NDA survey from MI & some random thoughts….

[Rous14]

Recently received an email with results from a survey that NDA did in my home state of MI. Says there were 631 respondents so pretty small sample size but sill, I was surprised that the recently hot topic of Access ranked dead last on the list of concerns that the participants were asked about. Not 100% sure what to make of that but interesting for sure. Also caught Skips recent podcast with The Huntr podcast guys. Some random thoughts from it and the MI survey:

- Can’t overstate enough how important skips fight against the crossbow lobby is and wish other midwest states would have had an organized group(s) to fight them like Skip is doing. Can the other Midwest states over turn it now that it’s so far down the road? Don’t know but gut says highly unlikely. Awesome work Skip.

- MI hunters have been pretty adamant that they don’t want our Nov. 15 gun opener moved to the first Friday around the 15th much less later in the year (post rut). Just one example of how hard it will most likely be to improve many states- at least to the extent where those resident hunters that are passionate enough about it and have the financial means to go on hunts in other states or own land in other states won’t still do so. Going to be a long, slow, uphill battle to take pressure of the iowas and Illinois of the world. Worth the effort though for sure!

-Not sure MI has really been “ruined” or “degraded”. its really been the same forever imo wouldnt you agree Skip? It’s not as though the state has ever had much for quality. Quantity yes, and that’s stayed somewhat similar it seems but there has never been a time in my 35 years of recollection that the quality was anything different than it is today. Our southern MI back in the 70s hardly even had any deer much less quality deer. So from that stand point it’s “better” I guess? So many hunters (home of Fred bear and Ted nugent) and the farms in general are much smaller. Just a tough equation to think we can get the quality to where IA or IL is but it can definitely be improved significantly. Only way to improve quality here imo is to go to 1 buck and move gun season to after the rut.

-Small quibble…..I know it’s a perfect and super effective argument to use to advance your initiatives but I still don’t think it’s fair or accurate to suggest that nrlo’s won’t or can’t control herd numbers, shoot does, etc…NRLO’s along w folks that pick up and move to a different state for the deer quality are flat out the best of the best when it comes to conservation/management/stewardship etc…they are simply not going to make the time & financial sacrifice to drive 5-9 hours unless they are ALL IN on doing what’s best for the herd and the habitat and if killing 20 does or zero does is what’s in the best interest of the herd/habitat then that’s what we’d all do. Go to the deer processor on opening day and 98% of the 1-3 year old bucks laying there will be taken by residents or outfitter hunters. The access issue aside, the hunting quality would absolutely go up in areas with nrlo’s in IL, IA, WI, OH, IN

- Access. Been thinking about this and something to consider in the discussion….unless a state can buy land that is not currently hunted (not much of that out there in most of the Midwest) then in order to provide access, access must also be taken. Me and my hunting group of 6 hunt 200 ac let’s say. State comes in and buys it in the name of increasing access, the 6 of us just lost access unless we want to continue to hunt it along with 10-20 more folks but then the same quality/experience issue that ranks #1 in MI survey and across Midwest arises again. I still think at the end of the day we simply have more hunters than we do places to put them unless the importance of quality gets eliminated from the equation which nobody wants.

 

[Rous14]

 

[Sligh1]

REALLY GOOD!!! & the information is really interesting…. THINKING ON THIS!!!!!! Which my mind & opinions are ALWAYS OPEN!!!!!

1) access not being #1. Wow. That data surprised me. Most other data I’ve seen for other states & some previous data from MI. Here’s one link: https://www.mlive.com/public-intere...s-today-than-25-years-ago.html?outputType=amp

BUT- I can’t disagree with your data or need to disagree. It’s interesting. Some of other things, IMHO, contributing to decline in MI: quality of age structure…. I know HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of guys who have quit because “MI sucks!!!” Or they leave to go out of state. That’s not happening in iowa. MI uniquely has so many countless thousands of frustrated serious hunters- it’s hard to describe how bad it is and how pissed off these guys are. Can’t put into words. VERY INTERESTING DATA

2) off of that- can’t leave off- #1 data point of concern is the AGE CLASS!!!!! Which I’m happy to see that!!! & the fact that most care about that BUT folks are resistant to the #1 thing that would change that - guns moved out of peak rut- insanity to me. Like- makes no sense. Can’t be explained. Can’t fix stupid. U name it!!!! Just Irony at its finest!!!!!!

