunting, your family votes prohunting, you change the votes of your neighbours to prohunting they spread the prohunting voters by the contacts they have. spread the bounty and you help all hunters

[TrapperJohn]

I am a “lapsed” hunter. I read the posts to this thread with interest, because they really got me thinking about my reasons for abandoning what was once more of a way of life for me than a sport. Damaged nerve endings and legs that don’t work so well anymore certainly played a role, but I hung up my rifle years before they gave out on me. Last year I gave away all of my decoys, and although I told my wife to shoot me if I ever talk about selling my Beretta, I doubt that I will ever draw down on a big honker again.

The true “why” behind my behavior is rooted in a theme that I have found myself weaving through my posts here at ifish. A great many of your remarks focus on behavior that could loosely be described as “claim-jumping.” But there is more to it than that. The underlying behavior you are talking about is rooted in selfishness, lack of consideration, and ignorance of basic sportsmanship that results in failure to tend to the fine points and details, like letting your partner or guest take the first shot of the day. Like stopping by a landowner’s house with a fresh salmon during the off-season, or just to ask if a farmer is having a good year. Like noticing a downed calf and ending a hunt early to let the rancher know about the problem.

As my sons grew up and moved away and my hunting partners got too old and frail to hunt, I tried to find “new blood” as several of you have. To be honest, I am very fussy about who I want standing next to me with an instrument capable of blowing my head off. Scratch a few guys there. The friendly neighbor who got so excited by a flushing pheasant that he darn near shot my Lab? History. What about the one who jumped up from the ditch line and blasted a coyote passing through our dekes? Sure, it was a “mere” varmint. But we were, after all, supposed to be goose hunting. Not with me any time soon.

I guess if I sound like a bitter old man I may very well be one. Could I play a more constructive role, especially in educating young hunters as many of you have? Tried that too. Got involved in Hunter Safety Instruction. Gave up after listening to a Dad berate his kid for missing the target during live fire training. There, I thought, is what is really doing hunting in: the attitude that one must always find the mark, that one has to “limit out” to gain bragging rights to prove … whatever. Whether it is fishing, boating, camping, or hunting, field etiquette in general seems to be an antiquated concept. (See Clackamas River, July 4th, 2007.)

To close off this post, I must admit to returning to a spot or two that someone else shared with me. Okay, more than two. I don’t walk on water (only Labs can do that), but I did make it a habit of trying to contact my mentors ahead of time to make sure they weren’t going to be hunting that spot. Like most things in life, there is Give and Take. I have chosen to give up all of my “secret” hunting spots. I just hope the guys who wind up taking them are truly hunters and not just people with guns.

[CombinationLicense]

Trapper John – your story is similar to many hunters that have retired from the sport and it’s a HUGE contributing factor in the declining hunter numbers across America. In the “family party” model, the patriarch is the “glue” that holds hunting parties together, works out the details of the hunt and passes on the traditions – similar to the roots of a tree or the head of a snake. Kill the roots or cut off the head and the tradition dies in that family – unless someone else fills that role (like adult children), or the rest of the “family party” participants branch out on their own or form new hunting parties.

As you mention, another contributing factor to the decline is the lack of hunting access. Many aging hunters just can’t put on the miles that they once did and the competition for the “close & easy” spots is what leads to many of the activities that turn them away.

The actions, ethics, and mentality of sportsmanship that you speak of are exactly what hunters need to recapture in order to be seen as “Conservationists” instead of “Elmer Fudd”, or worse. As Baltz mentioned, new hunters = voters and that is what politicians listen to. With enough VOCAL voters we can keep what we’ve got and perhaps, regain some of what we’ve lost. However, it’s still up to us to pass on the ethics and mentality of conservation and sportsmanship.

“CL”

[Swamp Puppy]

nice post TJ. i especially liked this portion..

To be honest, I am very fussy about who I want standing next to me with an instrument capable of blowing my head off. Scratch a few guys there. The friendly neighbor who got so excited by a flushing pheasant that he darn near shot my Lab? History. What about the one who jumped up from the ditch line and blasted a coyote passing through our dekes? Sure, it was a “mere” varmint. But we were, after all, supposed to be goose hunting. Not with me any time soon.

i think i have had just about every one of those instances happen to me..as well as a few more. i keep asking myself over and over..why would i want to encourage more of these people? what is the benefit? what is the cost?

sure..we have more voters. ok...but now we have more people in the field.

honestly, i don't know what would be worse. having hunting taken from me because the anti's got their way..or just quitting the sport out of frustration because of "over population" of the sport by a bunch of 'people with guns' as you put it.

