In a previous thread MuleDeer mentioned how the average age of hunters is growing older. If so what do you think hunting will look like in the next 50 years or so?

Will we look more like the European model of today? Will Kids ever again grab a rifle/shotgun and just be able to go and hunt?

What will future adults preceptions of hunting look like?

For any in the know, is there a present day think tank that is giving consideration to where we will be?

Who cares ,most of us will not be here.

I do.

And while I will be dead, my DNA will still be alive, and hopefully will have the opportunity to experience some of the same things that I found enjoyable. Perhaps that same DNA will resurface again. Much the same as occurs in Birddogs.

Battue, I am not a pessimist in the long run being a practicing Christian, but I would venture there will be no or little hunting in fifty years and that guns of all types will probably be banned, or nearly so; except for the elites maybe. Maybe it'll be here in twenty-five years; maybe a hundred and fifty but that's the direction I see we are moving in.

I see us progressing down this continuum a degree or two at a time. The Bible references (according to many evangelical theologians) an end-time, totalitarian, world-wide regime where personal freedoms will be completely lost outside of one politically correct one. See any hints or foreshadowing of that now?

I bet you weren't expecting this..

I never thought I'd see a reciprocal carry law here in Iowa, as they were all "shall issue", which meant go pound sand.

All across the country there are more states that have protected carry laws, way more than just 25 years ago, and except in a few liberal criminal cesspools, folks don't trust politicians.

Hunting though, is going the route of Texas or Africa, meaning it will be strictly a business participation.

Hunting has changed so much over my life that I can hardly believe it as it is, much less fifty more years down the road.

I grew up in houses with loaded guns on the back porch. When I wanted to go do some range work or go hunting, I would strap a gun on my bike and go. A 12 year old wouldn't make it a mile down the road today before he went for a ride in a police car if he had a gun strapped to a bike.

I killed four deer last month in my neighborhood instead of at deer camp because there were so many they were eating everything. If a person wanted to go inside 30 miles of St Paul/Minneapolis you can get unlimited antlerless permits because there's way too many deer.

Gun production is now at least 2/3s being other than hunting guns (shotguns/rifles).

I'd say there's a decent chance that as many deer will be taken with suppressed .223s by licensed population control employees shooting over bait as there will be by "hunters". If you add the vehicle kills likely more.

Today in Minnesota, we run something like 20-30 percent success rate deer hunting. With the huge numbers of deer we have now, that doesn't speak well of the skill of hunters. That isn't going to translate well to the next couple of generations acquiring the skills. Less mentors, less highly skilled hunters, is going to equal less success, not more. Not many people keep doing something that's hard and expensive that they aren't successful at. That means less hunters still.

I think the hunting will always be around...it's a big country with a long tradition in hunting.

But I see less, not more, youth participation (million reasons why);fewer opportunities for tags;more limited access;greater expense at all levels from license fees to lease costs,outfitter fees etc.

Large blocks of western/mid western land are being bought up and closed off by wealthy interests;even happening in some New England strongholds as well....on some places you will continue to hunt but it costs a bundle. I have never seen good hunting get any cheaper.

Hopefully we will still be able to access public lands but likely under increased regulations,limited draws etc.as those same lands fall into more "multi-use" categories, or hunting gets banned altogether.

Cost is a huge barrier for many if they live any distance from the prime stuff. I see landowner contacts and connections becoming increasingly important in the future. For many it will be a "who you know " proposition.

I have seen all of these things and more serve as barriers in the 40+ years I have been hunting; I don't anticipate any improvement.Still, for those determined, where there's a will, there will be a way. For some, the logistics will be too daunting...they will drop out of the picture.

I had a good, but long and depressing, post that i erased. The last three guys stated it for me.

No, that is a very plausible chain or series of events. I believe, however sometimes I don't agree with the conclusions of theologians nor do I have the personal capacity to interpret the conclusive meaning of the word. But no doubt your thoughts have merit.

I encountered a rather interesting statistic after hunting in Europe a few times in the 1990's. Hunting is alive and well over there, for the most part, but as you can imagine its more highly regulated than in the U.S., both in terms of who can hunt, where they can hunt, and what they can hunt.

I discovered that both Germany and Norway had similar areas to the state of Montana, where I live, but very different populations. Montana hadn't even reached 1 million back then (now it's a little over), Norway was about 5 million, and Germany 80 million. As far as I could determine, however, there were the same approximate number of hunters in each country as in Montana.

The percentage was obviously different. In Germany far less than 1% of people hunted, while in Montana the percentage is very high, about half of adult males and over 10% of females. But the total number was about the same, as it was in Norway.

This may indicate that hunting is a very area-dependent activity. On one level this is obvious, because if there's no place to hunt then people won't hunt. But apparently it may work the other way as well: Hunters only tolerate a certain number of other hunters, partly because if country gets too crowded there's not as much room for the game itself.

Much of Germany reminded me very much of certain parts of the eastern U.S. The hunting was intensely managed, with a lot of high-stand (hochsitz) sitting, often over relatively small openings. In fact, almost every small opening visible from the highways had a hochsitz on the side. Kind of reminded me of once driving through Pennsylvania during deer season and seeing a guy in climbing stand INSIDE a turnpike cloverleaf, where there were a few trees.

There are some places in Germany that are far more wild, and Norway is even more so, but again the number of hunters in Norway is very similar to the number in Germany and Montana.

