|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 16, 2019 8:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Oct 16, 2019 11:23:32 GMT -5
Interesting article for sure.
Here's a section of the article that I can see having the biggest impact on hunting...
It's amazing how many more hunters per square mile there are when you factor in the number of "micro-private properties" in many areas.
The loss of available hunting land is (IMO) doing more to reduce hunter numbers than anything else. Throw in bait bans on top of that (in states that allow it), and it only exacerbates the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Oct 16, 2019 19:02:05 GMT -5
I did not read the article.
I agree with jjas' comment about the loss of available hunting land. As of right now, my best available option for deer hunting this year is a 90 minute drive. Not happening. I'm still asking and looking every day. I've come to realize that when you are not native to an immediate geographical location it is very difficult to find a good place to hunt. Just this past Sunday morning I attempted to scout two local public plots that I have hunted in the past and NEVER seen another hunter during bow season. One place had four trucks parked at the gate and another six. I just kept driving.
As far as baiting goes, no thanks. I'm glad that we don't have it and hope that we never do.
|
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 16, 2019 21:27:11 GMT -5
The loss Of Ground the problem Read on FB this one outfitter in Norther In advertising He had 100 farms leased to put hunters on ! 100 farms let that sink in ! And he’s saying he’s the greatest thing for hunters out there , Then add baiting to that and the guy with the biggest bait pile wins And I’d guess the 100 Farm outfitter will be it And people will just give it up so yes it will hurt
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 17, 2019 4:09:11 GMT -5
The loss Of Ground the problem Read on FB this one outfitter in Norther In advertising He had 100 farms leased to put hunters on ! 100 farms let that sink in ! And he’s saying he’s the greatest thing for hunters out there , Then add baiting to that and the guy with the biggest bait pile wins And I’d guess the 100 Farm outfitter will be it And people will just give it up so yes it will hurt If this guy has that much land leased he will most likely provide more hunting opportunity to more hunters then if it wasn't leased and I bet the amount of does killed will be minimal at best! Now if this person wasn't a "outfitter" just a single person leasing this amount of land to lock out other hunters then yes that would be bad. |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Oct 17, 2019 7:01:41 GMT -5
The loss Of Ground the problem Read on FB this one outfitter in Norther In advertising He had 100 farms leased to put hunters on ! 100 farms let that sink in ! And he’s saying he’s the greatest thing for hunters out there , Then add baiting to that and the guy with the biggest bait pile wins And I’d guess the 100 Farm outfitter will be it And people will just give it up so yes it will hurt If this guy has that much land leased he will most likely provide more hunting opportunity to more hunters then if it wasn't leased and I bet the amount of does killed will be minimal at best! Now if this person wasn't a "outfitter" just a single person leasing this amount of land to lock out other hunters then yes that would be bad. The question I have is...how many hunters did the outfitter who leased up 100 farms displace? Will the hunters be able to find new places to hunt? Can they afford to hunt with an outfitter? I understand why farmers lease their ground, and I get that it's a pay to play world, but for many hunters it spells the end of deer hunting for them. We're already losing hunters @ a fast rate, and with lower hunter numbers that means less influence in federal and state government. I truly wonder what hunter numbers will look like in ten years? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 7:47:37 GMT -5
This little statement surprised me. I wonder if Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky censor the deer harvest numbers.
"One thing we have not noted in the past is that many state have altered their figures (censored is a better word) to help control the message they have presented to the public. Because most states no longer require in-person harvest registration, many of the numbers have been manipulated after the fact when they were released to other news outlets."
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Oct 17, 2019 8:24:30 GMT -5
Numbers will be down significantly in 10 years
|
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Oct 17, 2019 8:33:02 GMT -5
The good thing about outfitters that lease up a ton of land, is eventually they'll want more land to lease, with already declining numbers, this is not a sustainable model. Their own greed will put them under.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 17, 2019 8:52:35 GMT -5
This little statement surprised me. I wonder if Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky censor the deer harvest numbers. "One thing we have not noted in the past is that many state have altered their figures (censored is a better word) to help control the message they have presented to the public. Because most states no longer require in-person harvest registration, many of the numbers have been manipulated after the fact when they were released to other news outlets." Supposition on the outdoor writers part.. I don't believe for a minute that the IDNR alters or censors any numbers to present to the public. I've learned a LONG time ago to take any outdoor writer's words with a grain of salt. Every survey I've ever read the number one culprit in declining hunter numbers was "no place to hunt". Acreage that 50 hunters used to hunt on is now controlled by a handful of hunters. "Control" means NO ONE gets on there for any purpose. So that cuts out all small game hunters too. We are our own worst enemy and are dying a slow hunting death. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 9:00:40 GMT -5
This little statement surprised me. I wonder if Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky censor the deer harvest numbers. "One thing we have not noted in the past is that many state have altered their figures (censored is a better word) to help control the message they have presented to the public. Because most states no longer require in-person harvest registration, many of the numbers have been manipulated after the fact when they were released to other news outlets." Supposition on the outdoor writers part.. I don't believe for a minute that the IDNR alters or censors any numbers to present to the public. I've learned a LONG time ago to take any outdoor writer's words with a grain of salt. Every survey I've ever read the number one culprit in declining hunter numbers was "no place to hunt". Acreage that 50 hunters used to hunt on is now controlled by a handful of hunters. "Control" means NO ONE gets on there for any purpose. So that cuts out all small game hunters too. We are our own worst enemy and are dying a slow hunting death. I agree, it's hard to believe anything from mankind. Yes, we are a dying breed with a few exceptions growing up. I'm batting 33% with my 3 boys. There might be a chance with my oldest someday. I do think places to hunt, costs to hunt, and kids not hunting small game in their nearby wooded lots plays a biggest part. Again places to hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Oct 17, 2019 10:19:36 GMT -5
If the baiting bans are enforced as effectively as ours here, I suspect they will have little impact on the number of hunters. The bans are generally disregarded here by anyone who wants to violate them, and will probably be similarly disregarded elsewhere, because they are simply WAY too tough to effectively enforce.
