And y’all say

I don’t think the Robertson’s had as much to do with it as many think. Social media and sites like this have a lot more impact.
Duck Dynasty made it “cool” and mainstream along with YETI coolers. This insane desire of the younger generations, and even a few from the older, to share everything they do on Facebook, Instagram, and the like no doubt has facilitated a lot of it. It is funny how different age groups handled success differently. I remember hunting years ago with the guys I grew up with, and we would pick up shells, tear down blinds, hide ducks in the boat, and do anything possible we thought would help prevent someone from knowing where we had been or what we had killed. Kids and young adults today just can’t wait to post some picture to tell people where they were, what they killed, and when they killed it. Many of them even have all of their friend’s GPS location constantly updating on their phone. Weird to me, because I didn’t even tell my mom when we killed birds because I was scared she would mention it to this guy a church that duck hunted, and I didn’t want any questions or competition. I have never really felt any adrenaline rush from getting any affirmation from other people, so I never really felt any need to talk or post pictures. People today do for some reason, which is why public in a lot of places is a lot more aggravating to deal with than it was years ago. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
I believe I saw where AR was going up on hunting licenses this upcoming year. I can’t help but to think they lost revenue by limiting oosers. I honestly hope they lost millions and have to stick it to the locals! I pray this social media braving duck hunting world we live in slows down sooner than later.
 

jdgator

Senior Member
I believe I saw where AR was going up on hunting licenses this upcoming year. I can’t help but to think they lost revenue by limiting oosers. I honestly hope they lost millions and have to stick it to the locals! I pray this social media braving duck hunting world we live in slows down sooner than later.
Arkansas was short sighted. It assumed it would always be the waterfowling capital of the world. It chose to monetize interest in waterfowling over the short term instead of acquiring more land to deal with in the influx of hunters. To keep up with demand, the state should have tripled or quadrupled its footprint. But it really hasn't made any meaningful acquisitions since the 1980s. The over-pressured birds aren't coming like they used too, and traveling sportsmen are tired of being treated like a nuisance.

Kansas has a golden opportunity purchase and maintain more waterfowl areas to keep up with demand. If the commission is smart, it would double it's waterfowl land holdings over the next decade. Most waterfowlers have no problem paying a premium price for a premium opportunity.
 
Arkansas was short sighted. It assumed it would always be the waterfowling capital of the world. It chose to monetize interest in waterfowling over the short term instead of acquiring more land to deal with in the influx of hunters. To keep up with demand, the state should have tripled or quadrupled its footprint. But it really hasn't made any meaningful acquisitions since the 1980s. The over-pressured birds aren't coming like they used too, and traveling sportsmen are tired of being treated like a nuisance.

Kansas has a golden opportunity purchase and maintain more waterfowl areas to keep up with demand. If the commission is smart, it would double it's waterfowl land holdings over the next decade. Most waterfowlers have no problem paying a premium price for a premium opportunity.
It isn't the non-state hunters that are the issue, and non-resident small game licenses (primarily to duck hunters) have increased over the last few years. Georgia actually sells more non-residents licenses overall than Arkansas, so it isn't like they have that many non-residents coming in, all things considered.


https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2020/0...g-hurts-conservation-of-all-arkansas-species/


https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/licenseinfo/Natl Hunting License Report 2019.pdf

I love how you all think that theses states that don't have money to operate with what they have now are going to somehow buy more land. It isn't going to happen. Much of the public land in Arkansas, or Georgia for that matter, is federal anyway. If they somehow doubled the amount of public land in the state, it wouldn't correlate to more license sales or revenue, because the overwhelming majority of people in both Arkansas and Georgia are hunting private anyway. Just because your local WMA, or the one you hunt, is way more crowded than it used to be, doesn't mean in the grand scheme of things that there are that many people hunting it. They aren't selling I-phones to billions of people, they are selling hunting licenses. In the grand scheme of things there isn't that much potential to raise revenue, and they are more concerned at this point with maintaining what they have.
 

jdgator

Senior Member
It isn't the non-state hunters that are the issue, and non-resident small game licenses (primarily to duck hunters) have increased over the last few years. Georgia actually sells more non-residents licenses overall than Arkansas, so it isn't like they have that many non-residents coming in, all things considered.


https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2020/0...g-hurts-conservation-of-all-arkansas-species/


https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/licenseinfo/Natl Hunting License Report 2019.pdf

I love how you all think that theses states that don't have money to operate with what they have now are going to somehow buy more land. It isn't going to happen. Much of the public land in Arkansas, or Georgia for that matter, is federal anyway. If they somehow doubled the amount of public land in the state, it wouldn't correlate to more license sales or revenue, because the overwhelming majority of people in both Arkansas and Georgia are hunting private anyway. Just because your local WMA, or the one you hunt, is way more crowded than it used to be, doesn't mean in the grand scheme of things that there are that many people hunting it. They aren't selling I-phones to billions of people, they are selling hunting licenses. In the grand scheme of things there isn't that much potential to raise revenue, and they are more concerned at this point with maintaining what they have.
And yet other poor southern states have used a revenue-based model to acquire WMA land. Mississippi for instance. 100% of the proceeds of their lifetime license sales go into their acquisition fund. They have purchased something like 20,000 acres of wma land in the past five years.
 