[thehunt]

Originally Posted by DTSportsman

Gregg,

I believe part of our loss of hunters is due to this, there is too much "work" involved to find a good spot, and the new generation is too lazy to go do that work (myself NOT included).
Daryn

I just recently came to terms with this. People are just too lazy, period. All my success comes at great lengths. Be it scouting, landowner relationships, reading, videos, talking to those with more experiecnce. Hard work and earned success. I used to get so irriated with the "how to" and "where to go" posts. Now I just accept it as others being, as you siad and I agree, LAZY!! Everyone wants success, few are willing to do the necessary work to achieve it.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Swamp Puppy

nice post TJ. i especially liked this portion..

[/size][/font]

i think i have had just about every one of those instances happen to me..as well as a few more. i keep asking myself over and over..why would i want to encourage more of these people? what is the benefit? what is the cost?

sure..we have more voters. ok...but now we have more people in the field.

honestly, i don't know what would be worse. having hunting taken from me because the anti's got their way..or just quitting the sport out of frustration because of "over population" of the sport by a bunch of 'people with guns' as you put it.

Very few hunters start out perfect, I sure didn’t and in fact still learn more every season – after nearly 30 years afield. Think of it as learning to drive – you start out knowing nothing so someone has to teach you. The kind of driver that you turn out to be is directly related to your mentor. A responsible mentor will teach you the rules of the road, start you out slowly and increase your time behind the wheel as your skills progress. Thus leading to you becoming a safe and lawful driver, probably for life. Alternately, learning to drive from an idiot or on your own will likely result in you being a poor driver that learns most of the important lessons from the “school of hard knocks” – by way of accidents and tickets. Ultimately, either you will learn from your mistakes or continually pay for them through fines, higher insurance rates or death. In the end there are two types of drivers, those that are a pleasure to ride with, courteous on the road and that will someday teach someone else how to drive correctly. Then there are others that just don’t “get it” – ‘nuff said.

It’s not a hard comparison to make and demonstrates the need for responsible, ethical mentors to pass on their mentality and skills to fledgling hunters. Choosing to lose hunting either because of dropping numbers or quitting due to overcrowding misses the point completely! What about doing something to change the outcome so that we don’t lose hunting at all? I realize that option takes a commitment and means following the rules to set a good example, spending time with the student and following up season after season to insure that the new hunter “gets it”. Hunting camp peer pressure can be used to achieve either negative or positive attitude adjustments. To much emphasis on killing can lead to bending the rules so it’s easier to be “successful”, while emphasis on the things that really matter as well as positive reinforcement for lessons learned well will produce a hunting partner to be proud of.

Let’s see now, should I be part of the problem or part of the solution? Hmmm……

“CL”

[Swamp Puppy]

first off, i don't see a "problem". this whole thing is based on a perceived drop in hunters, which is all hearsay anyway. just because duck stamp nuimbers have dropped off slightly in the last few years doesn't indicate a drop in HUNTERS overall. in fact, revenue from stamp sales has been on a steady increase for decades.

the "problem" i see is the overcrowding of public access areas. good public hunting areas are going away and forcing more people into those areas isn't a solution to anything. you conveniently overlook this problem in your lecture to me about my responsibilities.

not everyone is going to have perfect manners or ethics. in your "perfect scenario" everyone will be a hunting gentleman taught by hunting gentlemen to respect and honor the sport and traditions of those before them. reality is, and you can see this on any given day at Sauvie Island, that there are alot of good people around..and alot of no class hacks. when you put them together in tight conditions it's a poor day for everyone.

if that is your idea of being part of the "solution"..then count me out.

[Capin' Dan]

We look at a lot of reason for the decline of the sport. Here is another side. One it is getting just to expensive hands down Our government has found a gold mine and it is called hunters and fishermen. We will pay just about anything for our addiction. Big game hunting in many states is beginning to be a joke. I spend way too much in my opinion not to hunt. Anywhere from 3 to 8 years to draw that is something I think that needs to be changed. $4.50 for each application. It is getting to be pay to hunt even on OUR public land.

[Swamp Puppy]

that's a very real truth Dan. hunter decline is not for lack of interest. it's for lack of money. hunting is in danger of becoming a rich man's sport. it's isn't in danger of becoming outlawed. think of all the businesses that would be hurt of hunting was made illegal. not happening. BUT..making it an elitist sport, i see that happening.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Swamp Puppy

first off, i don't see a "problem". this whole thing is based on a perceived drop in hunters, which is all hearsay anyway. just because duck stamp nuimbers have dropped off slightly in the last few years doesn't indicate a drop in HUNTERS overall. in fact, revenue from stamp sales has been on a steady increase for decades.

