When it’s not actually population management; Or, the lies we tell ourselves and how to fix them.

[entropy]

You want European-style game management and decreased license prices to encourage more hunters? Did you not understand Chuck R.'s explanation of game management and hunting regulations in Germany? These things are mutually exclusive. A caste-system style society (hunting-wise, at least) where the expensively managed resource is reserved for those included in and invited by those controlling the funds for management is one step removed from banning the peasants from hunting "the Kings' forests" and making killing "the King's game" ,a crime punishable by death. Were they to invite more hunters, they would have to 'provide' more game-oh wait, that's already what most US States' DNR's (or whatever acronym a State calls theirs) do.
Us 'proles' here in the US prefer our less perfect system of game management of providing habitat, (something not possible in much of Europe, due to population density and all arable land out side of cities needed for agriculture. There is also less privately owned forested or non-framed open land there. ) for larger game populations, and keeping regulations (somewhat) sensible and less expensive.
I am for voluntary advanced hunter training in addition to the Hunter Safety programs now in place. But were not in that place where PH's are needed for all hunts, yet. I hope it never gets that way here.

 

[Captcurt]

Don't be posting that! Like 1984, they'll take that as a plan, not a warning.

It is already a plan in some states. Take Texas for instance. Most of the land is private, you usually have to pay a trespass fee or have a lease if you don't own land. The majority of the big ranches managed for big deer charge $2,500-$10,000 depending on the antler score. I'm sorry, but it would be a cold day in a volcano before I would pay that kind of scratch to shoot a deer eating corn in the road.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well I would definitely be for reducing fees to increase access to the pursuit even if it means Restructuring the budget to compensate.

...the key word in your statement is "access". The number one reason most folks stop hunting or don't start to hunt is because they lack access to decent hunting areas. This is something we teach young and new hunters in Hunter Safety. This is why we tell them to present themselves in a positive manner when hunting private land as it is a privilege and showing respect to the land and the landowners is paramount to keeping that access. I don;t know about New York, but here in Wisconsin, most of the budget of the DNR comes from license sales. We do not use monies from the general tax fund. Instead of raising license fees, the state tries to recruit more hunters to increase their budget. Still, it's hard to keep up with inflation without raising license/stamp fees. None of that money goes toward acquiring more public hunting lands. Thus as access to private land dwindles, increasing the number of hunters, just increases the number of hunters on public lands, which is not increasing in size. A while back there was a recommendation to ask license holders(both hunting and fishing) to voluntarily donate another $2 when buying their license to fund more access and to improve habitat on public lands to increase the amount of wildlife. It didn't go. I personally would not have an issue with a $10-$15 fee per person for use of public land when hunting. We already have fees for access to state parks and usage of some public boat landings. I pay a voluntary $40 per family "user" fee for a unique state/BIA held piece of heaven not far from me. By definition, one does not have to pay the user fee to hunt or fish there, but I feel the fee helps the management of the area and only increases opportunities there. The implementation of a "user" fee IMHO, that would only be used to buy/lease more square miles of public accessible hunting land and to manage it for wildlife production, would be a major plus, not only for retaining those hunting already, but in recruiting new hunters. Decreasing license fees to promote more hunters, while reducing monies needed for law enforcement, research and management, would decimate what hunting we have on public lands here.

Here's a synopsis of where monies goes from license fees here.....

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is one of this state’s smallest agencies, employing about 39,000 people. In 2010-11, total agency spending was over $529 million, of which the Fish and Wildlife Account supplied $103 million. Fishing and hunting licenses and stamps make up 67 percent of that account. Another 20 percent comes from Federal excise taxes (Sport Fish Restoration and Pittman-Robertson) on your purchases of gear related to hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. The rest of the account is filled from miscellaneous grants, donations, state land timber sales and other sources.

For each dollar you spend on a license or habitat stamp, 57 cents goes to Fisheries and Wildlife Management. Another 19 cents goes to law enforcement. The rest (24 cents) goes to customer service, regional management, Bureau of Facilities and Lands, and support and administration.

...as you see, no monies for acquiring more public access.

 

[entropy]

I'm sorry, but it would be a cold day in a volcano before I would pay that kind of scratch to shoot a deer eating corn in the road.

There are a lot more cold volcanoes than hot ones on Earth......

 

[stillquietvoice]

taken nearly 20 years, but its getting better. It may take another 10 years before it is back to where it

I live only a few miles from the boarder of PA, when I travel into Great bend PA or farther south there seems to be at least deer killed for every mile traveled. Population here is pretty high. Not as high as some places where the deer waltz into town, city streets, at least from what I've seen. My wife works for McIntosh labs, stereo systems, not biological, and sees deer crossing the road where she works.

When I started hunting deer a combination deer, small game and fishing license was 25.00 2.00 Turkey, 5.00 muzzle loader . Last season I paid over 60.00 for big game, muzzle loading, and Turkey.

Seems too that I saw more conservation officers when I first started than I have in the last 10 years combined. Had interactions with them as well, comming out of the woods, shoeing proof of identity, pistol permit....