And yet other poor southern states have used a revenue-based model to acquire WMA land. Mississippi for instance. 100% of the proceeds of their lifetime license sales go into their acquisition fund. They have purchased something like 20,000 acres of wma land in the past five years.
If you are going to play, have your facts straight. You are referring to Pascagoula WMA. That land was a joint venture with The Nature Conservacy and the feds paid for 3/4 of it as a reimbursement from excise tax money on ammunition, firearms and the like.
 

jdgator

Senior Member
If you are going to play, have your facts straight. You are referring to Pascagoula WMA. That land was a joint venture with The Nature Conservacy and the feds paid for 3/4 of it as a reimbursement from excise tax money on ammunition, firearms and the like.
No sir I’m not referring to the Pascagoula WMA. I’m referring to the four other purchases at Mississippi made. Have a good evening.
 
No sir I’m not referring to the Pascagoula WMA. I’m referring to the four other purchases at Mississippi made. Have a good evening.
Well post some info on it, I would be interested to see how the money was raised considering Mississippi is about 20 something on license revenue, and Georgia and Arkansas are both top ten or so with Arkansas in the top 5. Pascagoula was almost 20,000 acres by itself, but like I said, that was a special case the feds pretty much paid for. I am honestly trying to understand how you guys think Georgia, Arkansas, or any other state can double the public land offerings. I'm not against public land, but I think this notion that public land can just be doubled and will make everything better is pie in the sky. Start a nonprofit to purchase land that could be offered to hunt as public land. I will donate so money. You would get more land quicker going that route than you will waiting on the state IMO.
 

jonhayes

Senior Member
Never understood why anyone would want less hunters, does it make it harder to have a good hunt sure, but getting young people into hunting (which is declining by every measure) is what keeps organizations and laws on our side. You need hunters to have hunting. The more money in it the more land will be preserved and the more pushback for the antis.
 
It isn't the non-state hunters that are the issue, and non-resident small game licenses (primarily to duck hunters) have increased over the last few years. Georgia actually sells more non-residents licenses overall than Arkansas, so it isn't like they have that many non-residents coming in, all things considered.


https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2020/0...g-hurts-conservation-of-all-arkansas-species/


https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/licenseinfo/Natl Hunting License Report 2019.pdf

I love how you all think that theses states that don't have money to operate with what they have now are going to somehow buy more land. It isn't going to happen. Much of the public land in Arkansas, or Georgia for that matter, is federal anyway. If they somehow doubled the amount of public land in the state, it wouldn't correlate to more license sales or revenue, because the overwhelming majority of people in both Arkansas and Georgia are hunting private anyway. Just because your local WMA, or the one you hunt, is way more crowded than it used to be, doesn't mean in the grand scheme of things that there are that many people hunting it. They aren't selling I-phones to billions of people, they are selling hunting licenses. In the grand scheme of things there isn't that much potential to raise revenue, and they are more concerned at this point with maintaining what they have.
I realized the state doesn't have the money to buy new land, I would like to see the feds let us hunt tens of thousands of acres of federal land that we can’t now. The south unit of the white river refuge would be amazing!
 
I realized the state doesn't have the money to buy new land, I would like to see the feds let us hunt tens of thousands of acres of federal land that we can’t now. The south unit of the white river refuge would be amazing!
I'm not arguing against that at all. I think anything that is publicly owned should be huntable for any game and with any weapon that is reasonable. I simply made the comments above, because whether it be the waterfowl forum, deer forum, or turkey forum, people are always stating that the government needs to buy more land. The government owns nearly a third of the land in this country now, 6% of the land in Georgia, and nearly 10% of the state of Arkansas. What it is that people want, the governs to own everything? That would be way worse for wildlife overall.
 
Thread starter #18
It doesn’t matter how much land they buy. If the hunting is good and people talk about it on open forums social media it will become crowded. To think that we have no effect on the hunting pressure in Kansas or any other state when people start talking of how easy it is and telling people how to do it, your kidding yourself. It is no longer a big deal for people to drive 12-20 hrs to hunt for 3-5 days.
 
I realized the state doesn't have the money to buy new land, I would like to see the feds let us hunt tens of thousands of acres of federal land that we can’t now. The south unit of the white river refuge would be amazing!
This is an issue in every region of the country. Especially with waterfowl hunting. Too much suitable habitat off limits forcing those still interested in maintaining the equipment required to hunt waterfowl over decoys into even smaller and smaller areas of public land or ever more expensive private leases. Ducks and geese ain't stupid, they will avoid areas with too much pressure and stay on areas where there is none.

I hunted the Columbia River in Washington state for a couple of seasons and there is a stretch of that river which is about 150 miles long, all owned by the people of the United States, and almost the entirety of that stretch of river is not only suitable waterfowl habitat but prime waterfowl habitat. The numbers of birds is staggering. Of that 150 mile stretch only about 35 miles of it is open to hunting with two areas consisting of maybe 5 miles each conducive to hunting success outside of a layout boat or a coffin blind, the latter being outlawed, the former being about as boring as watching paint dry. People from all over the world converge on this area thinking that huge expanse of water in a major flyway immediately south of the Canadian border has to be fantastic...and admittedly it can be for public land. But generally speaking it winds up with folks on top of one another, pass shooting one another's birds if they ever come near the area at all......its a bird watching paradise, a bird hunting nightmare most of the time. This is true in all of the US....to much area is closed to hunting forcing too many people into too small an area and the birds simply avoid those areas for the most part.
 
Top