You don't know the facts and are showing your ignorance. The data is real and I've posted it to this board several times already. But you go on believing what you want to and we'll agree to disagree.

the "problem" i see is the overcrowding of public access areas. good public hunting areas are going away and forcing more people into those areas isn't a solution to anything. you conveniently overlook this problem in your lecture to me about my responsibilities.

The point was that since hunter numbers HAVE declined steadily in Oregon for 20 years, yet there is now overcrowding then the areas to hunt must have been reduced. The solution? More hunters = more voters = more voices = more of a possibility that we can stop losing ground and possibly even turn the clock back a little. (And yes, more money for ODFW Capin' Dan - that's a good thing!)

not everyone is going to have perfect manners or ethics. in your "perfect scenario" everyone will be a hunting gentleman taught by hunting gentlemen to respect and honor the sport and traditions of those before them. reality is, and you can see this on any given day at Sauvie Island, that there are alot of good people around..and alot of no class hacks. when you put them together in tight conditions it's a poor day for everyone.

I never said it would be perfect, only better. Obviously you're OK with unethical and illegal behavior and I'm not. 'Nuff said - I agree to disagree again.

if that is your idea of being part of the "solution"..then count me out.

Let me put this tactfully and in a way that can't be construed as a personal attack - OK, consider yourself counted out

"CL"

[Swamp Puppy]

this is duck stamp revenue for the last few decades. if there is a decline..i'm not seeing it. sure, there are dips and valleys..and it shows one at the last few data points up to 2003 where the graph ends. the overall trend in funds is a steep increase. is it not?

if you look at the number of oregon state resident waterfowl validations for 2003, the number is about the same as it was for the early 90's (93-94). since then there was a surge and lull in stamp sales..but no decline. if you want to look at data, look at all the data. not just the last 5 years and proclaim the sky is falling. you will notice these trends of sales increases and decreases all along the entire timeframe.

as for the part about being ok with illegal and unethical activities. not sure where you got that from in my post. it's one of the things i don't like about overcrowding. so i don't know how that got turned around on me.

and thank you for counting me out of your plans to flood our public areas with people just to boost funds and votes. while you are working on this noble cause, i will continue to provide information to new hunters on my own terms and help with youth programs to ensure the future of the sport.

[CombinationLicense]

Swamp Puppy, you are only using Federal Waterfowl Stamp sales revenue as the basis for your argument. Here's a couple of things to think about: 1) the price of waterfowl stamps has surely increased during the time period of 1934 to 2003, right? That will give you an inflated number not indicative of the number of stamps sold but rather of the money generated from the sales. Either way though, you are probably correct in the assertion that waterfowl hunters has steadily increased. 2) What has that got to do with declining hunter numbers in Oregon? You must be aware that Waterfowlers represent only a portion of all the hunters in Oregon right? When you consider Oregon hunting license sales data instead of tag/stamp sales data, it shows that hunting has been on a steady decline since the mid 80's.

As for my statement regarding your position on unethical and illegal behavior, I call 'em like I see 'em. Aren't you the same Swamp Puppy that recently made posts on three threads advocating for illegally filling & sharing tags, IE: Party Hunting? I could be mistaken but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

BTW - you really should read the information available at Familiesafield.com to understand the impact that declining hunter numbers is having on the sport ovrall. Increasing the number of hunters isn't about flooding your favorite spot with newbies, it's about securing the future of our hunting heritage.

"CL"

[Capin' Dan]

More money isn't always a good thing if it is mis-managed. Just throwing money at it isn't the answer.

If two hunters hunt at $10 and then 20 hunters hunt at $5 which is putting more money into the pockets of the powers to be. Talk about ignorance. This is the one thing that gets me about these boards are the holier than thou's. People we can make our sides and back them up with our research and its still one sided. FACT, we as a people do not have the $$ we had a few years or even 5 years ago. The cost of living has gone up much faster than most of our wages. Tags and license's have gone up much more than most of our saleries percentage wise. Yes there may be a decline in hunters but the answer isn't throwing more money at our government thats just stupid. Keep is reasonable.

