An interesting article on the decline of hunting

[tacklejunkie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hunting-is-slowly-dying-off-and-that-has-created-a-crisis-for-the-nations-many-endangered-species/ar-BBZA5Pc

 

I know many, including myself, don’t do a whole lot of hunting anymore like we did when we were younger. I tried taking up deer hunting again a few years ago and it didn’t interest me. I did go hare hunting a couple weekends ago but that was only from an invite. Since I walk every day for exercise, I still bird hunt but mostly just for the exercise and the walk in the woods. But hunting isn’t something that fires me up anymore like fishing does and many of the people I went hunting with heavily in high school  don’t hunt at all anymore. And admittedly,  those of us who don’t hunt a whole lot or have given it up completely does have ramifications

Edited February 4, 2020 by tacklejunkie

[Rick]

It's rapidly becoming a very different world. 

[delcecchi]

Hunting has become more expensive and time consuming since cities are bigger and a bigger percent live in them.   I'm not interested in rabbits or squirrels, and there are many fewer pheasants in the area, even if I could hit them.   Plenty geese but that's a pretty big undertaking with decoys and blinds and all that, with refuges etc complicating the issue.   

 

Yeah, lots of deer and I know a couple guys so I could do that.   Not much urge though.   

[tacklejunkie]

2 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

 

Yeah, lots of deer and I know a couple guys so I could do that.   Not much urge though.   

 

Same here.

 

I have my own property to hunt on and I used to hunt deer every season when I was younger but no longer

[Paradice]

So here's a question to ponder.  If public interests are changing away from hunting, should dollars that are/were once used to buy new public hunting lands be used for other forms of entertainment for the people?  Should those dollars go towards parks, trails, and sports and entertainment complexes?  

 

If the public doesn't want to go outside anymore, one could argue those who want to stay in town should demand their cut of the free entertainment dollars.   

[nofishfisherman]

33 minutes ago, Paradice said:

So here's a question to ponder.  If public interests are changing away from hunting, should dollars that are/were once used to buy new public hunting lands be used for other forms of entertainment for the people?  Should those dollars go towards parks, trails, and sports and entertainment complexes?  

 

If the public doesn't want to go outside anymore, one could argue those who want to stay in town should demand their cut of the free entertainment dollars.   

 Isn't this a double edge sword though?  Hunting has taken a big hit partly due to the decline in available hunting land.  So much land is getting locked up by private parties that hunters that don't own land are getting crowded into the available public land.  If you funnel money away from public land into something else you'll likely see an even bigger decline in hunting numbers. 

[Paradice]

On 2/6/2020 at 8:43 AM, nofishfisherman said:

 Isn't this a double edge sword though?  Hunting has taken a big hit partly due to the decline in available hunting land.  So much land is getting locked up by private parties that hunters that don't own land are getting crowded into the available public land.  If you funnel money away from public land into something else you'll likely see an even bigger decline in hunting numbers. 

I think you're spot on.  There is a giant disconnect between where people live, and where public lands are located.  There aren't enough lands within day-trip distance for most to use.  Lands too far from major cities are inaccessible to those with modest incomes.  Many cannot afford big gas bills or lodging to be able to take advantage of lands far out in greater MN.  

 

Should there be a reallocation of the land portfolio to accommodate access for people where they live?  Would the pubic support trading northern MN acres for more acres in southern MN around Rochester, St. Cloud, and the twin cities?  

[Rick]

On 2/6/2020 at 8:07 AM, Paradice said:

So here's a question to ponder.  If public interests are changing away from hunting, should dollars that are/were once used to buy new public hunting lands be used for other forms of entertainment for the people?  Should those dollars go towards parks, trails, and sports and entertainment complexes?  

 

If the public doesn't want to go outside anymore, one could argue those who want to stay in town should demand their cut of the free entertainment dollars.   

The other issue is that those dollars you speak of were coming from the hunters themselves. So the money isn't there to manage wildlife like there used to be. 

[Dave S]

IMO, decrease in wildlife such as pheasants can be blamed on many aspects.

1) Weather. Snow/ice pack in feeding areas. Our winters have been something else lately. We may only see 6-12" of snow here or there but when there's a warm-up or even rain followed by a re-freeze, it locks up food sources making it harder for birds to scratch through to food.

2) Farming practices. Modern machinery has become exponentially more efficient, leaving less spillage in the fields. Fence lines have been removed in favor of more crop land. Many farmers have moved away from using chisel plows and have gone back to mold-board plows, burying any food source. Insecticides also diminish a small portion of a pheasants food source. Especially for young chicks that rely on insects before grasses and other plants have gone to seed.

3) Access to private lands. Many land owners don't want the hassle of just anyone entering their land. Many fear legal issues in this sue happy world we live in. Others have been wronged by disrespectful sportsmen and have been permanently burned by people who just don't give a @#$%.

4) Public hunting lands. Yes, I said it. Too much public hunting land doesn't create areas where pheasants can flourish. It's an area where they die. As hard as public lands are hunted, there's literally nowhere for them to hide. They may be pushed from a cornfield during harvest into a public hunting land where's there's the orange army waiting to pepper them. In many areas such as Lincoln or Lyon Counties, public lands are in close proximity to each other, allowing for bird populations to be decimated in a 20-50 sq. mile area.

Just my two cents!

[Paradice]

23 hours ago, Rick said:

The other issue is that those dollars you speak of were coming from the hunters themselves. So the money isn't there to manage wildlife like there used to be. 

I don't think there is any management.  Land is bought, trees and shrubs dozed onto a pile, folksy wooden sign put up.  End of management.  

 

It's funny.  In South Dakota, Pheasants Forever champions the planting of shelter belts for wildlife.  In Minnesota, soon as the state gets their hands on new land, first thing they do is rip out all the woody cover and mast trees.  Pheasants Forever meanwhile, is silent on the gap in the habitat system.  

 

Saw this with my own two eyes down by Marshall on some national wildlife refuge lands.  They had the USFWS excavator there while we were out mushroom hunting.  The tallgrass prairie region completely covers the pheasant range.  Pheasants are not part of the management plan.  

 

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Northern_Tallgrass_Prairie/what_we_do/resource_management.html

 

[jacinda]

On 2/5/2020 at 7:09 AM, delcecchi said:

Hunting has become more expensive and time consuming since cities are bigger and a bigger percent live in them.   I'm not interested in rabbits or squirrels, and there are many fewer pheasants in the area, even if I could hit them.   Plenty geese but that's a pretty big undertaking with decoys and blinds and all that, with refuges etc complicating the issue.   

 

Yeah, lots of deer and I know a couple guys so I could do that.   Not much urge though.   

Agree

Edited March 22, 2020 by jacinda