hunter / hiker

[runt13]

Hunting

I have followed just about every thread hear for the better part for a few years, I occasionally post but not too often. And when I do I try to keep it kind, simple, and bland. so let me start by saying thanks to everyone for all their knowledge.


1^st I believe I am a true outdoorsman, my definition. I hunt, hike, camp, canoe, fish, crab, RV, ride motorcycles, I just love anything to do with the great out of doors.
The hunter / hiker conflict to me is most bizarre.
To hunt one must hike, so all hunters are hikers. Hikers may or may not hunt, but there probably is a decent percentage that must [my opinion]. Hunters have a set season to hunt, it’s governed by state and federal agency’s threw the division of fish and game, as well as the DEP. A hunter must go to a hunter education class, buy a hunting license well as any additional permits he may need to chase his game of choice. This is on top of his hunting gear, which is in addition of his hiking gear. I spend close to $1000.00 a year on hunting and fishing licenses and permits yearly for the states of NJ and PA and sometimes NY. Those funds are what finances the great out of doors we all love.
Game wardens seek out and govern hunters [the best they can]. Park rangers do the same.
So hunters basically can better than double their gear purchases, more like triple, compared to a hiker, has to pay to hunt, can only hunt from one set time to another, and has a constant eye on him / her from game wardens, rangers, other hunters as well as HIKERS. Remember hunters have to openly display their hunting license on them. Don’t get me wrong….I think the game wardens and park rangers are very much needed, personally think there should be more of them.
Hunters must also be extremely safety conscious of all that is around them and what’s beyond at all times. Hunter safety, firearms safety, and the responsibilities that go with that as well. Both legal and moral.
Remember that hunters are hikers, so all the hiker responsibilities also apply.
Keeping in mind that humans, ALL OF THEM, make mistakes, act carelessly, and become lax. And the fact that sometimes accidents do happen. It surprises me that there is so much animosity between the two groups. After all you are so similar to each other, both can benefit from each other as well.
I do not judge one on what one eats, drinks, weather they hunt and fish or not, where they come from, same with their ancestors. Don’t really care what you’re against or for. I’m glad you’re not me and just as happy not being you. Live and let live, hike your own hike, hunt your own hunt, do unto others as you would want done unto you.
However,
A hunter that breaks the law, game or otherwise is no longer a hunter, but a game thief, poacher, trespasser, vandal, etc.

A hiker that breaks the law is no longer a hiker, but becomes a vandal, trespasser, eco terrorist, etc.
So I see it as all hikers and hunters are good responsible people.
Once you break that trust you are neither.
RUNT ‘’13’’

[lonehiker]

Everyone thinks their niche is special.



I'm not sure if this is a profound or meaningless statement for my 500th post.

[burger]

I spend close to $1000.00 a year on hunting and fishing licenses and permits yearly for the states of NJ and PA and sometimes NY. Those funds are what finances the great out of doors we all love.

I see this falsehood a lot. Hunt all you want, but the idea that hunters pay for public lands is mostly untrue. Your hunting license fees mostly pay for administration of the hunting program (monitoring the wildlife populations, paying the salaries of the game and fish folks, and managing wildlife). Most of the budgets of state wildlife agencies come from state taxes. The federal government (remember, over half of the AT is on federal lands) doesn't get any of your hunting license fees, and federal lands are mostly funded by taxes and user fees. And, of course, none of your hunting license fees pays the army of volunteers that maintains the AT or other trails.

Hunters don't have any special claim to public lands because they pay hunting fees. Wildlife are commonly "owned" by everyone and managed by the state. You should think of your license as a fee you pay to everyone else because you decrease the population of animals for others to enjoy or use and because you personally benefit from the food you obtain. Hunters don't finance public lands in general.

[runt13]

You are correct, but that’s not my point,

I was trying to make the point that in addition to what hikers, and other outdoors users do for the great out of doors that hunters ‘’because they want to hunt’’ pay to do so. And that hunters are hikers.

