This where I disagree and I know I basically stand alone with my thought and opinion, I would rather increase prices even more to drive out the non die hards, land is already scarce enough, I really don't see the need to recruit anymore more hunters since there is a blind in every single brush line in my part of Ohio and can't do a decent rabbit hunt until February. IMO the non die hard hunters truly don't care about the conversation or tradition of the sport like we do, they just like trying to get a deer. where as its an actual lifestyle for us.
To draw an analogy you can relate to, I liken the trend of hunter recruitment to teaching to the test. It's a means to an end, but is it really what's best for those that truly get it?
On one hand, I would like to see prices for non-residents become cost-prohibitive for about 50% of the people currently hunting in Ohio. I'd also like to see residents pay twice as much. In an ideal world, this would help alleviate the "stand in every tree and blind in every corner" problem we have right now. And in a utopian world, our DNR/DOW would use the increased revenue (we're assuming revenue still increases despite the drop in hunter participation) to purchase more land, improve what we have, and fund conservation initiatives to include increased law enforcement.
But... and in honor of the late COB, there's always a but. Hunters are under attack and we need all hands on deck. Unfortunately, we need some of the nonsense like "For Love or Likes" to "normalize" hunting. We need a stand in every tree and a blind in every corner to increase the number of people advocating for, and funding, hunting. It's truly a double edged sword.
That said, I'll hunt even when/if some arbitrary man-made law says I can't, so my survival instinct says to hell with recruitment, raise the prices and ween out the wannabes. If you want to hunt bad enough, you'll find the money.