3) I don’t think crossbows get reversed. Once it’s out- there’s no putting it back. Unless the hunters were able to vote on it. That’s only chance. & I’m not saying they would vote them back out. I think there’s a chance if the debate could take place & a vote held. The only hope for states is to not throw them in regular archery for able-bodied to begin with. The other “chance” is hunting gets more crowded & the idea comes up to breaking up deer season into more seasons guys have to CHOOSE a season. Like we have: early ML, gun 1, gun 2 & late ML - which is GENIUS!!!!! Shorter seasons with XYZ weapon u choose & u can’t do the others. “I pick the short crossbow season” if that’s what u want. Broke up weapons/seasons hunters CHOOSE is very likely a viable solution for future!!!

4) MI is still bad. It’s been ruined since I started in 1994 I think??? Talking to hunters in 90’s as a passionate kid & new hunter- it always sounded like it has been war on 1.5’s as far back as anyone can recall. It’s still a disaster BUT: less hunters + some guys passing 1.5’s + guys forming coops- it’s BETTER than it used to be. I wouldn’t last 1 day hunting MI- I’d be so frustrated & pissed off I’d quit & learn how to steelhead fish or maybe grouse hunt …. To ME & many serious hunters in MI- it’s just a total waste of time. Why the serious ones either: quit, leave during November or try to make enough $ to lock up land & form coops. We have hundreds of MI transplants in iowa I’ve met through out the years. Dudes that moved here cause they love hunting & could not take another MI hunting season. I literally quit about Nov 17 every year since every last buck was usually dead. A few seasons of that…. Throw in the towel totally.

5) NR’s won’t control deer #’s like residents BUT…. I 100% agree they create better hunting. Age class will be better 100%!!!!!! 2 reasons: 1) NR’s buy land here or other big buck states to grow bigger deer. They pay lots of $ & do work to grow older deer. 2) they don’t hunt it often. They can’t hunt it all season like a resident. Absolutely they bring better age structure. They also bring a lot of conservation & environmental benefits!!!!!! ANYONE!!!!!…. I hope anyone knows- I am NOT bashing NR’s!!! I’m not the dude that “that guy hates NR’s”!!!! Furthest thing from the truth!!! I used to be one, they have huge benefits to hunting & I am one when I travel to a few other states. All I’m saying is: the Residents should be favored above NR’s. Their interests come first. I expect that when I hunt anywhere that I’m not a R. I want those other states to take care of Their folks first & then I feel grateful at any opportunity I get after that. Includes out west hunting. Or fishing. Whatever. Overall side note: I’d favor dudes that did massive conservation work & we can’t dismiss the value, some being NR’s, put into making mediocre ground amazing!!!!

FUTURE:
The access is going to be supply & demand. Without access…. Hunters will quit. That’s just reality. Here’s where this ends…. If hunting quality gets better over the country… it’ll be a lot of pay to play. But there will be ample growth of “walk-on” style hunting. Incentives for access. & public will stay “decent”. ON OTHER HAND…. If we keep degrading things, adding crazy regulations…. MARK MY WORDS (someone pull this thread up in 20 years!!!!! Or less!!!!!!!)….. you will have 4 ways to hunt: 1) own land 2) junk public 3) pay big $ to access farms set up for quality hunting or 4) !!!!! This is the BIG ONE!!!!!!!….. you will “hunt” a HIGH FENCE!!!! (But skip, they already exist, why would u say that?!?!)…. LET ME EXPLAIN “BRIEFLY”. High fence hunting is growing. When it becomes so hard to get deer to maturity- more guys will fold & say “I don’t wanna do it but I will do it”. You didn’t hear these words 20 years ago … “I got a horrible neighbor, I’m gonna high fence him!” I hear that OFTEN now. 2 sides to those debates too!!! But I never saw it or heard of it 20 years ago. HERE’S where it’s heading!!!!!!!! ……. A guy high fences his “bad neighbor” on one side. Maybe 2 sides. Things keep getting worse, they throw on towel & Say “I’ll fence all 4 sides”. It’s GRADUAL how it will happen. Guys that TODAY say they’d never do it… 10-20 years from now- will change their minds. They will say “I have no other choice to protect quality hunting”. & this is not me saying I like it or don’t like it- this is IRRELEVANT of opinion- it’s the REALITY of what’s coming!!!!!!!!! We ruin hunting with crazy regs…. This is how it ends. Looks just like many African countries, parts of Texas, Europe, etc. You mark my words- u will see more & more high fence hunting spots started. Guess where u will see it first & worst…. States like MICHIGAN!!!!! & the states further west are usually just 10-20 years behind what happens there!!! We can save the system but we better wake up real fast here!!! & not allow one more drop of this nonsense to take over iowa.