Hunting land in Germany is obviously in very high demand, and despite the socialistic aspects of much of German government, it's also a very capitalistic nation. As a result, prices for hunting land and leases are very high, the reason most German hunters have much higher than average incomes. This also results in the average German factory-made rifle being higher-priced than ours, but they're also more accurate. Despite the generally good accuracy of many American factory rifles today, the average German factory rifle shoots more like a good American custom rifle--and is priced more like it.

Norway is somewhere between Montana and Germany. There's still some public hunting land, or even private land open to hunters for little or no fee. Hunting rifles aren't as expensive as in Germany, in fact I saw plenty of a cheaper version of Remington 700's in the sporting goods stores I visited. (I hunted with a bunch of different Norwegians, and some even carried slightly altered military rifles, though the .308 Winchester was far more prevalent than the 6.5x55!)
There was also more of a meat-hunting attitude, which is still more common in Montana than avid trophy hunting, despite what you might read on the Campfire (which is a somewhat skewed representation of hunters in general).

Our right to keep and bear arms is actually being reaffirmed in many ways at this moment, despite inroads in some states (which may be struck down with the help of the NRA and other organizations). But inevitably we're losing hunting land, the reason prices are going up for both hunting land and hunting leases. That can't be helped, as long as the U.S. population keeps rising. But I suspect the overall numbers of hunters here are actually stable or rising, despite the percentage of the population which hunts dropping.

One of my hunting mentors grew up in New York City, and when in high school hitch-hiked to the Catskills to hunt deer with his Savage 99 slung over his shoulder. That was only a little over 50 years ago, and would be impossible today. Even back then he couldn't stand the hassle, so moved to Montana, because of the greater hunting freedom it offered. A lot of other people did too, or to Idaho or Colorado, and nowadays a lot of the private land we used to hunt when I was in high school is now leased, either to hunters or outfitters. But a third of the state is still public, and unless somebody figures out how to change that, either by switching ownership or banning hunting, we'll be able to hunt it. But even here hunting is becoming harder and more expensive, though it's nothing compared to Germany or Pennsylvania.

Yes, hunting is going to become more expensive and involved in the future, but as long as we retain the right to bear arms, and some land is available somewhere, we'll still have hunting. It won't be the same as it was now, but then nothing ever is.

Thanks and my inclinations for the most part follow yours.

BTW, the hunter inside the cloverleaf was illegal unless it was a huge cloverleaf. However, the ones that are thick have been known to hold some nice Bucks.

It was pretty big! I wouldn't have even noticed him except for his orange jumpsuit.

Pa has millions of acres of public Deer hunting land that goes unused and we are losing population. German hunters would love to have what the average Pa hunter has at his fingertips.

Make tha a couple million.

Things about the future that seem to bother my mind are the Pakistani's having over 100 "devices" and the ability to make more; and the inability to suppress an open outright shooting civil war within their nation. I think eventually it is only a matter of time that one or several of our cities burns under a mushroom cloud; and in the not too distant future.

During WW2 I read you could not beg borrow or steal hunting ammunition; not even 22LR. It was all swallowed up for the war effort.

Then last year the last lead smelter in the US was shut down?

I worry about the ammunition supply pipe-line.

Again I agree unfortunately.

It is easier to NOT hunt than hunt. Reasons are numerous...some are stated herein. I see the future bleak as I don't see the fire in the belly of many hunters and after teaching 14 years of hunter education I don't see it in a lot of the youth.

Perhaps there is some value in the hunting/Alaska type reality shows. In that at work I have college kids asking if I would take them deer hunting. Didn't happen before the advent of of this type of programming.

The DNA may need exposure to surface.

My gun club no longer hosts hunter education classes. It was becoming more apparent each year that the kids were being pushed into it by parents that only wanted additional antlerless tags.

When Michigan began lowering the age requirement for hunting and adding ways for the kids to hunt with mentors prior to having the hunter's safety classes, we viewed it as a good thing. When I started having to sit on the ground to look the kids in the eye when talking to them, I began to see that certain issues were developing. Each year we saw more young females that obviously had no interest. These idiot parents don't realize that with a little cultivation they can have the best hunting partner possible, but they were only interested in short term benefits.

Yet I see an obvious trend of women in their 30's and up taking serious interest in shooting sporting clays. Non-hunters, but with exposure the majority come to accept it.

I saw a statistic for Virginia hunting licenses. In the 1970's Virginia sold approximately 500,000 licenses annually. Guess how many they sold in 2012? Only 220,000. Less people hunting and fewer places to go.

In my opinion, if we want to save hunting for the future, forget about the kids and youth days and all that nonsense. Get women involved, the ones who are old enough to vote. Women go to the polls and hold alot of influence. If a woman is involved the husband and the kids will be involved. Just my 2 cents.

You're right, and even taking an adult guy who'd never been hunting before will kept more than taking a kid who has no way to go hunting without an adult.

In the late 80's a friend of mine had long expressed interest in hunting but never did anything about it. After talking to me, his wife bought a well-used 1917 Enfield sporter for him at a gun show, and I fixed it up (after a local store made a mess out of mounting a scope) and got him shooting. Then I took him hunting, and he got his first deer that fall, at 40. Today he and his college-age daughter are best hunting buddies, and I am betting her kids will hunt.

Taking an interested adult hunting can be far more productive than taking a kid.

I am by no means dogmatic about it as I am perhaps much like you.