Another thing just KISS IT.
Keep it Simple (KIS)

I was in Arkansas a couple of years ago. You know their whole fish and game regs was just on about 6 pages if I remember right. to hunt and fish this state there are three books you need to read and even then they do not cover everything you have to go to Oregon law books to get it all. That is one of the things that makes it so difficult to hunt this state. It isn't even just this state its a lot of them these days. Keep is simple and enjoyable and reasonable thats my take on it.

[Swamp Puppy]

here is food for thought...

perhaps the decline of hunting license purchases over the last few decades is due to dwindling public access.

perhaps the decline is NOT due to lack of interest, but lack of willingness to fight hordes of people for a spot...and the lack of satisfaction that results from trying to do so.

consider it a "market adjustment" of sorts..in other words, public access dictates the ammount of hunters willing to hunt.

yes, i am the same swamp puppy who sees no problem with a party filling their tags.

anyway, i am not going to get caught up in another rat holed argument with the ethics committee. i've said my piece.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Capin' Dan

More money isn't always a good thing if it is mis-managed. Just throwing money at it isn't the answer.

If two hunters hunt at $10 and then 20 hunters hunt at $5 which is putting more money into the pockets of the powers to be. Talk about ignorance. This is the one thing that gets me about these boards are the holier than thou's. People we can make our sides and back them up with our research and its still one sided. FACT, we as a people do not have the $$ we had a few years or even 5 years ago. The cost of living has gone up much faster than most of our wages. Tags and license's have gone up much more than most of our saleries percentage wise. Yes there may be a decline in hunters but the answer isn't throwing more money at our government thats just stupid. Keep is reasonable.

Another thing just KISS IT.
Keep it Simple (KIS)

I was in Arkansas a couple of years ago. You know their whole fish and game regs was just on about 6 pages if I remember right. to hunt and fish this state there are three books you need to read and even then they do not cover everything you have to go to Oregon law books to get it all. That is one of the things that makes it so difficult to hunt this state. It isn't even just this state its a lot of them these days. Keep is simple and enjoyable and reasonable thats my take on it.

Whoa there Capin' Dan, if advocating for more hunters, legal hunting practices, better wildlife management, more habitat for our game animals and putting poachers in jail is considered "holier than thou" on this board then we have a problem!

I will agree on your points regarding the cost of living and the fact that the regs are complicated, but as for fees associated with hunting you are making my argument for me. You can thank the declining number of hunters in the state for your license/tag fee increases. I do not work for ODFW but they are the ONLY state agency looking out for sportsmen. The cost of doing business has gone up for them just as it has for every other state agency and regular folks too. All the while, hunter numbers have been dropping which translates into less revenue. Simple economics - more overhead + less sales = higher product cost to stay in business or reduced services or in our case both! Want to fix it? Just add more hunters :smile:

As far as exactly how the money ODFW has gets managed, I choose to participate and voice my concerns directly to them. Most of the time, I get back a response that not only answers my question, but educates me too. There's a lot more to wildlife management than I realized when I just used to sit back and throw darts.

The regs are another story, you can thank our liberal court system for that. The complicated nature of the regs was clearly identified as a barrier to hunting by an ODFW work group that I participated in a couple of years ago. However, both ODFW and OSP testified that the regs must clearly reflect both the ORS and the OAR's that define what the rules are. Otherwise, nothing can pass muster in our court system and the poachers go free.

Now. back to the declining hunter numbers - the ODFW report that discusses the trend from 1975 to 2003 and the projections for future hunter numbers can be found here. I would post it but it's 31 pages long.

"CL"

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Swamp Puppy

here is food for thought...

perhaps the decline of hunting license purchases over the last few decades is due to dwindling public access.

perhaps the decline is NOT due to lack of interest, but lack of willingness to fight hordes of people for a spot...and the lack of satisfaction that results from trying to do so.

consider it a "market adjustment" of sorts..in other words, public access dictates the ammount of hunters willing to hunt.

I agree, that certainly is one of the main factors contributing to the decline. I'm just saying that with more hunters working together, we stand a better chance of fighting back. There are lot's of reasons why the access and habitat is dwindling but that's another topic...

yes, i am the same swamp puppy who sees no problem with a party filling their tags.

Thought so

anyway, i am not going to get caught up in another rat holed argument with the ethics committee. i've said my piece.

Me too

"CL"

[Capin' Dan]

This whole post just gets me to thinking of something I saw in the paper a few months ago about a 10 million dollar upgade to a forensic's lab somewhere down south for wildlife violations. This is just one form of people mismanaging my tax dollars and yes this is another form of tax. They get enough I saw don't give them one dime more until they take them sleves as lean as they can and still do an adequate job. point and case three years ago I was out at champouge (sp) Park. there was a water leak I saw one guy working and five standing around watching him work. Our lottery/taxes at work. They need to get a lot leaner in my humble opinion. We need to start policing our own ranks and in many ways we do in MY opinion.

