# Hunter recruitment



## FOWL BRAWL (Feb 13, 2020)

Found this article on another site. Thoughts?









The Case Against Hunter Recruitment


The following opinion piece is written by my brother, Matt Rinella. He’s a research ecologist who has devoted his life equally to hunting and conservation. You’ve maybe seen him on old episodes of MeatEater or listened to him on more recent episodes of the podcast. For years now, we’ve been...




www.themeateater.com


----------



## Tree_Beard (Jan 13, 2021)

From a deer hunting perspective, the unchecked suburban sprawl has eliminated massive amounts of hunting lands, but not at all limited the deer habitat. There’s probably more deer in these cracker box neighborhoods than there ever where when it was a bean field, but nobody in them let’s you hunt. The same number of hunters are competing for fewer and fewer acres and the pressure there eliminates the deer. Add in the increasing number of landowners who don’t allow hunting or else want to charge exorbitant prices for the privilege of hunting their land. I’ve lost all my private places to hunt largely for these reasons , and I don’t know if I will be able to pass the joy of hunting on to my kids.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

True. And with that we need to better manage what we have. Still, I am little jealous of some areas in the New England states that let them walk with the bears, bobcats and mountain lions.


----------



## Blackcat 86 (Feb 11, 2011)

The author says the R3 movement uses "slick marketing campaigns." All marketing campaigns are designed to be slick. Ha!

The author laments, "...his hunting spots get more crowded every year." So do most "spots" in the rest of the world, save downtown NYC.

I regret reading that the R3 lobbyists got the P-R Act modified. I hadn't heard about that until now.

The author went on to present several charts and delineate their statistical relevance for and against his principle argument. I'm not in complete concurrence with his comments, but I can say that the same statistical numbers can be used to prove both sides of almost any argument.

Then the author went on to declare the R3 movement "undemocratic and rude." I wanted to concur with his sentiments, but hesitated to do so when he apparently didn't get his way and simply quit "the board of a major hunting nonprofit[.]" Such a response is not an endearing characteristic to win over many readers.

I cautiously climbed back on the author's wagon after reading his concluding paragraph; all good points. But, "that model [which has] worked since the beginning of time" has itself changed. Indeed I submit that it's the "friends and family" and their environs that have had a major if not the most impact on R3. Send out the _data-dogs _to gather all that can show how urban migration, fatherless households, even the demise of youth organizations affect R3.


----------



## Redheads (Jun 9, 2008)

Back in the day, a young kid with a 22 was seldom turned away when asking a landowner to squirrel hunt. Nowadays i dont think that would be the case. 
Times have changed and trophy hunting has a lot to do with it


----------



## Southernsaug (May 23, 2019)

I think I agree with him on almost all his points. I think quality hunting is as important as mass of hunters. I also think he is correct the habitat or opportunity availability dictates more than simple recruitment. Hunters leave because of lost opportunity and declined quality. They have enough hassle in life without finding it in their hunting, a place that previously was a way to escape the madness. Improve the opportunity first then bring the participants. Who plans to build a football stadium and then sells tickets to scheduled games before it's built, when 50,000 people show up on a field with no stadium, there will be conflict and dissatisfaction. Most everyone with an ounce of sense would say, "you can't sell tickets to a seat that doesn't exist", isn't that similar to stuffing more hunters in less land? I think we are trending towards a transition of our wild places and how they are consumed for recreation. As populations grow our wild areas are changed. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just reality. 

As for nonprofits, like NWTF, I think it's a self-serving cause. As much as helping the target species they are worried about sustaining and growing the bottom line. I'll use this analogy: many preachers will deliver passionate sermons on tithing. Most I have seen are uncompromising in their demands of it's requirement to maintain the faith. I say they should simply do their job of serving a flock well and print a annual financial statement. There is something that rings false when a preacher is putting a guilt trip on his congregation over pouring money into the church offering plate and then taking his salary form that same plate. I always doubt the sincerity of any charitable request when the requester is receiving personal gain from the contribution. The wildlife nonprofits need to be doing their jobs so well that contributing support is an obvious need. Instead they hire huge marketing firms to guilt trip and coerces sportsmen into stuffing the bank. Between the marketing firm and high administrator salaries, far less of the sportsman's dollar actually goes to the resource. If you want to donate, go directly to your state agency and donate. Most agencies take donations.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Redheads said:


> Back in the day, a young kid with a 22 was seldom turned away when asking a landowner to squirrel hunt. Nowadays i dont think that would be the case.
> Times have changed and trophy hunting has a lot to do with it


Liability as well as distrust of others may have stopped this practice.


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

Steve; I think if you check the hunting digest, you will find that there is no liability to the landowner if he allows hunting for free.


----------