John -

Those are very interesting observations and experiences but, to my point, you show how it is ever more problematic to obtain access to land and freedom to own and use firearms. Politically, there may be concessions won but then two lost. And part of that problem is a growing body politic with no experience with or tradition of firearms and hunting.

True, it will be a slow process but the trend, the direction overall, is not a positive one IMO.

I would love to be completely on error on this.

Good point, John. Adult men who never had someone to take them would be good to have on our side too.

Our state started a youth mentor program several years ago. While I feel it is being abused for extra tags, it is a good thing. This year they started an adult program to encourage older folks to start. In my area deer numbers are not helping, we are losing older hunters to discouragement, but hopefully this will turn around.

I sure as h@ll care. My grandson will be here, and he loves being in the field or on the water. That's Who Cares!

Land owners used to be a lot more open to giving permission to hunters to hunt their land. Now, if somebody owns land, expect a lease with a premium pricetag.

I rather hope I'm wrong, but I think 'hunting' is going to take on a new meaning to most, likely inside of 50 years. The pessimist in me does not see a harmonious solution to the issues that divide our country.

So, hunting? Yep. What kind? Who knows?

Let's not forget the drive by states to make hunting as expensive as possible. (Not on purpose I'm sure. Well, OK, I'm not)

Kentucky 2000 - $140 for an out of state license + deer (pulling that from memory)
Kentucky 2013 - $190 for an out of state license + deer
Kentucky 2014 - $240 for an out of state license + deer

At the same time we're down to one buck and no doe for zone 4 and a 10 day modern rifle season. That's a whole lot of money for me to hunt a farm I pay taxes and insurance on. In fact, if I lived on the homestead I would't even need a license.

While fortunate for me that the money is not an issue, but getting a violation would be a big deal so I buy a license. The five family members who I hunt with from out of state are not so fortunate so they hunt sans license. It's a risk for them and they didn't use to but now they do. The result is we lost five hunters (statistically) and the deer they kill do not get reported. The state got an additional $50 from me and at the same time gave up $950 from those that don't buy a license.

I understand the good the money does and have had hunting and or fishing licenses in the last year in MD, VA, WV, PA, RI, MT and Newfoundland but fiscal realities for families are fiscal realities. I wonder how many family places are in the same boat? It's worse when a father has to consider how much he's going to spend for a son or daughter that may not even be that interested.

I did find this study License cost vs participation which has some interesting, albeit dated, info.

In this area a lot of land has become non accessible because of slob hunters and landowners won't lease because of that experience. This forms pockets of sanctuary habitat and makes it difficult to manage the regional deer herd.

Another consideration for closing land to hunting is liablity. I allow certain individuals to hunt my property, however I carry a million dollar umbrella. I have had some creative individuals approach me that carry their own liability insurance and back it up with a certificate of insurance to be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to me. Just the other day a hunter approached me and said he would sign a waiver of liablity.

Surprised to see Pa. on your list. Since we started charging the best part of a c-note for non resident we have lost many of them. Many family have quit coming with the cost and herd reduction. We used to attract a lot of out-of-staters, now there are other states with a lot of deer and more big ones.

To be fair, as I noted fishing and hunting and in PA I only bought a fishing license. Did buy a hunting license in WV, VA, KY, MD and Newfoundland.

I've lived in the same PA county for 40 years. Long enough to gain some connections to private land hunting. And I used to hunt plenty of it. But now its all housing developments , leases, or new landowners who either don't allow hunting or reserve it for their family. So I'm reduced to public land hunting only and I see some deer, not many though. I think more and more the hunting public is going to be forced onto public land in the future.

I figure as long as there's hunting and gun ownership in Liechtenstein (and there is) we shouldn't be worrying too much about its future here. Things will change, but they always do.

About 3 years ago I was on the way to the farm to see if I could kick up a deer in the late afternoon, Driving down the road I had to slow down on the two lane as I approached an Amish kid standing straight up on a buckboard. Couldn't have been more than 13 or 14. Slung across his back he had his gun, obviously he was going to do the same thing.

Arrived at the farm to find a troupe of about 5 youngsters, the 2 oldest being about 12 with shotguns.............looking for deer.

Arrived at the wildlife area on opening day a little while back at about 5:00 am waiting to be drawn for a duck blind and my buddy commented that the youngster who was with his father should be in school. My reply was that the memories forged that day with his dad were far more important than anything he would have learned in school that day.

I have an Asian lady friend who loves to go hunting with me. Loves to fish to, wouldn't believe some of the catfish she has pulled in unless you've seen them. Biggest problem is I can't get her to sit still for very long!

Change yes, die out no, we are already working on the next generation who seem to enjoy the outdoors.

Life long hunter here, I'm 65.

I work a couple days at a great family owned gun shop and sporting goods store in SW MT and what I see is a healthy interest among kids and a growing population of younger women. I'm speaking of hunting. I also see a lot of savvy among many women hunters.

Like some others when I was a lad my bicycle and a shotgun tied to the handlebars got me to places that helped me to imagine Jack O'Conner trips. That's all gone.

Public access is getting tougher, and some of the "drive-by" and unskilled "long range" hunters made an awful mess of committed what can only be called blatant criminal actions on the Cameron Flats just last month. No hunting skills involved, just slob a-holes blazing away and trespassing. Does not help our image amongst the non-hunting community.

Our kids hunt and we are teaching proper shooting and hunting skills to the next generation. Hope others are doing the same.

Access is the issue, we must assure a place to hunt and one that is within the means of working people, not just the wealthy and well connected.