 

[T_Max]

Go to the deer processor on opening day and 98% of the 1-3 year old bucks laying there will be taken by residents or outfitter hunters. The access issue aside, the hunting quality would absolutely go up in areas with nrlo’s in IL, IA, WI, OH, IN

I am in Kansas, but here are a few thoughts. What do those residents and outfitter hunters have in common? Access. An outfitter hunter's access is limited by time. With only 5 days to "get it done" it is not surprising that that is often the outcome. A resident's access is limited often times by both NRLO's and outfitted hunters. Would the quality go up? Sure. But if there aren't enough resident hunters left in a state to keep up the pressure (votes) to allow NRLO's the opportunity to hunt, bye bye. It is great when a guy makes it enough in life to be able to travel to several states each year to hunt whitetails, but every other state they hunt that isn't their own someone else has to be forced to give up their opportunity to allow for it. We are dealing with a finite resource here. I am at the point where (and I mean this seriously) I would vote to get rid of hunting all together in my state rather than see it continue down the path it is going. I am not rich, but hunting is becoming a rich man's sport in Kansas at lightning speed. The European model is for Europeans. I think we are headed in that direction and it is a scary thought.

 

[Rous14]

REALLY GOOD!!! & the information is really interesting…. THINKING ON THIS!!!!!! Which my mind & opinions are ALWAYS OPEN!!!!!

1) access not being #1. Wow. That data surprised me. Most other data I’ve seen for other states & some previous data from MI. Here’s one link: https://www.mlive.com/public-intere...s-today-than-25-years-ago.html?outputType=amp

BUT- I can’t disagree with your data or need to disagree. It’s interesting. Some of other things, IMHO, contributing to decline in MI: quality of age structure…. I know HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of guys who have quit because “MI sucks!!!” Or they leave to go out of state. That’s not happening in iowa. MI uniquely has so many countless thousands of frustrated serious hunters- it’s hard to describe how bad it is and how pissed off these guys are. Can’t put into words. VERY INTERESTING DATA

2) off of that- can’t leave off- #1 data point of concern is the AGE CLASS!!!!! Which I’m happy to see that!!! & the fact that most care about that BUT folks are resistant to the #1 thing that would change that - guns moved out of peak rut- insanity to me. Like- makes no sense. Can’t be explained. Can’t fix stupid. U name it!!!! Just Irony at its finest!!!!!!

3) I don’t think crossbows get reversed. Once it’s out- there’s no putting it back. Unless the hunters were able to vote on it. That’s only chance. & I’m not saying they would vote them back out. I think there’s a chance if the debate could take place & a vote held. The only hope for states is to not throw them in regular archery for able-bodied to begin with. The other “chance” is hunting gets more crowded & the idea comes up to breaking up deer season into more seasons guys have to CHOOSE a season. Like we have: early ML, gun 1, gun 2 & late ML - which is GENIUS!!!!! Shorter seasons with XYZ weapon u choose & u can’t do the others. “I pick the short crossbow season” if that’s what u want. Broke up weapons/seasons hunters CHOOSE is very likely a viable solution for future!!!

