Missouri Whitetails - Your Missouri Hunting Resource banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Vendor
Joined
·
61,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
 
  • Like
Reactions: 20'

·
Biology nit wit exposer
Joined
·
79,868 Posts
I agree with some of his sentiment.

It is three Rs and not one. Just recruiting without regard for how it impacts the ability to retain or reinstate is nonsensical. If you are losing hunters because of limited resource or space to pursue the resource it makes no sense to recruit more hunters to pressure that particular resource. You won't retain them and certainly won't reinstate the ones lost without evidence the space or resource are more plentiful. 02
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
61,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I agree with some of his sentiment.

It is three Rs and not one. Just recruiting without regard for how it impacts the ability to retain or reinstate is nonsensical. If you are losing hunters because of limited resource or space to pursue the resource it makes no sense to recruit more hunters to pressure that particular resource. You won't retain them and certainly won't reinstate the ones lost without evidence the space or resource are more plentiful. 02
Agreed.

There is also a case to be made with falling hunter numbers and lower game populations. In all cases where hunter numbers have fallen the species population has also decreased.

In certain species like deer increasing pressure can be a negative for the population. In some species increasing pressure can be a positive (pintail drakes) and in some increased pressure is mostly irrelevant until it becomes very high (adult male turkeys).

The access issue can be fixed somewhat for some of these by simply doing what you would do with a hose, make the hose bigger i.e. increase opportunities and time to access the resources. This would work well for turkeys and waterfowl (especially in MO where access is very restrictive).

Deer is an ENTIRELY different animal (pun intended). I think access to deer hunting ground will continue to fall due to the desires of hunters.

Much of the R3 issue could be solved by increasing habitat and populations. The rest can be solved by increasing opportunities and access where its scientifically and biologically appropriate, and there are a LOT of places that is the case.
 

·
King of Callaway
Joined
·
42,472 Posts
Good read and certainly thought provoking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
The amount of disposable income available now and information available online I believe has contributed to a sharp increase in hunters expanding their pursuit of game, so while the numbers of hunters may not have increased I do believe the number of hunters travelling to other regions has increased. There is definitely some inconsistency in these surveys. Here is a quote from another article relating to the survey "Hunting participation dropped by about 2 million participants, but still remained strong at 11.5 million hunters. Total expenditures by hunters declined 29 percent from 2011 to 2016, from $36.3 billion to $25.6 billion. However, expenditures for related items such as taxidermy and camping equipment experienced a 27-percent uptick, and hunting trip-related expenses increased 15 percent."

 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
61,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
The amount of disposable income available now and information available online I believe has contributed to a sharp increase in hunters expanding their pursuit of game, so while the numbers of hunters may not have increased I do believe the number of hunters travelling to other regions has increased. There is definitely some inconsistency in these surveys. Here is a quote from another article relating to the survey "Hunting participation dropped by about 2 million participants, but still remained strong at 11.5 million hunters. Total expenditures by hunters declined 29 percent from 2011 to 2016, from $36.3 billion to $25.6 billion. However, expenditures for related items such as taxidermy and camping equipment experienced a 27-percent uptick, and hunting trip-related expenses increased 15 percent."

What I found interesting in the article were the error bars for 2016. They seem a lot less confident in the 2016 data versus prior years.

I received a survey but never sent it back.... oops.

Screenshot_20210328-211216_Facebook.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,811 Posts
I just don’t see anywhere I hunt, that hunters numbers are decreasing. All hunters I know have introduced 5x more hunters than we have lost.
And in this read if hunters quit due to lack of game or whatever, why would anyone think they would become anti gun rights?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
4,536 Posts
I think they just need to produce(make) more land. Increasing the supply of land would make it more affordable to find places to hunt and more solitude when hunting. It would also let the game numbers increase...more habitat.


;)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
13,354 Posts
Any landowner/farmer that receives government subsides should have to open his property up to public hunting.