Yes I do, its called the United Nations.

Though the bible does fortell these events is does describe a time shortly after this when Jesus on a white horse and angelic forces will ride to eliminate all political rulers of this world and the Rulership given to Jesus by his father will take there place.

At that time as Jesus stated in Mathew 5:5 The meek shall inherit the earth!!!!

In my opinion at that time ones will be able to hunt under peaceful conditions with out oppression of ones God given rights.

Its going to be awesome!

Shod

Sounds good Shod! Count me in.

That makes sense.

As a hunter that doesn't own land. I fully realize that it's a privilege to be on another man's land. I'd have no problem signing such paperwork. Furthermore, I'd want to better the land and habitat, and as such, I'd be willing to help the land owner here and there with some small projects.

It certainly goes both ways. Land owners should be able to vet those that desire to hunt their land. A lack of care of that property by the hunter costs the landowner dearly. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

You allow me to hunt your land, I'll be more than willing to help clear some brush for you, or paint your barn, or what be it.

And what an opportunity to pass on to the younger generation. Respect other people's stuff, and they just might let you use it!

I'm not really the one in charge of that.

However I can tell you where to find more answers that are in harmony with The statement Jesus made in Mathew 5:5 when he said the meek will inherit the earth.

Shod

A couple of observations. The quality of hunting equip. has increased 10 fold the last 20 years. In the same time period, the quality of the average hunter has decreased substantially as well. That is not to say that there are not good hunters out there, because there are. It is just that the percentage of good hunters has/is going down. Many young people (and adults) are ruled by the machines as well. Hunting is not an interest. As stated it has to be cultivated in children. My boys go with me all the time and are already good hunters with a passion for it. No video games, no machines, just lots of Montana country.

I worry about my hunting in the next 10 to 15 years. The good friend that I hunt with probably won't be hunting in 10 years due to health issues. I am pickie about who I hunt with. The chances of one of daughters marrying someone that hunts seems slim too. I don't like hunting alone.

Here's what I think, FWIW:

It is well noted that hunting is becoming more expensive, more limited as to access and more regulated. In general these forces will shape the hunting experience and will diminish the number of hunters.

But I believe the diminishment will abate as the reshaping occurs.

For instance, it gets more and more expensive to own a truck and many urban people only own vehicles that will not get to hunting territory and will not haul game. This will lead to more "locker plants" that can render an animal to deeply frozen, compact bundles.

This will also lead to more guided hunts and "guided hunts" will take many new forms. DIY guided hunts will become more common as the guide primarily picks you up at an airport carries you to a campsite and leases you the camping equipment.

Liability and slob hunter issues will not only lead to more leasing of hunting land, but it will also give rise to businesses/organizations that intermediate the hunter and landowner. Think hunting organizations that enforce standards of knowledge and training and actually monitor their members to be sure they are respecting the landowner agreements. These organizations - when they have developed an acceptable membership - will also provide liability insurance and probably a suite of insurance-like services to the hunter such as emergency rescue and etc.

Meanwhile, hunting as we like to remember it will persevere. There will still be kids who just walk out the backdoor and go hunting, hunters who just hop in the already equipped pickup and hunt neighbor's land and so on. There will just be less of that because more and more of the population is too far from such resources.

Any hunter who wants to see hunting continue to prosper and traditional hunting mores continue should be proactive. Invite fellow workers, friends, friends' children etc. to go shooting with you and to go hunting with you. Yes, it seems like this might diminish your own hunting time, but it will pay off in more hunters, more pro-hunting voters and more appreciative landowners.

Everything in life occurs in waves. A trend towards lesser hunter numbers will bring about accommodations that will then swing towards more hunters, and maybe better hunters and better hunting opportunities even if at a cost..

And the trend you have seen is the last 20 years unfortunately will continue.

I'm with you though......my 8 year old daughter doesn't have vidio games and the like. Instead she lives the life of outdoor activity. In fact when she was 4 years old and a few months into 5 she rode her own arabian horse more than 800 miles along with me and my horse. At 2-3 years old she rode a miniature in the neighborhood of 300 + miles. That was the same year she got her cricket 22 and ran close to 1000 rounds through it shooting cans till they were shot in half. Now she's upgrading to a 223 and I'm hoping to see the round count well into the thousands by the end of the year.

You have to build outdoor passion at an early age.

Shod

Luckily aside from pheasant most small game is overlooked today - squirrel, and Rabbit especially.

Elk, and Deer are a "Antlers" cost money TODAY... 95 plus percent of large racks are on private land anymore so this is already gone.... Do some surveying of the bigger racks on this board and any other board and you'll find that.
This includes the nice 10 point I shot this year.. I took him on private land.

The big thing here is passing it on, take your kids out, teach buddies, ...

Most eastern and Midwestern cities have urban deer problems...population control. There is no practical replacement for hunters.


I do think more restrictions on guns are likely.

It has taken untold hours for me to teach my teen boys to be good hunters and woodsmen. Can families dedicate the quantity time to this effort? This is much tougher for kids from single parent homes. We have an intact family and hunt right out the back door, so it is a simpler task for my situation.

If there are fewer hunters then there will be fewer people to stand up for us in public policy matters.

Lots of changes here in MA since I started hunting in the early 60's. Hey we had no deer in Western MA, then lots, now not so much! Biggest change to me is loss of huntable land due to housing, and of course gun control laws.

I do see surprisingly increased numbers of females in my hunter education classes! That can't be bad for the future!