The manpower to patrol the deer woods would be financially unrealistic.
Then there's the presence of the personnel traipsing through our favorite areas to try to spot a mineral block or some salt sprinkled on the ground, or some alfalfa pellets strewn about on our favorite hillside.
Any such ban will end up being another realistically unenforceable regulation that will only hamper the few who willingly obey it, thus benefiting those who don't.
We have speed limits, and police with radar guns providing almost indisputable evidence of the crime at frequent intervals, but anyone obeying the posted limits will be a traffic hazard and may now be ticketed for impeding the normal flow of traffic on four-lane highways! The authorities have given up on trying to get us all to obey the laws and are now creating laws to protect the speeders from being annoyed by being delayed by those who bey the posted limits!
We need a ban on unenforceable laws!
IMO, any such ban imposed in an area that has been open to baiting, IF it is somehow enforced with noticeable effect, would probably reduce the number of folks who are baiting small plots and taking deer there. Some of those people would then take up another pastime in the fall, and some will be out there walking through the public land deer woods, further spoiling any spots in it that are not already overused. But my guess is that there will not be much change in the numbers or the downward trend due to another virtually unenforceable regulation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 10:49:38 GMT -5
Ohio permits baiting and I only know one hunter(s) (uncle and two nephews) that use salt blocks and corn. The rest of us do not use baits. We have learned there are more negative effects than positive for mature deer. By the way. The one hunter that does not hunt legal. They trespass and hunt where ever they like. I run into them all the time. I'm sure if it was illegal they would still be baiting. The one positive about baiting is that it makes it easier to shot a young deer. Better odds for new beginners to get a deer and get hooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 17, 2019 10:52:54 GMT -5
The good thing about outfitters that lease up a ton of land, is eventually they'll want more land to lease, with already declining numbers, this is not a sustainable model. Their own greed will put them under. There are many outfitters in the Midwest that have been in business many a years.... yeah there have been some come and go but it's not a dieing business by any means! |
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Oct 17, 2019 11:01:09 GMT -5
The good thing about outfitters that lease up a ton of land, is eventually they'll want more land to lease, with already declining numbers, this is not a sustainable model. Their own greed will put them under. There are many outfitters in the Midwest that have been in business many a years.... yeah there have been some come and go but it's not a dieing business by any means! I didnt say they were going of of business next week. I said its not sustainable. Toys R Us was around for a long time to, and then it wasnt. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 17, 2019 11:21:50 GMT -5
Ok.... guess that can apply to about any outdoors business then.
Just look out west there outfitters that have been around so long it carries on through the family's generations....There are many in the Midwest the same way
Will they be around for ever ? Who knows...
|
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Oct 17, 2019 11:32:18 GMT -5
Ok.... guess that can apply to about any outdoors business then. Just look out west there outfitters that have been around so long it carries on through the family's generations....There are many in the Midwest the same way Will they be around for ever ? Who knows... There are a finite amount of people willing to pay to hunt. An outfitter leases 100 farms, there are only so many people willing to pay outfitter prices to hunt whitetail. Sure he makes money for a while, and he invests into leasing more farms to make more money, but the number of customers isnt going to grow like he does. Hence why that is not a sustainable business model. The bottom will eventually drop out of this pay to play model. Out west is a totally different world, with points systems, travel, and animals not widely available on the east coast more people are willing to pay for success. People are not flocking to Indiana outfitters to hunt whitetail, like they do for elk or mule deer out west. Whitetail are everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 17, 2019 11:53:04 GMT -5
Ok.... guess we will agree to disagree which is fine.
I don't see the bottom falling out in your or mine life time guess time will tell.
Heck .... Indiana just start a new guide license so I am guessing they are seeing a need for that in the very near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Oct 17, 2019 18:41:48 GMT -5
Unless indiana starts buying up public ground faster leasing will be an only option for the majority. Plenty of people out there willing to pay to hunt. Or feeling like it’s the best way for them to participate in their hobbies. I see it every year with the out of state vehicles littering the roadside on opening day of firearms
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Oct 17, 2019 19:55:30 GMT -5
Locals will lease too, or pay the leasing companies to lease. Neighbors boy was actively looking to lease 2 years ago, then got married. Where his wife works allows employees and their spouses to hunt on the property, so he's no longer looking to lease.
|
|
