(TX) Survey of hunters shows concern for costs, conservation

D

Drizzt

New member
Survey of hunters shows concern for costs, conservation

Thursday, June 13, 2002



Mike Leggett


Texas hunters are concerned about the cost of hunting, high-fenced ranches and preserving outdoor traditions, according to the preliminary results of a survey conducted on behalf of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Wildlife Association.

The survey, expected to serve as the foundation for a statewide marketing plan designed to improve the image and future of hunting in Texas, has been conducted over the Internet and at a series of public meetings around the state.

"Hunters want to save the sport," said Brett Boston, president of Group Solutions, the Georgia company conducting the survey. "Hunters see themselves as conservationists, engaged in nature. Passing along tradition was the No. 1 value Texas hunters had."

However, the rising cost of recreation, which isn't limited just to hunting, as well as issues of fair chase and the ethics of intense management of deer and other game species, repeatedly showed themselves as concerns for a large number of hunters, Boston said. He commented Monday during a session to allow nonhunters, retailers and the Hunting Advisory Committee to take part in the survey, which has elicited more than 1,000 responses and continues through June.

That could be troubling for people who want to preserve and enhance hunting's image in Texas because hunting in this state isn't always cheap; high fences and intensive management are here to stay; and an increasingly urban population is getting further and further away from hunting opportunity, both geographically and psychologically.

Whether the public's views about hunting are based on perception or reality doesn't really matter, said David Langford of the Texas Wildlife Association. The purpose of the survey is to identify the barriers to hunting and to develop ways to recruit young hunters to the sport.

"It's been my contention since 1991 that we needed to get marketing people involved in delivering the (positive) message about hunting," Langford said. "I always saw the same group of people sitting around the same room talking about how great the message was about conservation and management. But we weren't doing anything about it."

Langford said he has some concerns that nonhunters and even some former hunters may hold, mainly that fences and intensive game management — two things many TWA members obviously embrace — represent something negative about hunting and landowners.

"But we've got to show the benefits of holding habitat together, the family values involved in hunting. I'm encouraged (by the survey responses) because this could be the wet washrag that slaps people in the face to show we need to get the professionals involved in delivering the right message about hunting," Langford said.

The Texas Wildlife Association's membership includes the majority of the larger landholders in Texas, many of whom derive considerable income from hunting and outdoor recreation. The price of access to those activities, along with other recreation, has increased during the past two decades. Many survey respondents see the increase in the cost of hunting as a big wall between them and the outdoors.

"The belief of the people who are avid (about hunting) is that they will be priced out of the sport and it will be reserved for the wealthy," Boston said. The survey also shows that there is also some discontent with the growth of trophy hunting in Texas, Boston added. Parks and Wildlife and TWA will have to deal with that in any campaign trying to market hunting to nonhunters in Texas.

"It doesn't matter what's going on behind those fences," Boston said. "It's their perception that counts."

http://www.austin360.com/aas/sports/leggett/0602/061302.html
 
Dave Langford is definitely one of the brighter stars in the hunting firmament. I've spent some time with him, back in the earlier days of TWA. He knows for sure what he's talking about.

Several ranches besides the YO are now catering to Youth Hunts. We need more ranchers to do the same.

The problem for many ranchers is that the costs of raising cattle go up, but the income doesn't rise nearly so fast. Thus, if they cater to hunters, the cashflow income rises. This then leads to "ranching" for trophy bucks, to charge more money per buck or per hunt. To do this successfully requires high fences to keep poorer deer out, not to keep the big ones home.

Amazing how many ostensibly free-market folks will gripe about a rancher wanting to improve his income...

:), Art
 
Well, while a rancher or private land-owner can certainly charge whatever they want, and I will support their decision, I know that I certainly can't afford the cost of a hunting lease any longer.

I used to depend on friends or family finding a lease, then try to get a better price for more than 1 gun on the lease. That option is no longer there for me, so I have a distinct feeling that I will be sitting at home this deer season.

I'm certainly not saying that these leases are going for unfair prices, but I know I've definitely been priced out.
 
Don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger, Drizzt. Our bunch got "bought out" of a heckuva nice hunting lease by some well-to-do guys who offered four times what we had been paying. This was over 20 years ago.