Just throwing money at them not the answer in MY opinion so for those of you who want to go ahead and do it. I choose other ways to spend my money in other organization that will hopefully put more birds in the air.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Capin' Dan

This whole post just gets me to thinking of something I saw in the paper a few months ago about a 10 million dollar upgade to a forensic's lab somewhere down south for wildlife violations. This is just one form of people mismanaging my tax dollars and yes this is another form of tax. They get enough I saw don't give them one dime more until they take them sleves as lean as they can and still do an adequate job. point and case three years ago I was out at champouge (sp) Park. there was a water leak I saw one guy working and five standing around watching him work. Our lottery/taxes at work. They need to get a lot leaner in my humble opinion. We need to start policing our own ranks and in many ways we do in MY opinion.

Just throwing money at them not the answer in MY opinion so for those of you who want to go ahead and do it. I choose other ways to spend my money in other organization that will hopefully put more birds in the air.

Well, we might not agree exactly on what constitutes government waste but I'll bet we share a common disdain for the waste of our tax dollars in general. I've lived in Multnomah county my whole life and have watched it's steady decline into the cesspool it currently is. I tend to defend ODFW's spending because it benefits both wildlife and sportsmen. I am still pretty critical of them until my questions get answered, but they usually have a pretty good answer - not always though.



"CL"

[HuntNFishAddict]

Daryn,
Don't even think of taking your good friends to my diver spot. I will pull the plug on yer boat to watch you swim. Oh I forgot, my diver spot is everyone elses diver spot.
JB

[MarshBum]

Originally Posted by HuntNFishAddict

Daryn,
Don't even think of taking your good friends to my diver spot. I will pull the plug on yer boat to watch you swim. Oh I forgot, my diver spot is everyone elses diver spot.
JB

There's only one diver spot?



Geoff

[DTSportsman]

Originally Posted by HuntNFishAddict

Daryn,
Don't even think of taking your good friends to my diver spot. I will pull the plug on yer boat to watch you swim. Oh I forgot, my diver spot is everyone elses diver spot.
JB

Well if I take my good friends there you'll be with me. Your secret is my secret and about 5000 others.
I guess your not a true member around here unless you get into a little contoversy and convey a message in the wrong way.

Daryn

[BlacktailBowhunter]

Originally Posted by MarshBum

Ok, so here's a good example of what I've been sort struggling to understand now for a few years...

Two posts on here that seem to conflict, to me anyway (I'm not picking on the individuals that posted or have expressed opinions. This is something that I've been thinking about for a few years now only this last week or so has there been an example of it)

Post: Just Say NO!!!!
Gist: Having a hunting show highlight good hunting areas will spoil the hunting.

Post: This is a call. (Duckers Unite)
Gist: We need to get more people into hunting because our numbers are falling off.

Those are my impressions of the two threads anyway... hopefully I'm close.

Anyway, to me, those two threads are at odds with each other.

On the one hand, no one wants to give up their secret spots... and even more, no one wants to deal with crowds. The more hunters, usually, the worse the hunting (depending on various factors of course).

However, I think everyone would agree that we need more hunters, and we need to try to introduce new people to the sport for our own sake... for the sake of the sport.

So, how then can we, I, you, whoever, say in one breath, "Yes, I will take out new people for sure this season and try to get them hooked on duck hunting" and with the next breath say, "I don't want anyone talking about the areas I hunt because it will be broadcast all over the country and then people will be set up in my spots and it will be crowded and it will ruin the good hunting"?

And I think it's a little disingenuous to say the two are not related because broadcasting my spots all over the country is only going to get experienced hunters to come out here and ruin the hunting vs. bringing a new person into the sport. Where then is this new person supposed to hunt? In areas you've don't hunt in?

And while I'm on the "hood of the truck" I'm going to add... for the love of all that's holy, why do people think that talking about or passing along info about Sauvie Island is such a friggin crime? It's THE BEST place for people that have never hunted to get a taste. If you think that you have a secret spot on the island (east side/west side), you're naive. It's public hunting, play the game, or go somewhere else.

How can I get new people into the sport if it's generally unacceptable to talk specifics about the sport. Am I supposed to get a guy all geared up, ready to go and excited, and then say either "you can come with me, but you'd better never be setup here" or "ok now, go forth and seek your duck somewhere out there-ish, see ya"?