4) MI is still bad. It’s been ruined since I started in 1994 I think??? Talking to hunters in 90’s as a passionate kid & new hunter- it always sounded like it has been war on 1.5’s as far back as anyone can recall. It’s still a disaster BUT: less hunters + some guys passing 1.5’s + guys forming coops- it’s BETTER than it used to be. I wouldn’t last 1 day hunting MI- I’d be so frustrated & pissed off I’d quit & learn how to steelhead fish or maybe grouse hunt …. To ME & many serious hunters in MI- it’s just a total waste of time. Why the serious ones either: quit, leave during November or try to make enough $ to lock up land & form coops. We have hundreds of MI transplants in iowa I’ve met through out the years. Dudes that moved here cause they love hunting & could not take another MI hunting season. I literally quit about Nov 17 every year since every last buck was usually dead. A few seasons of that…. Throw in the towel totally.

5) NR’s won’t control deer #’s like residents BUT…. I 100% agree they create better hunting. Age class will be better 100%!!!!!! 2 reasons: 1) NR’s buy land here or other big buck states to grow bigger deer. They pay lots of $ & do work to grow older deer. 2) they don’t hunt it often. They can’t hunt it all season like a resident. Absolutely they bring better age structure. They also bring a lot of conservation & environmental benefits!!!!!! ANYONE!!!!!…. I hope anyone knows- I am NOT bashing NR’s!!! I’m not the dude that “that guy hates NR’s”!!!! Furthest thing from the truth!!! I used to be one, they have huge benefits to hunting & I am one when I travel to a few other states. All I’m saying is: the Residents should be favored above NR’s. Their interests come first. I expect that when I hunt anywhere that I’m not a R. I want those other states to take care of Their folks first & then I feel grateful at any opportunity I get after that. Includes out west hunting. Or fishing. Whatever. Overall side note: I’d favor dudes that did massive conservation work & we can’t dismiss the value, some being NR’s, put into making mediocre ground amazing!!!!

FUTURE:
The access is going to be supply & demand. Without access…. Hunters will quit. That’s just reality. Here’s where this ends…. If hunting quality gets better over the country… it’ll be a lot of pay to play. But there will be ample growth of “walk-on” style hunting. Incentives for access. & public will stay “decent”. ON OTHER HAND…. If we keep degrading things, adding crazy regulations…. MARK MY WORDS (someone pull this thread up in 20 years!!!!! Or less!!!!!!!)….. you will have 4 ways to hunt: 1) own land 2) junk public 3) pay big $ to access farms set up for quality hunting or 4) !!!!! This is the BIG ONE!!!!!!!….. you will “hunt” a HIGH FENCE!!!! (But skip, they already exist, why would u say that?!?!)…. LET ME EXPLAIN “BRIEFLY”. High fence hunting is growing. When it becomes so hard to get deer to maturity- more guys will fold & say “I don’t wanna do it but I will do it”. You didn’t hear these words 20 years ago … “I got a horrible neighbor, I’m gonna high fence him!” I hear that OFTEN now. 2 sides to those debates too!!! But I never saw it or heard of it 20 years ago. HERE’S where it’s heading!!!!!!!! ……. A guy high fences his “bad neighbor” on one side. Maybe 2 sides. Things keep getting worse, they throw on towel & Say “I’ll fence all 4 sides”. It’s GRADUAL how it will happen. Guys that TODAY say they’d never do it… 10-20 years from now- will change their minds. They will say “I have no other choice to protect quality hunting”. & this is not me saying I like it or don’t like it- this is IRRELEVANT of opinion- it’s the REALITY of what’s coming!!!!!!!!! We ruin hunting with crazy regs…. This is how it ends. Looks just like many African countries, parts of Texas, Europe, etc. You mark my words- u will see more & more high fence hunting spots started. Guess where u will see it first & worst…. States like MICHIGAN!!!!! & the states further west are usually just 10-20 years behind what happens there!!! We can save the system but we better wake up real fast here!!! & not allow one more drop of this nonsense to take over iowa.

We’re definitely on the same page Skip, make no mistake about it. I have a few minor things that I don’t necessarily see eye to eye w you on but we are for sure on the same team and I can’t applaud what you’re doing enough. Love it. Hell I don’t hunt IA and don’t have any plans to (although I’d love to get back there some day) but I’ll probably donate some $ towards the cause simply bc I love and agree w 99% of it. Don’t want to see it degraded at all.