RUNT ''13''

[Tuckahoe]

I see this falsehood a lot. Hunt all you want, but the idea that hunters pay for public lands is mostly untrue. Your hunting license fees mostly pay for administration of the hunting program (monitoring the wildlife populations, paying the salaries of the game and fish folks, and managing wildlife). Most of the budgets of state wildlife agencies come from state taxes. The federal government (remember, over half of the AT is on federal lands) doesn't get any of your hunting license fees, and federal lands are mostly funded by taxes and user fees. And, of course, none of your hunting license fees pays the army of volunteers that maintains the AT or other trails.

Hunters don't have any special claim to public lands because they pay hunting fees. Wildlife are commonly "owned" by everyone and managed by the state. You should think of your license as a fee you pay to everyone else because you decrease the population of animals for others to enjoy or use and because you personally benefit from the food you obtain. Hunters don't finance public lands in general.

And you are not actually correct either.

To use Virginia's Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as a specific exampke, the VaDGIF is a special funded agency with a current budget of about $60 million and receives no general funds from tax revenue, except the sales tax on boats. The entirety of the budget comes from non-general funds, with about $25 million (or 42%) coming from licensing and $15 million (or 25%) from federal funds and grants such as Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson.

Keep in mind that Pittmen-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson are excize taxes that are paid on all firearms, ammunition and fishing tackle to support game and fisheries management through grants to state game agencies (tell me do backpackers pay their own excize tax for their flavor of the week cottage gear to ksupport the AT?). And while the Federal government does not receive a part of state licensing fees, it most certainly does in fact collect its own fees, such as the federal migratory bird stamps, which is used to support the Federal Wildlife Refuge System.

You are correct that hunters do not fund "public lands" as a whole -- but their activities are what exactly fund those state lands managed as wildlife management areas or state game lands. Management areas -- that the AT infact passes through in PA for example -- supported and paid for by those game licence, but yet again, not supported by any sort of excize tax on that backpacking gear.

And coming back to Virginia, 72% of the agency's budget goes to actual widlife management and only 14% to administration and support services.

[lonehiker]

I see this falsehood a lot. Hunt all you want, but the idea that hunters pay for public lands is mostly untrue. Your hunting license fees mostly pay for administration of the hunting program (monitoring the wildlife populations, paying the salaries of the game and fish folks, and managing wildlife). Most of the budgets of state wildlife agencies come from state taxes. The federal government (remember, over half of the AT is on federal lands) doesn't get any of your hunting license fees, and federal lands are mostly funded by taxes and user fees. And, of course, none of your hunting license fees pays the army of volunteers that maintains the AT or other trails.

Hunters don't have any special claim to public lands because they pay hunting fees. Wildlife are commonly "owned" by everyone and managed by the state. You should think of your license as a fee you pay to everyone else because you decrease the population of animals for others to enjoy or use and because you personally benefit from the food you obtain. Hunters don't finance public lands in general.

And to think that hikers get the same benefits but for less....

My favorite is - "You should think of your license as a fee you pay to everyone else because you decrease the population of animals for others to enjoy or use". Really?

[Tuckahoe]

And to think that hikers get the same benefits but for less....

My favorite is - "You should think of your license as a fee you pay to everyone else because you decrease the population of animals for others to enjoy or use". Really?

Yes, that made me laugh too. Should look up the Doctrine of Public Trust, Martin v Waddell and how these come to us from English laws.

Edit to add --
As to the original post, I am not a hunter, I could never get into it and I simply had more of the interest in the firearms or camping. I tend to believe that much of the issues tend to relate more to one's entrenched ideology for or against hunting and kneejerk reactions from that bias rather than any real issues.

On the other hand as my understanding of hunting is based on my experience in Tidewater, Virginia, I have never generally thought if hunters as hikers. Kinda difficult to with their reliance on trucks, ATVs and dogs.

[burger]

And you are not actually correct either.