That's why I've been happy with my little chunk of desert. The deer hunting isn't that great, but the all-year-around varmints/javelina/birds/"occasional" deer makes up for it.

But, priorities, I guess. I could have worked harder to get more money to pay the higher lease prices. Dunno...

Art
 
Hey Drizzit,
Gadzooks! Don't sit home. There is public hunting land even in Texas. You can also step over the line into Arkansas. Out of state license is $225/yr or $125/5 day and for $20 more, you have access to thousands of acres that the state leases from lumber companies just like our deer camps do. No permanent stands, but it is some of the best hunting land in the state. There are areas to set up camp in a tent or camper.
The state has leased tens of thousands of acres within a few miles of my own lease and some land I own. There are also hundreds of thousands of acres in national forrest lands (Ozark and Ouachita) and there is no fee. I often hunt there myself, and I have lots of other choices.
Go a half mile from the road, and you won't see a soul. Many small "deer camps" are just a bunch of guys that camp at the same place every year and share cooking and chores. No dues.
I know this is different from your own lease, with no control over who else attends, but after opening weekend these places are under used.
Next level: timber company leases are only $2 to $3 per acre, but you may need to get a few folk together. With a large enough lease, they give you a place to build a camp house.
Yes, there is a price to pay to hunt. But it is variable. Just like buying your car, balance what you want with what you can afford.
Right now, I am blessed, but I've been poor and the Lord may decide I need another lesson in humility. But I'll never "sit it out" even in a wheelchair. I'll be flat on my back if I miss opening day. Then the next season, I'll fly up to my stand and won't see anything less than a ten point.
Look a little harder before you hang it up, and take a sniff of Hoppe's #9 to boost your spirits. You're gonna love it.
Bwana Earl
 
Yeah, Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. has done a pretty good job of creating public-access hunting. Their annual Guidebook has a ton of good information. They have a website...

Art
 
When I still lived in Tejas, GOOD hunting country went from $100 a gun up to $500......thats when I went back to birds.After moving to Colorado...to find fortune..LOL. I started hunting on public lands....still do. Dam if I'm gonna pay $4k for an elk.
IMO, landowners have brought the price too darn high...that's why we no longer have the young hunter in the field..........the future of hunting and shootine!
My 2 cents worth....
Dan
 
I don't fault the landowners.

Tis the trophy grabbers that offer the landowners higher than market.

Landowner would be daft to not take the higher bid.

Hence, the market just rose.

Opinion, mine.

Sam
 
Can I ask a dumb question? Does everyone down there sell hunting rights or is it still possible to knock on doors and simply ask permission to hunt? The idea of paying to hunt is totally foreign to me.
 
ATTICUS, once folks find out that there are those who will pay for something which was once given away, it's hard to find freebies. Reminds me of a gal I once knew...

You might find a rancher who'd allow "knock on the door" quail, rabbit or feral hog hunting. In Texas, there's been just so much publicity about deer hunting and leasing, over the years. Very few with any appreciable acreage with deer don't already have their place leased.

Me, I raise an eyebrow over the idea of guided hunts for prairie dogs, and the rates appear ridiculous. For that matter, feral hogs are a serious problem in Texas. We have way too many of them. There oughta be a bounty! Yet, folks will charge all manner of $$$ for somebody to hunt, and hunters will pay it!

I dunno. I've watched a lot of changes through the years, and I've gotten to where I just lump hunting-styles in with other items in the "The Effing World's Gone Effing Crazy!" list.

People do stuff. Doesn't mean it has to make sense.

Art
 
hello all, I was brought up to believe that game was a public resource like water and air, I really makes me sick to see those game fences in the hill country. Ranchers shouldn't be allowed to make money from game. This is not Europe this is America. Those who own the land do not own the game, everyone owns the game,as it is community property. Maybe I am completely out of touch but that is the way I was raised and I will not change.
Game are wild animals any attempt to alter the genetics (trophy ranching) is immoral. These animals are no longer wild they are simply fallow deer. It isn't ethical to claim they are wild.
:barf:
 
pdog, to stay away from the subject of high-fence game-ranching: Texas has always had it as law that regardless of ownership of game animals--and game animals are indeed public property--a landowner has control of trespass on his private property.

