Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 432810" data-attributes="member: 314"><p>Greetings Boys!!  Haven't been on here all summer due to protracted and exhausting election "exuberence" and I see things are still status quo.  Whew...reading this thread from start to now...WOW.  Some things just don't change.  Sticking to the OP, habitat is dwindling and hunters are competing for less and less each year. That is an undeniable fact.  The popular options to alleviate this pressure seem to be A: increase the amount of habitat on public lands; B: Increase access to the private lands that still have good habitat; or C: restrict the number of non-resident hunters.  Starting with option A, I think the reality of increasing habitat on public lands will only cause more hunters to use those lands having improved habitat, resulting in even more hunter competition.  Thereby exacerbating the problem.  Option B IMO would require something like the block management program of MT.  Humans tend to be inconsiderate of anything that isn't theirs so it's not unreasonable to compensate landowners for the poor behavior and degredation/damage to land that seems to be omnipotent in every human grouping, including sportsmen.  Also, I think it's important for hunters to note that landowners giving access to other hunters means that they are giving up their own quality of hunting for the public's benefit.  Should they be compensated...or not?  Option C is the most difficult cost/benefit option IMO.  Does the loss of revenue to the local businesses from nonresidents offset the benefits of improved hunting for residents?  IDK.  Is having the local cafe in town where one goes to get coffee in the morning or ice cream for the kids in the afternoon the rest of year besides the fall worth it?  Only those who go to the cafe can say. Additionally, the assumption is that with fewer non-residents there will be less competion.  I don't necessarily think that is the case.  There are many sportsmen that have stated that they quit hunting due to competion.  Would they pick it back up if fewer non-residents were allowed in?  If they do resume hunting, wouldn't the level of competion for good hunting land then remain the same, but with less revenue for businesses?  IDK.  Unfortunately, it always seems to boil down to the benjamins.  In my mind I would rank the Options as B, C, then A, but opinions are like....well you know.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA