You think our children will be the last generation to hunt?

as wide-spread as we know it and legally...Most probable!

Great topic btw.

Hunting is more popular than it is unpopular.

We just hear from the very vocal left-wing idiots. They scream, cry, threaten and harass louder than we do.

Think about it... how many MULTI-MILLIONS of hunters (aka "voters") are in the USA?

I doubt that any savvy politician wants to P.O. that many potential votes.

That said... I believe hunting will go on for a very long time if you add the FACT that those "purdy" deer all the non-hunters seem to love to see are potentially "varmints" to those home-owners who's expensive landscaping is destroyed by these night-raiding "thieves" (aka "deer") who over-populate the ability of suburban food lots to product sufficient Winter and early Spring food... and then, the deer will eat almost ANYTHING to keep from starving-to-death in the Winter and early Spring.

Without hunters, this scenario would be "THE" scenario in most semi-suburban and suburban areas in the USA.

While firearms usually can't be used in these areas, bows and cross-bows CAN legally be use and are very effective on deer sized game.

Even anti-hunters finally get frustrated and tired of "Bambi & friends" eating up their expensive landscaping and begin thinking "murderous" thoughts.

I believe the price of good hunting will go way up... Public lands will get real crowded and the quality of game to the"average" sportsman will go down but hunting will continue. They still hunt in England and France , it just looks a lot different then we are used to.

I know the generation in which my children (ages 20 and 25) belong is trying to reclaim the things that matter. Family traditions and values seem to be very important to them. Hunting, shooting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor sports and pastimes are the things they enjoy the most. They also seem to be of a very conservative/libertarian bent and are quite politically active. If they continue to pass those ideas along, I think hunting will continue indefinitely.

Besides, if society continues down the path that it is on, hunting will be only way to stay alive.

You need to step back from the Internet and news media for a while,

You'll find your center again.

Gloom and Doom, Gloom and Doom.

I've been at the Range last 3 weekends, all ranges and sporting clays are busy as hell.

Aren't that many queers, but they sure got their agenda addressed.

The damn crossbows are going to put an end to the last good public land deer hunting here, outside of the limited draw managed hunts.

No.

I have three grandchildren, all boys, and only one has expressed an interest in hunting. Of course the Mom's have a lot to do with their way of thinking. Like stepping on eggshells!

Yeah but they're all shooting at people targets and black clays!!

Barkoff, as far as you and I go (being Californians)....we're f_u_c_k_e_d.

Why is that?

Hunting will be for the super rich...or the super poor. The middle class will be excluded. Access will be the deciding factor.

Some of us are genetically programmed and will hunt if we want. If the rules make it prohibitive that may make the process more challenging and interesting.

A hunter will hunt, how where and what he hunts may change.


mike r

Hunting is actually becoming hipster.

Explain?

DIvision is usually what puts the end to most things... so the foes can divide and conquer

I have said for awhile,in the blue areas of our country the Dems are going to make it an expensive hobby.They will never fully take away anything,but it will become a rich mans game.
Just look at what Cuomo has done with the SAFE-ACT.

ranges are busy here because there is no other place to shoot. they shoot for a fee. get it?

i couldn't let this thread get by without throwing a wet, green log on the fire to help create a little smoke.

costs for the average working man is becoming impactive. loss of habitat, that is, of huntable land has been an issue and will continue to be one. just what percentage of the population should be allowed to hunt productively?

on the other hand, let Lyme disease or similar rear it's dirty little head in the suburbs, and see what the soccer mom's have to say if their little Suzy is at risk of disease from a deer carrier.

hunting has to be perceived as benefiting the public, otherwise it's dead in the water, but still afloat.

Most of the public parcels I've been to are probably in the vicinity of 2-3k acres, some little pockets are much smaller. There's bigger tracts down south in rock country, but that's not where most people think of for big bucks. You can hunt a lot of these spots the week before rifle with a bow (golden time to hunt) and there's not too much interference/conflict due to number of hunters relative to property size. Go back opening weekend of rifle season, it's a warzone. MO offers unlimited OTC buck tags, at a relatively bargain rate compared to some of its Midwest neighbors. Dumbing archery season down and making it easier to sell more tags to those that currently sit it out (the handicapped can already get a medical exemption to use a crossgun) isn't what I see as a positive for hunting on public land.

It won't end soon here, as a whole, unless the US really goes down the tubes.

Now certain areas and states are acting stupid, banning lead bullets and the like so in certain areas I could see it being curtailed.

As to pricing, the market self adjusts.... see the rates in Mexico for a deer lease, and or when the US inflation goes up or down our rates reflect it here.