If history serves itself, if more land was produced, (by the land fairy) the owner of said land will just destroy the wildlife habitat and plant government subsidies crops. In Missouri between 2004-2006 400,000 acres of wild life habitat was turned in to crop land and has not stopped.
The rest of the land that is good wild life habitat has been leased out to those who can pay a high price to hunt on it, leaving the mom and pop hunters out of beinng able to hunt anymore along with their kids
 

·
Under appreciated
Joined
·
86,438 Posts
What I found interesting in the article were the error bars for 2016. They seem a lot less confident in the 2016 data versus prior years.

I received a survey but never sent it back.... oops.

View attachment 218725
Doesnt look like he puts much stock in surveys. I've always wondered the same thing but extrapolative surveys do provide useful information.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
61,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Doesnt look like he puts much stock in surveys. I've always wondered the same thing but extrapolative surveys do provide useful information.
I think the surveys get close IF they get a random smaple, and that is consistent over the years. Im not sure that happens anymore with this, or state politics, etc. Then take into account all the changes in liensing, species hunted etc etc and there could be error. PLUS how do they account for different rural/urban percents over time? It would be a very touigh job to keep this consistent over time, and accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rat

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
4,536 Posts
Any landowner/farmer that receives government subsides should have to open his property up to public hunting.

If history serves itself, if more land was produced, (by the land fairy) the owner of said land will just destroy the wildlife habitat and plant government subsidies crops. In Missouri between 2004-2006 400,000 acres of wild life habitat was turned in to crop land and has not stopped.
The rest of the land that is good wild life habitat has been leased out to those who can pay a high price to hunt on it, leaving the mom and pop hunters out of beinng able to hunt anymore along with their kids
2012 and the invention of crop insurance converted more wildlife habitat into crop land than any other single event I have seen in my lifetime. CRP at one time converted 45 million acres back into wildlife habitat.(25 million right now?) The invention of the internet has also fueled the flames, land is no longer valued at local worth. It is valued at 10 fold what it was 20 years ago. East coast and west coast Investors now own the ground, they in turn lease to farmers. Every acre they can clear or doze is another acre they can cash rent.

Opening up public hunting would remove any incentive for farmers to leave any thing for wildlife. Can't lease for hunting then clear more off and farm it. Plus there is a whole lot of communism rolled up in that idea.(private property rights) Leasing land for hunting is a HUGE by product of the commercialization of deer hunting and "big bucks". Go back to Real Trees Monster Bucks 1, 2 and 3 videos.
They traveled the US to shoot 120 and 130's back then. Now everyone wants to "own" their own deer and grow them to Booners.(me included LOL)

In general it boils down to one thing. World population growth. Covid 19 may have just been a test run. Some whacko modifies a truly bad virus and land prices and worth may plummet.
 

·
Under appreciated
Joined
·
86,438 Posts
I think the surveys get close IF they get a random smaple, and that is consistent over the years. Im not sure that happens anymore with this, or state politics, etc. Then take into account all the changes in liensing, species hunted etc etc and there could be error. PLUS how do they account for different rural/urban percents over time? It would be a very touigh job to keep this consistent over time, and accurate.
I've been making this contention for a long time. I do understand that it is just another tool, and likely the only one to estimate hunter preference, etc.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
61,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I've been making this contention for a long time. I do understand that it is just another tool, and likely the only one to estimate hunter preference, etc.
I also think that when it comes to waterfowl hunters the old surveys and methods GROSSLY over estimated hunter numbers.

Ill give them that there are way less quail and small game hunters.

Access IMO is a function of supply and demand of big deer. People will do what it takes for access to or control over areas with big deer. Whether thats buying more land, leasing more land, etc. Many times that means simply lowering the amount of bucks shot in an area. The only real way to control that is to own it and restrict access which displaces the people that currently hunt that ground. MDCs model and seasons have created a situation where guys that want big deer pretty much have to own bigger and bigger pieces and restrict access to accomplish their goals. Its not going to get better until MDC puts more focus on the supply of older age class bucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 20'
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top