Minnesota Hunting Article
Connecticut
Contributors to this thread:
Dr. Williams's Link
Here is a great article I was alerted to by a colleague on the future of hunting from Duluth, MN. I'm not the only one saying this stuff.
Very true article. It's funny though that it seems like their are plenty of hunters and fishermen. I see more hunters and treestands then I have in the past. My friend was going to take his son to a hunter Ed class and they book up months in advance. I would like to see the numbers now compared to years ago. Here it doesn't matter as the money now goes to the general fund. I'd rather pay 50 to go to conservation then 25 to go elsewhere.
Minnesota is a cool state - amazing forests and waters for hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, skiing, running etc. It is an interesting article with good points. The concept of fish and wildlife funding going to a general fund drives me crazy - and I'm very happy the Romney admin couldnt pull that off in MA (where I live).
I see small pockets of growth in our ranks - women hunters and fly fishermen, and "hipster" fly fishermen/women so to speak. But both groups are not going to provide enough growth to keep up with the needs.
Good read, that raises some interesting questions.
Boy that's an easy one to find more funds. Make everyone who uses state property buy a license to use it.
Will you are correct. If a state like MN with the habitat, wildlife, and hunting tradition is warning about this, why are hunters in an urban state like CT in complete denial?
Dude, go away. You are like a tick.
You guys are your own worst enemy. Not only are you not advocating for yourselves, you are also sticking your head in the sand. Read the article.
You guys are clapping guys like Glen and Mike on the backs for giving it back to me. Clearly those guys have passion, time, and energy but it is directed improperly. I've spent most of the last week fielding FOIA requests from Glen on purchasing for the Davis Aviation flight that happened a year ago on a portion of the tick study that is over. And the past year going back and forth with these guys convinced DEEP, CAES, and Davis are for some reason lying about how many deer are on the ground. These are dead end fights, the flight and study are over and yes, there are actually that many deer out there. Why not take that energy and form a collective voice and have representation in Hartford? Who is there representing hunters now? DEEP that's who. The very agency you guys rail against. I'll give it to Glen he tried to start a group to rally against the tick study called the "Redding Sportsmen's Alliance." They had a Facebook page and sent some letters to residents that looked a bit like a ransom note and signed with Glen's classic closing signature "Thanks you." It needs to be professional and have an unbiased leader who understands the whole picture and does not view hunting with blinders on but understands it all as I have been trying to inform here, but clearly no one wants to hear it or do anything about it. You'd rather complain on a hunting message board than take action. In that case, carry on. I think you'll have plenty to complain about going forward.
Hunting? Did you guys here's anything about hunting lately? What we need is a remote control so we can change the channel because this self serving info-mercial is BORING! It's like in the Charlie Brown cartoon when the trombones play WAH WAH WAH WAH, WAH WAH WAH.
I'm going to the NW corner this weekend to do some shed hunting, get some "FRESH" air and enjoy nature before it becomes extinct due to the fact that we have too many deer. (wait, does that make sense?)
Climate change is having a huge effect on the biodiversity of many species and everyone in this forum should be contacting their representatives in congress if they haven't already.
"What we need is a remote control so we can change the channel because this self serving info-mercial is BORING!"
Bob, seems like you need to take your own advice and move on. No need to stay on this "channel" or even post if you don't like it. The initial post was hunting-related, unfortunately it was derailed as many threads are on this forum lately. Too bad because this used to be a good site.
Toby
The thrust of my comments are exactly what you're asking for,....hunting comments. I respect your wishes and stop beating the drum but I'll bet others don't reciprocate.
You got me Bob. You are right. My concern about the future of hunting IS self-serving. And what drums are you beating? And I thought you weren't responding to me anymore?
Toby - that took all of 30 minutes
That's because my lunch break starts at noon.
Interesting article. Funds: yep.. need to find new source. I see no problem for those other than hunters 'paying their fair share'. Climate change: complete hokum and proven so many times. Growth/Conservationists w/o voice: yep. They go hand in hand and again it comes down to dollars. More development means more tax dollars. We all know politicans cannot say no to more $$. Conservation does not bring in big tax $$. That brings us back to Funds. Licenses for any activity on state land. This will be a hard sell. The 'hunters are already subject' arguement won't go far in places with high numbers of anti's like CT.
Maybe we can use some of the $92 Billion we spend every year in Corporate Welfare (Nike, Boeing, Alcoa...) and put it towards conservation.
Right. One only need look at the CT pheasant stocking program that is nearly dead. It is one of the few programs in CT that pays for itself and look where it is. A collective group of hunters with a collective voice could rally around the pheasant program and try to secure additional funding. But instead, it is going to die a slow painful death with guys doing nothing but complaining about how few pheasants there are. Anyone disagree?
Nope. Disagree. Malloy had his head in the sand and had no idea how that program was funded.
There are plenty of pheasants that are stocked....you just follow the trucks around midweek and go shoot your limit. And if know their routes you can have a blast. If you wait until Sat. you're our of luck.
I still don't get the pheasant stocking. An all-but-canned hunt for a species that has no biological relevance here and proves it by dying off in droves. Now, if we could get the same $$ and effort into grouse & woodcock habitat....
" Climate change: complete hokum and proven so many times. "
Scott - some days you just have to accept that you're talking to the wrong end of that mule.
Blood. Pheasant program example has nothing to do with Malloy. That's my point. It's hunter funded and faltering due to lack of funds. Kind of what the article was talking about is my point.
GF. Personally, I get a pheasant tag in case I come across one while targeting woodcock. I agree with you. I keep trying to talk to the wrong end in hopes I'm reaching a handful of guys who read things here and are smart enough not to post. I'm not that smart. . .