Like you, I was surprised at the access part of that data. I suspect, like you said on your recent podcast about how you’re gonna be fine no matter what happens, that the majority of respondents to that survey were the 5% I call it. Guys like the ones on this board that are passionate about hunting big deer, probably own or have access to their own ground and therefore don’t put much thought in to the access part of it. They want the quality to improve and that survey reflects that. For the other 95% of hunters that aren’t nearly as passionate, don’t own or have great access to ground, they are the majority that don’t want changes bc they don’t reallly care about big bucks. They want to go to deer camp w buddies, kill any deer w horns, shoot a few does and call it a day. That’s why I think it’s going to be so hard to improve the Midwest states to take pressure off of the top tier states bc most hunters simply don’t care as deeply as the 5%. Not saying the 5% is better AT ALL. To each their own, they just aren’t ate up with it like us. Hence why they don’t want gun opener moved. They want crossbows. They want to kill two bucks (would kill 3 if you let them) etc…

You and I are almost same age, I’ve lived in MI since I was 8 years old and hunted here my whole life. I am the guy you are detailing above and so are you haha! Got sick of the poor quality and orange army and finally got to a point where I could afford land in IL so I have a couple farms there that are fantastic hunting. (Son just killed a 180” this weekend! so fun). My only point was that MI hasn’t really gotten worse, it’s just always been bad.

And I appreciate and have heard you express your views on NR’s on here before and again we pretty much agree. I think there’s a big difference between NR’s and NRLO’s in terms of some of what you say but we have had that debate here before so all good.

On your future comments….I think most hunters would say we are already at the point you describe or at least the first 3 points. The high fence thing hasn’t caught hold yet but I wouldn’t be a bit suprised if you’re right down the road.

 

[Rous14]

I am in Kansas, but here are a few thoughts. What do those residents and outfitter hunters have in common? Access. An outfitter hunter's access is limited by time. With only 5 days to "get it done" it is not surprising that that is often the outcome. A resident's access is limited often times by both NRLO's and outfitted hunters. Would the quality go up? Sure. But if there aren't enough resident hunters left in a state to keep up the pressure (votes) to allow NRLO's the opportunity to hunt, bye bye. It is great when a guy makes it enough in life to be able to travel to several states each year to hunt whitetails, but every other state they hunt that isn't their own someone else has to be forced to give up their opportunity to allow for it. We are dealing with a finite resource here. I am at the point where (and I mean this seriously) I would vote to get rid of hunting all together in my state rather than see it continue down the path it is going. I am not rich, but hunting is becoming a rich man's sport in Kansas at lightning speed. The European model is for Europeans. I think we are headed in that direction and it is a scary thought.

“But if there aren't enough resident hunters left in a state to keep up the pressure (votes) to allow NRLO's the opportunity to hunt, bye bye”

Not 100% sure I’m tracking or understanding what you mean here I don’t think. Could you expand? Don’t disagree w much of what you’re saying. Don’t think any of us like that it’s becoming a rich man’s sport I’m just not sure how to stop that. It sucks but it’s the reality I think. Anytime you have a finite resource with high demand it’s the inevitable outcome. Again, I don’t like that but just not sure how in a capitalist society you prevent it. Like I keep saying, we simply have more hunters than places to put them. Sucks.

id also add to your point about access and this is what I was trying to say in my original post. If a NR buys land in another state, they are displacing someone. If they don’t do that and instead they buy land in their “own state” they are now replacing the folks that were hunting and had access to that ground. It’s a vicious cycle and regardless someone is losing access every time access is gained.

 

[T_Max]

“But if there aren't enough resident hunters left in a state to keep up the pressure (votes) to allow NRLO's the opportunity to hunt, bye bye”

Not 100% sure I’m tracking or understanding what you mean here I don’t think. Could you expand? Don’t disagree w much of what you’re saying. Don’t think any of us like that it’s becoming a rich man’s sport I’m just not sure how to stop that. It sucks but it’s the reality I think. Anytime you have a finite resource with high demand it’s the inevitable outcome. Again, I don’t like that but just not sure how in a capitalist society you prevent it. Like I keep saying, we simply have more hunters than places to put them. Sucks.

id also add to your point about access and this is what I was trying to say in my original post. If a NR buys land in another state, they are displacing someone. If they don’t do that and instead they buy land in their “own state” they are now replacing the folks that were hunting and had access to that ground. It’s a vicious cycle and regardless someone is losing access every time access is gained.