That said, future hunters will have to really keep vigilant to protect their rights. I see the minority of anti-hunters continuing to be a real PIA by trying to bamboozle voters.

I'm retiring this spring and looking forward to as many hunts as this body can take me, i also am planning to make some time to take new hunters afield to kindle their passion for the sport!

FWIW, Indiana has a Recreational Use Statute. To my understanding the law removes all liability from the landowner who grants free permission for another person to use their land. The only what they are liable is if what caused the injury was an illegal act committed by the landowner. If you charge for access to your land you are not covered by this law. IMO, it's a very good law and one I would like to see more states pass.

From my viewpoint, the future of hunting (guns and freedoms related to guns being a different subject) lies with women and youth primarily. A secondary factor is experienced mentors who can bring an interested newbie through the initial stages where frustration and failure can cause one to walk away. My step-sons will go shooting, but have zero interest in hunting. It is too much effort compared to video games or hanging out at the mall. They can go into a game forum and experience immediate success- why go to the effort and discomfort of hunting with no guarantee of success? The public school system has a huge impact on this as well. Our children are being poisoned by liberal idealists who believe our sport is cruel and should be banned. It is sad to watch how the need for immediate success is overcoming our moral values.

I've never paid for a guided hunt. But I think they're going to grow in popularity in the future as opportunities diminish locally.

I guess I'm not as pessimistic as a lot of guys. I've seen statistics that indicate the number of hunters in the US has bottomed out and is rebounding. We see a lot of women in our Hunter Ed. classes, which is encouraging.

But the most encouraging trend is that hunting is getting back to being "cool" with a lot of people, notwithstanding the increasing wimp-ification and urbanization of the general populace.

I can't count the number of urbanites hereabouts who've told me they think hunting is cool, even though most have never tried it. And some want to start.

Part of it is the locavore movement, and also the paleo-eaters. I normally have a freezer full of organic, free-range, grass-fed meat and these people pay really good money for that at the local health food store.

I will say that loss of access to private lands that used to be open to hunting is a disturbing trend. And it's all the more reason that public lands and public land hunting should be thought of as one of the last bastions of not only hunting, but gun ownership.

Which makes me want to throw up every time I hear people argue that public land should be sold off or privatized.

I think there are many factors that will influence the future of hunting and many are likely state specific. Land access and the young's affinity for a digital world versus the outdoors are a couple of concerns. Of greater concern in a number of the Western states is the quantity/quality of the game herds and the impact that will have on the desire of people to want to hunt. 20 years ago in Oregon we had about 3,000 cougars and a decent black bear population - and no wolves. Then initiatives were used to limit cougar and bear hunting with dogs and those population have greatly increased - and wolves have been reintroduced. Adult cougars takes a deer or elk every week (on average) and with a cougar population now exceeding 7000, combined with a growing bear and wolf population is it any wonder that deer and elk herds are declining? And with this decline, even existing hunters grow weary of seeing little game and then move on to other recreational opportunities.

People today are selfish dickheads and that is why hunting will go to schit.

Doesn't matter if there are more hunters, or less. The number of pricks is on a never ending climb and that is why hunting will suffer.



Travis

Always the optimist.......

Yeah. That'll save us.



Travis

Fastest growing demographic in shooting sports, sport.

Hes an optimist and a misogynist....

Oh joy.




Travis

I'm also observant.




Travis

And modest. Lets not forget that.

And handsome.




Travis

Some people just always want to look at the pot as half pissed-in.

I've spent enough time around women to know that when you bring large numbers of them into the fold, really, really, really, really, really, really bad things start to happen. The exceptions to this rule are strip clubs, bordellos, kitchens, laundry rooms, and sweat shops.

But if it makes you feel good, by all means...



Travis

Its a curse some of us have to live under.....

There will never be "large numbers" of them in the fold.

What makes me feel good is every new hunter who gets a license, male or female, and the fact that I helped them get it by volunteering my time.

What makes you feel good?.

You might be sorry you asked him that.....

Stealing something from shrapnel and getting away with it.



Travis

Oh, I'm sure of it.

You mean, like 22-250 ammo?

ouch.....

No. That's all loaded for slow twisted garbage.




Travis

In my opinion, good hunters today are a helluva lot better than the good hunters of previous generations.

Like everything else in the past two decades, hunting has evolved at an incredible rate. Whether you're out west or back east, people that have a passion for hunting are more advanced than ever.




Travis

True dat.

Define �better�.

Access to more technology? Sure.

Actual field prowess? Highly doubtful. I suspect a Jim Corbett or Bushman from Africa could pretty well outhunt about any living American. That true skill; becoming one with the environment, comes from living and breathing hunting and doing it all year. Especially when the alternative to being a good hunter is starving to death.

Sometimes I think it has evolved too much.......

pg: I think what he is referring to is the overall picture. Todays hunter knows a whitetail scent marks with various glands, and needs habitat and nutrition etc to grow.They know their habits, and habitat. The same can be said of many other species.The past generations just knew if you sat on a stump long enough, one might run by...


On the minus side, todays hunters think you need uber-camo and scent free spray,a two tone grunt tube and a hubble scope to kill deer......

Yup, blatant merchandising. I'd rather sit on a stump.

In regards to knowledge of the animals they're hunting. Fitness. Locking up habitat. Scouting habitat. Anything that can give you an edge, a modern hunter that is passionate now has that edge over previous generations.