Bleh... I must be cranky today.

We all act sometimes like no one ever taught us anything.

Geoff

This is what I have done over this last year. I took my step son hunting and he bagged his first animal, a turkey in the 2006 late season, then a squirell in March, and in April he took 3 turkeys. I didn't stop there though. I went out in search of land for a my self, and a friend of mine and his two boys. I secured some private land for the 5 of us, and we all bagged birds

Wait, I'm not done yet. I took my nephew out and he bagged a bearded hen in the middle of May when the rest of our tags were filled.

A friend of my told me last January or so that he would like to start archery hunting and we talked about it a bit and he went out and bought a Bowtech bow, a ground blind, turkey decoys, turkey calls, camo, and is currently working on binoculars and other necessary tools of the trade, so I took him turkey hunting as well, but he did not fill his tag, but saw turkeys and had a great experience, and can't wait to go again.

All in all, I secured private land for 7 hunters this turkey season, and only two were related to me. I could have had it to my self, my step son, and my nephew, but I realize the benefit of new hunters starting the sport and the necessity for young people to be successful and that is why I invited my friend and his two boys, my friend James, my nephew, and my step son.

In addition, my friend that is going to archery hunt this year won't get my deer honey holes, but I will be showing him some areas in the S. Santiam, Wilson and the Desolation units, so he can start doing his own homework, and hunt with me for the next few seasons as well. Taking a new person hunting is almost as rewarding when they harvest as when I harvest my own. Especially, the youngsters.

When it comes to big game, I don't understand the whole loss of public land thing. I find several new areas every single year, and get permission to hunt private land by doing it the old fashion way, I ask. It appears to me that a lot of hunters years ago got spoiled. They would drive to Eastern,OR, go to a farmers ranch, drive around, find a buck, jump out of the rig, shoot it and that was their deer hunt.

I didn't start until it was very difficult to find private land in Eastern, OR to hunt, so I have been hunting primarily public my entire hunting career, which is about 17 years now. I do get permission to hunt private, but out of my last 14 deer harvests only 4 have been on private land, and the other 10 were either on BLM, National Forest, or private timber that is open to the public.

CL is on point with every thing he has said. That guy does his home work and knows every little thing about hunters decline. He has facts that are true and accurate, because I have researched the same statistical information that is put out by NWTF. HB 892 was a direct result of the Families Afield Study and statistical information that it provided.

Bottom line is, we have to make sacrifices, and some times that means letting some one else take the shot. I want to hunt when I retire, but with the political climate what it is here on the Left Coast, I don't know whether I will be hunting or not. I often think I need to buy some property back in Tennessee or Kentucky now before it is too late.

Read my signature, it has been that way since day one. I don't just preach it, I practice it.

[baltz526]

point and case three years ago I was out at champouge (sp) Park. there was a water leak I saw one guy working and five standing around watching him work. Our lottery/taxes at work.

yes these workers could have been wasting your tax dollars, or it could have been a training mission. and now there are 5 more workers who know how to fix a water leak on public property. a large part of the problem is public perception. the guy leaning on the shovel could be the superviser or a guy on limited duty, due to injury. or just an over paid slacker. perception is a large part of the problem. you do not know what is going on, unless you are involved in the act.

[Capin' Dan]

I was involved

[baltz526]

then quit leaning on that shovel and get to work:grin:

[MarshBum]

On the issue of declining stamp sales... a more telling graph to show would be actual stamp sales, not revenue. Let's look at a few...

For Oregon



For Washington



For California



Which of these three show an increase in stamp sales? None.

I looked at a lot of states, and found that in South Carolina and North Carolina, sales remain high.

Couple the decreasing number of stamps sold, as shown by the graphs above from this federal website with the increase in population for all three states and you have a sharply downward trend of the percentage of the public that hunt.

Revenue is squishy at best, and not a good indicator of hunter numbers.

I appreciate the post by Trapper John and identify with much of what he said (not the parts about being older and not hunting though ).

I'm deeply concerned about my passion in life, and how long I will be afforded the opportunity by the non-hunting majority. This thread has only served to deepen this concern.

Geoff

[Capin' Dan]

Now someone take a recession map out of how the economy was doing during that time frame and match them up. I'll bet you will see a trend. Also were we are war during those times. Young soldiers over sea's aren't buying tags to hunt the great Iraqi quackers.

[baltz526]

huh?