All true. The voting idea is that NRLO's can't vote in the state for which they are NRLO's. If enough residents (voters) get displaced and legislation is introduced which threatens hunting as a sport, who will be left to protect the NRLO's access to the resource. Why would you have a favorable opinion for something which is inaccessible to you? Just thoughts. I have no ill-will toward NRLO's. It is legal.

 

[Rous14]

All true. The voting idea is that NRLO's can't vote in the state for which they are NRLO's. If enough residents (voters) get displaced and legislation is introduced which threatens hunting as a sport, who will be left to protect the NRLO's access to the resource. Why would you have a favorable opinion for something which is inaccessible to you? Just thoughts. I have no ill-will toward NRLO's. It is legal.

Ahh, I got ya. Yea very valid point. Hard to imagine a scenario where NRLO’s outnumber R’s or make up a significant percentage of the land ownership in any particular state, even IA with such a limited amount of timber/deer habitat, but I suppose it’s possible.
don’t know that I’ve heard or read what % of the deer hunting ground in Midwest states like IL or OH are owned by NR’s but it’s got to be minuscule I’d think.

 

[T_Max]

Yes, but NRLO’s and outfitted hunters (NR’s anyway) have to be lumped together for this conversation. Access that is. Outfitters tie up many thousands of acres that are obviously no longer any good for resident hunters. I watched a game commission meeting a couple years ago where an outfitter in Western Kansas was airing his concerns that for the first time ever, one of his clients didn’t draw a tag. The commission chair gave a bit of history in how NR’s gained access to begin with. When Kansas first allowed NR hunters they said they would limit the tags to no more than 15% of the total tags I believe. He was reminding this outfitter that as of that time they were selling approximately 22% of the total tags to NR’s. Nothing changed. No laws were modified. They simply went against their word. I am certain that number will grow.

To hear the lawmakers lately they say the number of resident hunters is shrinking (if my observations and reading the annual survey comments are any indicator it is largely due to access). Their solution is to sell those tags to NR’s which leads to further diminished access, which leads to less resident hunter participation, etc… I think you see where that trend is going.

Leasing ground to hunt may be the future. But a local guy can’t keep up with out of state money competing for access at the rate it is going. This model is unsustainable. And I get it when someone says the gov shouldn’t have any say over what you do with your land. But they do. And they are currently picking the winners and losers. Speaking as a resident in Kansas anyway, I am the loser. And it is a terrible feeling to watch my ability to participate in the only thing I truly love slowly slip away…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Survey likly got sent to people who bought tags. Anyone thst quit because they didn't have access likly didn't get a survey. Soooooo.... data may be screwed. Potentially.

 

[hillrunner]

The whole high fence thing makes me sick. I felt the same way when Don Higgins was talking about it last year. I hope that doesn't catch on in my lifetime.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Like you, I was surprised at the access part of that data. I suspect, like you said on your recent podcast about how you’re gonna be fine no matter what happens, that the majority of respondents to that survey were the 5% I call it. Guys like the ones on this board that are passionate about hunting big deer, probably own or have access to their own ground and therefore don’t put much thought in to the access part of it. They want the quality to improve and that survey reflects that. For the other 95% of hunters that aren’t nearly as passionate, don’t own or have great access to ground, they are the majority that don’t want changes bc they don’t reallly care about big bucks. They want to go to deer camp w buddies, kill any deer w horns, shoot a few does and call it a day. That’s why I think it’s going to be so hard to improve the Midwest states to take pressure off of the top tier states bc most hunters simply don’t care as deeply as the 5%. Not saying the 5% is better AT ALL. To each their own, they just aren’t ate up with it like us. Hence why they don’t want gun opener moved. They want crossbows. They want to kill two bucks (would kill 3 if you let them) etc…

As a Minnesotan I couldn't agree with you more. The masses that participate largely just don't care that much or are just ignorant to how their desired hunting regulations impact hunting for everyone. It's a pretty hopeless situation to sway that many people's opinions and when the state org that's supposed to represent deer hunters advocates for crossbows and making it easier for everyone to kill deer than it already is with OTC firearm season in the peak of the rut, party hunting, etc.