Do your research. Off hand, game and fish-type departments in New York, Massachusetts, and California are all funded from large appropriations out of general revenues. Pennsylvania gets a huge chunk of its revenue from leasing state lands for oil and gas drilling. I don't really have time to check every other state, but just because Virginia is skimpy on funding for game and fish doesn't mean that all states are.

[Dogwood]

Hi Runt. I did my NJ Hunter Education class in Jackson many moons ago as a 13 yr old. Enjoy fishing from a boat on Prospertown Lake up near the Great Adventure end of the lake for trout, crappie, bass, and large catfish. Have hunted Assunpink, Stafford Forge, and Colliers Mill WMA many times.

I'm not fully grasping your defintion of a conflict between hikers and hunters. Are you simply referring to conflicts in funding and usage?


I don't know much about how other states fund hunting and freshwater fishing activities but in NJ license fees absolutely do contribute to fish stocking, trout for example, and the management of Wildlife Managment Areas, and the stocking of birds like pheasants and turkey.

[runt13]

I reread my post and it makes sense to me, so let me try to further explain.

It’s a post that is stating that hunters are hikers. So why the animosity, concern or conflict. Mostly based on usage. Why do I have to wear orange is my favorite. This is the reason I stated we have a specific time frame to hunt….but we / you can hike whenever you want. Just please be careful.
I just was trying to point out that in addition to all the gear, and such a hiker, has to buy, hunters have additional costs, [that they chose]. As well as their hiking gear costs. However that it doesn’t make them any less or more entitled. They just choose to add another activity to their outdoor experience. Not unlike a hiker who also is a rock climber, or bird watcher.
And that we [hunters] are responsible people that care for the great out of doors, as much as hikers.
And when someone breaks the law, as a hunter or a hiker they are no longer either!
And finally that because I am both [hunter, hiker], and then some I hate to see people jump on the negatives of everything.
It wasn’t supposed to be a rant.

RUNT ‘’13’’

[runt13]

DOGWOOD, howdy neighbor, kind of.

RUNT ''13''

[Tuckahoe]

Do your research. Off hand, game and fish-type departments in New York, Massachusetts, and California are all funded from large appropriations out of general revenues. Pennsylvania gets a huge chunk of its revenue from leasing state lands for oil and gas drilling. I don't really have time to check every other state, but just because Virginia is skimpy on funding for game and fish doesn't mean that all states are.

Oh please... take your own advise.

New York's game department like Virginia receives the highest portion of its funding from licenses, fees and fines. And then from the same federal grants. Unlike Virginia, NY's game department receives (cough) 8% (cough) of its agency budget from tax revenue from the state's general fund. Yeah, that is a pretty large appropriation.

In Massachusetts the state actually pioneered the "North American Conservation Model" which according to the Massachusetts game department 50% of their funding comes from licensing and 50% from federal grants. The department receives NO general fund appropriations and only receives a portion of the states gas tax in proportion to that used by boaters -- about 1/10 of a percent. And that is from the supervisor of the supervisor of the departments Connecticut Valley Wildlife District. So, what we have here is the same model as followed in Virginia.

Only in California is a significant portion of the game department funding through general fund tax revenue amounting to 50%, with the remainder being licenses, fees and grants.

The reality is Virginia's $60 million is neither skimpy, nor its funding source unusual as it and Massachusetts follow the same funding model.

[Sarcasm the elf]

I don't have time to do a proper write up at the moment, but if you want to know the amount that hunters and fisherman contribute to conservation the just look up the Pittman Robertson act.

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/P...rtsonFacts.pdf

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittm...estoration_Act

[Dogwood]

OK, I gotcha. I thought you might be referring to some of the more pro PETA or "don't shoot Bambie" attitudes of some hikers that contribute to some animosity as well as the hunters who dislike others, such as hikers, possibly interferring with their hunts when wandering the woods during hunting season, WMAs etc. Personally, I have no issue with thoughtful hunters or thoughtful hikers. I've gotten along very well with hunters in many states. Maybe, that's because I was an avid hunter for so many yrs. Actually, it's more accurate to say that even when I was a hunter I more enjoyed simply wandering the woods, mainly the Pinelands. Yup, I'm a PINEY.