He pays taxes on his land; he feeds "your" animals, does he not? The deer might be "your" resource, but you don't go running out to provide feed or water or pay a landowner to do so. :) For goat ranchers, the carrying capacity for goats is limited by how many deer are on the land, as well.

My overall point is that it's not a cut-and-dried, simple subject.

Now: There have been high-fence ranches in Texas since long before we've had the pen-raised-for-trophy nonsense. The purpose is to keep the neighbors' deer out. It's the only way for a landowner to improve his pasture for deer without drawing in neighbors' deer to the new smorgasbord. It's the only way to keep a deer herd in an area down to the carrying capacity of the land--otherwise the deer herd will expand beyond all belief.

I know from experience that pastures of 2,000 acres and more can be mighty hard to hunt. :) I've "worked" 2,000 acres in a day, but I had seriously tired legs by sundown...

Art
 
The question remains do ranchers have the right to make profit from a public resource. Individuals can't charge you for floating a river that they own both banks to.
I firm believe ranchers have the right to control access to their land, my family has a ranch in north central Oklahoma, we control access to that land, but we do not profit from hunters, it isn't ethical for me to charge you for taking animals any more than I should charge you for breathing the air on my land. My plants vegatation provided the oxygen but I dont own it, same is true for game. My vegatation and water raised it, but I don't own it. Look at the state of hunting in europe and you will see the future of hunting in Texas if this trend continues.
 
pdog, the ethics as you see the situation are your own opinion. Others have different views as to the eithics of charging a fee for trespass. In some areas, and it's proven fact, only the income from deer hunting lets a rancher keep his ranch instead of selling out to a hobby rancher or filing for bankruptcy.

It's less a matter of ethics than of custom and locale.

Tens of thouands of people have hunted deer and bear with dogs, since this country was made up of colonies. It's a traditional way of hunting, through most of the South. If you raised the issue of ethics, they'd have gotten pretty wall-eyed at your insult to their integrity. Custom, and locale.

In Georgia, quail are in danger from fire ants. Only the landowner spends the money directly on the land in efforts to control this pest. Is he obligated to not charge a fee for somebody to then hunt quail after his expense and labor?

In my desert area in SW Texas, we've been under drouth conditions since 1993. I've spent around $2,000 to provide for water-supply augmentation in two areas. This benefits deer (and other critters) in an area of a few thousand acres. Am I supposed to say, "Sure, come on in and hunt. No cost, sir!"?

I've been averaging around five to seven inches of rain per year, for just way too long. Hope you're doing better. :)

Art
 
Art,

I certainly don't mean to insult anyone's integrity. We don't intentionally do anything to encourage game populations. That is not our what we do. To me providing for population stability is the biologist's job.
Anyway different folks different customs. i hope the drought breaks but not like in San Antonio.

Pdog
 
pdog, even the non-commercial-trophy ranchers are now working with the biologists of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. What they are learning and doing about brush control, water supply, and improved pastures for game helps all species: Game, non-game and domestic.

To me, it's a win-win situation, with the ranchers getting something out of the tax monies they pay.

One aspect of fee-to-hunt: The non-hunter doesn't lose anything but the good times.

I think this will all shake out over the next several years, as to very-high-cost hunting. The $$$ make it attractive; folks will create too many big-deal setups, and the competition will cause the prices to drop. (Not to mention the Dow...)

The worst thing that could happen to wild populations would be more land locked out of hunting. This leads to population explosions beyond the carrying capacity of the land, until starvation and disease cause a population collapse.

Like I say, it's a very complex subject. Texas, alone, has serious symposiums every couple of weeks, involving biologists, state officials and landowners.

Now, if we could just get rid of far aints.

:), Art
 
Wonder if Flickers would do any good against far ants.
They seem pretty good at gobblin other ants.

Or import Aardvarks.....that would probably turn into an unforseen nightmare tho.

Sam
 
Aardvarks. I vote for aardvarks.

Learning to spell it would probably add a year to a highschool graduate's age, in Arkansas...

:), Art
 
Hot Dog! That is all I lacked for my Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering! And I never thunk I wuld learn nuthin here.
Bwana Earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top