I don't know any Jim Corbetts that require a whole lot of field prowess to survive their hunts. I'm talking about whitetails to caribou type of schit. It's evolved.





Travis

I think hunters have diverged like every other category you can put a name to. The best hunters are incredible shots, have have more knowledge of conservation, biology and wildlife management than ever before, probably are in better physical condition, and devote more time and energy.
At the other end of the continuum, we have slob hunters that don't have a clue as to proper and safe gun handling, have absolutely no respect for the game animals, the land and habitat that supports those animals, don't care how many animals they gut shoot before they tag one and view hunting regulations as mere suggestions other people might want to pay attention to.
Unfortunately, one slob hunter can do more to destroy public relations in five minutes than 100 top hunters can bring about in a season of closing gates, picking up trash and generally being involved in the sport.

Slob hunters are nothing new. Compare a slob hunter from today to a slob hunter from the 60's and you'll get the same thing.

Compare a passionate hunter from today to a passionate hunter from the 60's, and I think you'll find today's hunter is a bit more dedicated in every regard. Exceptions to everything of course, but by and large they've evolved.



Travis

I dunno. I guess we�re talking about different things. Real killers are few and far between; I�ve only met a handful. The guys like Pat, for instance. Most people who hunt, even the dedicated ones, just aren�t that good. Because they need to be out there every day. Modern life precludes that sort of thing for the vast majority of hunters.

Well, yeah. But it precluded it for guys in the 60's too.

You could probably argue most middle aged men today have more disposable time and money that at any other point in American history. Or at a minimum, they use that time and money on more frivolous schit than any past generations.



Travis

Yep. With more frivolous income comes more specialization, at least for some. I.E. �I�m going to devote all my time and efforts to being the best dink whitetail killer in all the land�. Or whatever.

Which brings up another interesting point. It seems like there is much more specialization in what a person hunts. Where most folks used to hunt for whatever species was available throughout the year, not it seems like more and more folks are Deer Hunters. Or they are Turkey Hunters. Or Varmint Hunters. I especially noticed this in the East. Nice to live somewhere with enough opportunity to change hats with the seasons.

I think the modern guys are more technically astute,have access to better gear from clothing to rifles,scopes optics, LR ballistics and a host of other advantages. They are also better informed about the game; can find their way around better and withstand the elements....they are more efficient. In many instances they are smarter.

They tend to be "ambush hunters". They kill remotely, using the gear in some instances to avoid closing in with animals...if terrain allows it, they are smart enough to stay back,avoid detection,and have the gear and skill sets to still pull off a kill.

If cover is heavy, they climb trees,or erect blinds.They are not afraid to buy and use a mountain of gear to kill an animal.

The downside is that the personal interface and contact with the animal is gone in many instances. Powerful optics pull animals in closer from great distances....game trail cameras allow remote scouting. Miraculous bullets driven from amazing rifles, lazer range finders razor sharp optics kill bucks at great distances that might otherwise have escaped a more conventional, but less well equipped hunter who might have to rely on bushcraft and stalking to close distances.Animals would live to be hunted another day.

I am not knocking any of this; but think that game managers will take note of it all, factor it in for license allocations,possibly leading to less opportunity.

But....some get so awash in the technology that they lose the forest for the trees and the hunting is reduced for them to a simple gathering process, the chance of failure substantially diminished. Without the likelihood of failure, there is no "hunting".

Along the lines of what Prairie Goat is saying,take away the technology,or take the boys out of the trees, let them go one on one,on their feet, on the ground in whitetail country,many will fall flat...that's the bushcraft that is missing today in much hunting.

Very well said, Bob.

As bad as the blatant merchandising is, it's still not as bad as what happened to bass fishing.

Take away deer drives, pickup trucks, and lite beer, and you'd reduce the number of hunters in this country by 85%.



Travis

Take away pickup trucks? And what, we'd all be carting our animals home in Uber-lanches?

Sometimes I think we have gotten too efficient there as well...

One difference is we can let the bass go.

It's mostly the beginners who are most vulnerable to all the sales pitches...the veterans are more....uh.....restrained?

My wife wanted to know what I was laughing at....

bob's apparently never tried to take a pheasant away from a hawk!

Lefty nope I certainly never have...

But I have spent time watching them hunt through binoculars...they are efficient killers.

Funny story, off topic but a pal I fished with last week told of seeing a red tailhawk slam into a tree....he hung upside down for quite some time, his foot stuck in a hole Thinking the bird was injured (this went on for quite some time) they considered calling a warden to come "help" the hawk.

Suddenly, the hawk righted himself,and flew off,uninjured....a gray squirrel in his talons. i would have paid to watch that...

That would've been something to see!

Hey now, be careful--I actually like Ingwe!

holes are my nemesis - one of my birds is a tunnel rat - hates 'em, I do.

Catch & Release hunting is something I could see coming about in the future. Sort of like what is currently done with rhinos. The dart technology just has to improve a little, and people�s mindset of hunting being a kill only pastime would need to mature. It wasn�t too terribly long ago when fishermen kept their entire catch, for that matter.

Think of going after a big deer, darting him, taking your picture with him, measure and record age, health, etc. Then watch him come around, and run off to go breed and spread his genes, and for another fellow to dart next year...when he will be that much more wiley.

As far as veteran hunter�s immunity to sales pitches....let�s see how many �gotta have this new thingamajig from the so&so rifle company� threads come up after SHOT show!

pg: I know the SCI conventions and the Custom GunMakers Guild shows are evil places occupied by demons...I hear Shot Show is the same kind of place.