[Another Kevin]

Where is this perceived hunter-hiker conflict? My most recent hunter encounter was quite pleasant. He shouted a surprised 'hello!' at my tent (I'd slept in a little, it was maybe 8 am), and I unzipped the door and greeted him. We traded notes on trail conditions, complained about the weather, wished each other good luck, and he moved on.

My surprise was just where I met him. I surely wouldn't want to haul a hundred pounds of venison out from where he was. I think he may have had a partner out of my sight, and perhaps they planned to quarter a deer (legal here in NY) and split the load, but even that's a hump. The shelter where he said he'd spent the night is 6.9 miles from the nearest trailhead, and I was camped about 5 miles in. Maybe if there were snow on the ground so that the deer could be sledded out.

Then again, he was complaining that the hunting was poor on that trip, so perhaps hauling a deer that far wouldn't be an issue. Some people just use a rifle as an excuse to get out of doors and play. I have no excuse.

[lemon b]

Couple of points. I do both. The hunting part on privite property. Getting driven to a blind setting bait just never has been my style. Done it once in Texas the shot was 240 yards. I was 13. Now I'm whats called a slow walk limited range bow hunter. I know my limits and pass unless my kill will be clean. Never had an issue with a dog or hunter while hiking. We just exchange map information for the most part. On the internet I think we concentrate on the bad one percenters.

[burger]

Oh please... take your own advise.

You've rigged the game here by only including the budgets of the agencies that manage wildlife. Nicely done.

Here in Mass, for instance, we have a game and fish department that manages wildlife, hunting, fishing, etc. They aren't responsible for managing public lands, state forests, state parks, maintaining trails, etc. That's the separate Department of Conservation and Recreation. DCR gets about half their funding from the legislature and half from other federal grants, none from hunting licenses or Pittman grants, as far as I can tell: http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy13h1/bre...pt_13/hdcr.htm

Likewise, New York has separate divisions for managing wildlife and for public lands. The Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine resources gets most of its funding from grants and fees, like you said. But the separate Division of Lands and Forests, which manages the Catskills and Adirondacks preserves among other public lands, gets the vast majority of its funding from the legislature directly: https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archi...artmentof.html

The big point is that money spent on hunting licenses or excise taxes goes mostly towards hunting and fishing management. Money for the public lands that are used by hikers comes from general state or federal funds paid by taxpayers.

[FishyOne]

Also, in Massachusetts when you buy a hunting/fishing/trapping license you purchase a Wildlands Conservation Stamp $5. This fee goes to the cost of acquiring wildlife habitat. The other source of funding for wildlife habitat is from open space bond funds.

[burger]

Just want to point out: I'm not against hunting! I just think that the contribution of hunting towards land protection in general and places where hikers go in particular is overstated by a lot of hunters.

Back to work now. Have a nice day, all.

[runt13]

I love wandering through the woods staring at trees rocks and moss. I do not need to kill something to enjoy the woods.



I have no dead animals, fish or birds hanging on my walls. I am a meat hunter. I only hunt what I can / will eat. Same with fishing of crabbing. 50+% of the meat consumed in my home is wild game.



I am an organic Gardner, and stay away from processed foods as much as I can, not 100%, more like 20% of my food is not processed, maybe more.
I do like Porkroll LOL. [Jersey thing]


We need tree huggers and the such or mankind will just completely consume itself, [my opinion]



Hikers normally hike on trails, don’t see the need to keep them out of the woods for hunting season, they just need to wear orange. I wouldn’t mind if they wandered in the woods either! Trust me I’m not going to shoot any of them. With all the top ramen they eat they would probably taste awful anyways. Just when you see me please take a different path.


RUNT ‘’13’’