Being that there will be fewer and fewer folks with lots of money, because of what Obama and crew are doing, adn trying to do, IMHO costs may stay the same or go down, folks that own land will need money, folks won't have as much to spend, and so the pricing might actually go the other way....

there has to be "value" on one kind or another in hunting. for me, meat hunting made perfectly good sense under existing conditions.

for a lot of folks from suburbia, etc, is that only big horns count and everyone else is a version or clone of white treash. of course, hunting didn't get it's deep roots with that phiosophy.

as kroger, et. al, offered more afforadable meat, then hunters didn't have to be so successful. add-in the industry as it has developed, and now matured. it's an interesting paradox.

loss of habitat due to urbanization (read human population growth) is the biggest threat. regulations can be adapted to. it's difficult to create an additional acre of land to hunt on.

Hunting is becoming more excepted every year. Many suburb people have learned that deer are beautiful but have no place in an upscale subdivision. Venison is being viewed as organic and free range . Young girls are getting into hunting more every year. It is very hard for A holes like George stephenopolis and Katie Kurig to demonize a sport that young single women and young girls are enjoying. Honestly, they might save the sport to some degree. They know how to go out and have fun without going into depression if they dont get a big buck.

Constructional Right to Hunt,,

Here and 18 other states.

As of 2015, eighteen states have constitutional amendments providing for the right to hunt and fish. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. The other sixteen states have all adopted right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. The following is a list of states with constitutional amendments establishing the right to hunt and fish:[4]

1777: Vermont
1996: Alabama
1998: Minnesota
2000: North Dakota
2000: Virginia
2003: Wisconsin
2004: Louisiana
2004: Montana
2006: Georgia
2008: Oklahoma
2010: Arkansas
2010: South Carolina
2010: Tennessee
2012: Idaho
2012: Kentucky
2012: Nebraska
2012: Wyoming
2014: Mississippi

http://ballotpedia.org/Idaho_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_HJR_2_(2012)

This is how it will go down, at some point. Just like in Europe today.

For a lot of folks from suburbia, they'd rather lose the deer than their azaleas.

15 years ago I told many of my friends Gay Marriage would be legal in all 50 states.

My friends said I was a Gloom and Doomer!

I said, to the contrary, I am a realist!




Shod

Do the math. We're vastly outnumbered.

Only about 45 million Americans have hunted or are known to actively support hunting. (Fewer than 20 million buy hunting licenses, though.)

The last census indicates the U.S. has a population of nearly 319 million.

Bill Quimby

Maybe our kids won't see the demise of hunting, but I do think in 75 years or so it will be vastly different than it is today. I think on the flip side, shooting will remain strong. I know plenty of people that shoot a lot, but never hunt and have no interest in it.

Some states like CA might just outlaw virtually all forms of hunting, but the real killer will be lack of interest. Hunting will be something that was done "back in the day" but has no real purpose in the future more urban world other than a novelty.

I look at my own kids and their friends as a barometer, and hunting just isn't as popular with the young now as compared to when I was a kid, simply due to time, access, and so many other things for kids to do now.

And fewer hunt every year.

Like just about everything in life, follow the money trail. Who pays for conservation? That would be those who hunt.

This is exactly what has already happened in my area. I didn't hunt last year and won't this year. Dunno if I ever will. Due in part to an increase in auto/deer collisions and the subsequent lobbying by the insurance companies, Georgia first raised the bag limit to what it is now and then made baiting legal. There are more hunters and less deer. Land to lease has become PRICEY. Rich man's game.

We've always been outnumbered if you look at the percentage of the population that hunts. But we're still roughly equal to the percentage that's actively anti-hunting.

Which leaves all the people in the middle who neither hunt nor are actively anti-hunting. Those are the ones we need to concern ourselves with because they are the majority of the voters.

What RL said is true; hunting is now hip. Every year I see more and more gauged earlobes in our hunter Ed. classes. Some may see that as a negative, but it's a good thing.

in the long run (in which we're all dead), hunting has been able to offer a positive social assist. that is, the social contract has held firm.

short of hungry people chasing rabbits & squirrels down the street throwing rocks at them in order to procure supper, hunting must remain as a positive social assist if it's to remain legal.

the anti-hunters are coming out of the woodwork. not to worry, so long as they perceive that we're providing a valuable social service.

otherwise, we remain dead in the water, but still afloat.

Barkoff;
Good afternoon to you sir, I trust this finds you well and keeping cool enough.

The short answer is no I don't believe our children will be the last generation to hunt.

The reasons why I believe that are legion - here's a few.

I've been teaching the provincial Hunter Safety course here in BC since '89 and have seen the numbers of students either holding its own or increasing slightly.

In that time period we've gone from 1 or 2 females in class to between 35% - 45% of the class.

While in the late '80's it was unusual to see females hunting on their own locally, now it's commonplace to the point that it goes unnoticed.

Some may think that those last two points are insignificant, but I beg to differ as that represents 50% of the overall population and females are most often the head of single parent households - so if they are accepting of a hunting lifestyle the odds are exponentially higher that the children will be also.

As Rancho Loco noted, it's becoming quite acceptable in many urban and hip circles to hunt. A young couple taking the course years ago was the first time I'd heard of the term "locavore".