Hmmm, not sure about that, as far as "wiley." Big deer don't get that way by making mistakes, but if they can be released, then dumb ones can and will get big. It'd change the whole dynamic of hunting big animals.

Might work, but I'd still want to come home with some meat, it's what's for dinner.

Ingwe�s skills extend far beyond his mastery of the dink hunt. His talents in the arts of trout fishing, arcane 7x57 knowledge, and leopard thong modeling are rarely matched in the world of today.

I think he's fairly accomplished at drinking other people's liquor too.

Oh if bucks were getting shot and released, they would turn wiley in a hurry. Much like a rank old cow who takes one look at the corral and remembers her previous encounters therein, and decides to head for the other end of the pasture.

As for meat, I sure don�t go after big old rank rutty bucks for something to eat. Their meat gets eaten, but something younger and more supple is preferred. Wouldn�t be any different when darting.

Could we make replica heads kind of like the fake fish mounts? I want a drop tine added.

You can get that on your mounts now!

What a coincidence, me either.




Never said they wouldn't but I think you missed my point. The point being, if making a mistake takes a buck out of the gene pool, then only wiley bucks will live to be old. If you have "catch and release" and making mistakes doesn't take them out of the gene pool, then dumb ones would grow big too. If I am fortunate enough to kill a big buck, I want to know that he's one of the former, not the latter. If he's one of the latter, that would cheapen the whole deal.

Then they come to and are a little out of it and soon walk into the next "hunter". At which time they are shot again and the flowing dose has been increased. Then they are additionally compromised and become even more easy game, and the wheels goes round.

How many mg/kg is enough? How much is too much for an old one and it kills him anyway?

Foolish talk.

It will be an elite pastime for those who own the land.

Who owns Wyoming? Who owns Alaska? Who owns huge amounts of Pa?

In 50 years, my pre 64's will still be here and still work like new. I, on the other hand, probably not... . Any more questions???

If you are, you probably will wish you were not.

Not really.

Foolish talk is not considering options that would help the non-hunting population to view hunting in a positive light. For instance, catch & release fishing is a much more acceptable pastime to non-outdoor folks.

It would take some major changes, no doubt. Especially when many hunters can't seem to understand why a person would shoot something and not eat it. Maybe these are the same types who take home every fish they catch; still stuck in a 19th century conservation mindset?

This wouldn't work on just any game. Obviously.

But in limited draw areas, where a lot of money was spent to produce huntable game, say isolated planted populations of bighorn sheep, I could see this working. Of course in large portions of private it's certainly an option as well. Places where game is managed well.

Probably not an option for head to toe orange, sit in a treestand with a pump rifle land. The concept wasn't envisioned as such.

I think those days are already drying up like rain drops on the desert floor. More and more land owners are taking "lease money" rather than sharing their land for hunting.

In fifty years public land will be so full of "protected" Wolves, Cougar, and Coyotes that game animals won't have much space to flourish.

Perceptions of Disney influenced adults will view hunting as unnecessary for food and the value of strictly rural sports won't be of much value to them, nor the idea of head hunting for trophies. It will go out of style like chewing tobacco or smoking.

I apologize in advance for being so negative, but the question was asked and I'm just expressing the momentum I've seen progressing against hunting or even gun ownership at all.

Things have changed, when I was a kid my dad and I bought a used double barreled shotgun at a pawn shop in 1958 in downtown Dallas,TX. The merchant didn't wrap it or put it in a gun sock or anything. I just carried it to where we had parked about 3 or 4 city blocks away, and nobody was reacting at all. I think reactions would be different today in a central business area.

I agree that the days of hunters just grabbing their gun and going hunting today are pretty well gone.
Today It is an intensely planned affair starting with planning what draws to put in for, booking the time off work, squaring it with the significant other, getting the necessary landowner permission, getting all the gear assembled, arranging accommodation and travel arrangements, range time to sight in the rifle etc etc etc.
It is not a casual thing to do but rather is evolving into an intense sport costing big money.
I think it will evolve along the European model where you will eventually have to hire a guide and that will be considered quite normal. So much for the bad part - the good part is it might probably significantly reduce the slobbish behavior.

You don't understand the potency of the chemicals you would be dealing with. Or the varying individual response. Looks good on tv when they shoot one for study and then let it go on its way. However, often there are trained people monitoring vital signs other than aging and weighing. Work for the most part for veterinarians or highly skilled biologists.


It is not the same as catch and release fishing or even close. No doubt it could be done, but don't kid yourself on it being something the average hunter would be able to do on a regular basis.

I'd get no satisfaction out of catch and release hunting.

Hunting is a blood sport. Anything else is observation.

IMO, killing with respect for the game and past traditions will play a major part in our future.

It's been that way as long as I've been involved.If you have to travel any distance at all,it's "expensive" in time and money. Even DIY is the same.

High quality photography, with a small telephoto, would be a simple catch and release. If you get under 100 yard and take a good clear photo, you were in a position kill and probably would have. Of course, just like real hunters, photo hunters would look for every advantage and the lenses would soon look like a drain tile.

A major difference between us an the various countries in Europe I think is that in many continental countries the land owner owns the game also and there is local control of the same. Am I correct in this? Here, the state does, issuing ever complicated regulations and more expensive and exclusive tags. In the midst of that the federal government chooses to govern certain species and of course trumps all else.

This, at both levels where government is involved, is where politics often rears it's ugly head. For example, in Iowa, it took a long time before we obtained a dove season as decided by the legislature due to the emotion people had about the dove as a song bird. Legislatures however also pass many dumb and even stupid laws. We've all seen it trump strictly biological and environmental reasoning at both the state level and above.

Government never shrinks; it always grows. Where government reigns, we see activist groups and judges campaigning for and making judgements base on ideology, not biology and tradition can just be damned ("we are the nouveau enlightened ones").

As our population grows and becomes ever more urbanized fewer and fewer will have grown up with the hunting tradition. Urbanization brings with it a kind of unreality and generally liberal decision makers and political correctness all of which bodes ill for the poor, redneck sod that wants to take gun and go kill a nice deer or an elk once a year. Beautiful song birds too.

Hence my comment that the technology would have to evolve to be a viable option. I'm just saying the concept is there, and is an interesting one that would warrant pursuit, and perhaps be a money making one at that.

Most of the high quality photos you see of big game come from parks and game preserves where they can't be hunted.

I don't believe this is the case. I've never seen any hard data or even anecdotes to support this. In fact, I've read some opinions to the contrary, that it's more cruel to keep catching, handling, and releasing fish (with the resulting percentage of mortality) than to just kill them. And I'd much rather catch a wild 10-inch brookie from a back country stream than an 18-inch hook-scarred hatchery rainbow. It's just not the same.

Not to mention the fact that it's fishermen, not the non-fishing public, who push for and support catch-and-release. Because fishermen want to catch more and bigger fish, the same argument you're making for "C&R hunting."




You know, the mark of a solid argument is one you can make without impugning the other guy's intelligence and/or motivation. You should try it some time.

I agree 100%. There are a lot of things we can do, and should do along these lines. As long as people eat meat, showing them that there's nothing wrong with taking responsibility for getting your own in a sustainable manner will go a long way. Because it's an irrefutable argument.

Good God man, who was arguing? Take a step back from the internet and relax.

I didn't say "arguing," I said argument. Which is what you were making in support of C&R hunting, was it not?

Edited to add, the future of hunting is something I do tend to get worked up about, especially if there's a chance I may have to trade in my rifles for dart guns.....

Oh for schit's sake. I give up.

Some of you guy's ability to nit-pick a conversation apart is nothing short of female in nature. I have to deal with enough of that schit in real life; I'm not going to engage in it for fun.

Too funny, darting animals sounds like something PETA would come up with, but refuting the "benefits" of it is nit-picking and female. Got it.

Glad you gave up though. It's a stupid idea, I'm glad it didn't get any traction on this forum.

Dude, you just don't get it, do you?

You have a habit of going on post after post and nit-picking apart what is being said. It's got to be one of the most obnoxious traits a person can possess. Always with the last word. Get over yourself.

I think the darting idea is an excellent one, and will pursue it further.

To the general thread:

If I were on the other side and reading this, I would think we won. They are so negative it is just a matter of time.

I personally don't fear the anti crowd as much as I worry about those who feel the battle is lost. Vote for gun rights and hunting, make the politicians fear us. Something to be said for those old timers who wouldn't back away from what was important to them. I see less of it today.

You can't make a point without getting personal and insulting. And I'm the one who's obnoxious? Go back and read the thread objectively and you'll see what I mean. See who was the one to resort to insulting language, and get back to me about obnoxious.

And nit-picking? You advocate an idea that would fundamentally change hunting as we know it, on a hunting forum, and bitch about "nit-picking?"

Here's some food for thought. As I said above, as long as people eat meat, one of the best (and most irrefutable) arguments in favor of hunting is that hunters are the only ones (besides ag. workers) who take responsibility for the killing that has to occur in order to feed ourselves, and we don't just foist off the dirty work on someone else.

If darting was to gain widespread acceptance, that part of hunting would be taken right off the table. I can hear the HSUS now: "you don't really have to kill the animals, you just want to because you're sadistic."

And as long as we're talking about acceptance of hunting by the general population, I've heard many people, non-hunters and hunters alike, disparage hunters for taking "hero shot" photos. Because the hero shots are all about stoking the hunter's ego, and have little to do with the traditions of the hunt or putting food on the table and many people are turned off by that.

Well guess what. With darting, the hero shot is about all you're left with.

I'm not sure darting would even be acceptable to the antis. They still will whine that this process is causing undue stress on the animal.
If it gets down to that point it will be only camera hunting that will be considered humane and of course the folks with the best photo equipment will win that one.

That in mind - I think bow hunting will probably last the longest because even anti hunters and politicians will reluctantly concede it takes great skill to get close enough to get an arrow off where many of them do claim rifle hunting takes no skill at all and is a greater potential danger to other outdoor users.

I know a few antis that have a grudging respect for bow hunters but none at all for rifle hunters.

If they outlaw the killing of game, I'll happily poach.



Clark

That's because they're idiots.




Travis

Archery does take some skill alright....but archers wound and lose a hugely disproportionate amount of game compared to rifle hunters.

Is it possible to re-reform? With the availability of suppressors it would be easier. Too much worry and aggravation, I am getting old. Or more honest?

Antis hate archery far worse than they do rifle hunting. They consider archery inhumane. Listen to their rhetoric and you'll quickly realize they loathe archery. Even much of Europe disallows archery on the same grounds.

David Clark,,

I've been using "expanding type" bullets listed in the regs for years.....