They were so excited to be mentored by "old guys" who'd been "doing it that way their entire lives".

We recently went round and round provincially with wildlife allocations between resident and non-resident hunters and surprisingly all the provincial political parties came out strongly in support of hunting.

Personally I was most surprised at the support we received from the Green Party - who were fine with hunting as long as we were eating what we shot.

Anyway sir, as you can likely tell I could go on for some time on the subject, but I'd suggest that if anyone is too pessimistic on the subject they should get involved with their state's Hunter Safety course or a hunter mentoring program.

Thanks for reading and letting me air my thoughts on the matter folks. All the best to you for the remainder of the summer Barkoff and good luck on your hunts this fall.

Dwayne

Anti-hunters don't perceive that we're providing a valuable social service, and they never will. They'd like to end hunting, period.

Non-hunters are the group you're really talking about.

ok. so what are we trying to sell and how does that help the average Joe walking down the street?

folks want to know how they're benefiting or being hurt from any said action.

holding down vehicle collisions offers value to the non-hunting public. how about other value-added actions that hunters offer?

in other words, in the post-capitalist, post-modern world, what good is a hunter to the average tax-payer, citizen, or voter?

It's not only what we are trying to sell, but who we are trying to sell it to. Trying to sell it to anti-hunters is a non-starter, that's my point. We need to sell it to the people in the middle, who neither hunt nor are actively against hunting. They are the majority, and their opinions can be swayed unlike anti-hunters.

And I don't think we need to "sell" them on the benefits of hunting to them as much as we need to convince them that it's an honorable and ethical thing to do.

Hunters do the rest of the citizens a service by controlling populations and pay for it thru license sales and Pittman-Robertson tax $$ on purchases of guns, ammo,etc. The political class will never give that up. But I do agree that finding hunting land will be more difficult and expensive.

I attended the Hunters Round Table meeting last wek at Coloraod CPW. Thier statistics showed that the number of hunters continue to decline each year. Even though they spend a lot of money on advertisements and are trying to draw new hunters,young and old into the scene,it isn't working.

I wouldn't say the end is in sight,but certainly it is going to price a lot of people out of the sport.

As an example already,look at how much it cost to do water fowl hunting before you enne bust a cap.Federal duck stamp,state stamp, small game licenes, non toxic shot at $25-$30 a box.

Also look at all the young folks glued to their computers. They don't even have a desire to get outdoors,let alone hunt.

In the last 20 years change has been at a record breaking pace. I talk to a lot of different folks and what I seem to see is a very large number of disillusioned people.

Let me give one example of disillusion. For many years in the 100s I've visited with on the Gay Marriage issue 99 of a 100 were in complete disagreement with my assessment that it would be legal in all 50 states.

My General Phycological analysis of this is simply that folks refuse to believe what they do not want! Sometimes it is referred to as being positive! Being unrealistic is actually not a positive thing because it leads to disillusion.

Unfortunately some may be thinking what can one do if hunting is coming to an end. The Short answer is there isn't a thing anyone can do because unfortunately there is no way to get 99 out of a 100 people to see when they'll never see.

Animals will still be managed for food possible or believe it or not there may be mass disposal or waisted and it will no doubt be at the hand of our ever so brilliant Government.

Now this is where you want to pay very close attention because a large number will likely disagree. Im refering to the blind ones. Soon the United Nations will be the World Authority!

Change is coming.......hunting will be a thing of the past. Our children are the last of the hunters.

I don't like where we are headed but when your 1 in a 100 who see you stand mostly alone. And then in 15 short years you listen to folks talk about how surprised they are.

For Now!!!! Live, Hunt, Fish, and enjoy it while it lasts.







Shod

Might make sense if you knew the difference between physiological and psychological.

Shodd, I disagree because 1) you can do something, and 2) I see the same thing Dwayne sees in the Hunter's Ed. classes, we have more people and different demographics.

It has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact, lots of the same people who support gay marriage now support hunting.

2 whom disagree, only 97 more to go!






Shod

Thanks for the spell check.....how much do I owe you?


Shod

I'd suggest attempting to disarm hunters first, before trying to stop hunting.... or it won't be pretty I suspect.

Jeff;
Good afternoon/evening to you sir, it's been too long since I've said hello to you and I trust you folks are doing well.

In an article I read many years back in some currently forgotten publication, Valerius Geist made the observation that hunting has actually been one of the reasons accepted across the globe for retention of firearms by folks other than LE and Military.

Now I'm cognizant you good folks have the 2nd Amendment, but in places like deepest, darkest communist Russia the people who were allowed to retain firearms - albeit under very restrictive rules - were those who hunted.

I'm not meaning to start any sort of bladder pressure contest here with anyone either Jeff, merely relaying what I recall of an article I read at one time.

All the best to you folks this summer sir and good luck on your hunts this fall as well.

Dwayne