View Full Version : Sprawling subdivisions = future megalopolis = end to hunting?

March 28, 2002, 05:02 PM
The urban vote goes to liberal Democrats, just look at where the "blue" votes were in the last presidential election. The big cities alone came within a hair of outvoting the rest of America in the popular vote and putting Gore in the white house.

An increasing population & urbanization will mean that there will be less wildlife habitat and that will mean there will be less opportunities to hunt. Less opportunities to hunt will mean less hunters in the future. That will mean the anti's will have the majority in future elections and they will be elected into power.

Look at the film "Soylent Green" staring Charleton Heston. There may not ever be food shortages, but the preview of the world being covered in vast urban sprawl (megalopolis) is becoming reality.

Granted, the USA has a negative birth rate, but the borders are wide open and thus the population of the USA is growing by leaps and bounds. We have already been overpopulated for some time and thus much of our open space has been vanishing to subdivisions. These new subdivisions are nothing but the destruction of wildlife habitat and the spawning of more urban votes for liberal politicians.

Art Eatman
March 30, 2002, 12:41 AM
It's not urbanization or city sprawl, as far as large amounts of lost habitat. A larger problem is exemplified by "Five acres, five miles from town".

The whole package of computers/Internet allows many people to work at home. As long as they can have a telephone or afford $60/month for satellite Internet, they can live anywhere. Many of these folks are buying "ranchettes". The result is chopped up areas where people and pets scare off game animals. (Pets make good yum-yums for coyotes and lions, of course.)

The voting patterns you spoke of can affect the legal aspects of hunting, of course. That battle is nothing at all new...



March 30, 2002, 08:30 AM
I agree with the general thrust of this thread, but would like to offer a somewhat different observation (even at the risk of contradicting my esteemed friend, Mr. Eatman).

I am continually amazed with the vastness and the meager population of the US (particularly compared to Western Europe and Asia). Please consider the following:

1) Drive from New York City to Cleveland along I-80 at night. Across almost all of Pennsylvania, there’s virtual wilderness -- no lights in sight -- maybe not virgin wilderness, but a tremendous amount unpopulated, entirely natural, woodland. And this is close to the middle of the East Coast’s severe population density.

2) Similarly, drive an hour or two from most -- not all -- major cities and you’re in the county, sometime in the essentially unpopulated wilderness. Don’t believe it, please consider:
> Two hours north of Boston and you’re in New Hampshire
> Two hours west of DC and you’re in West Virginia
> Two hours east of LA and you’re in the high desert
> Two hours east of Seattle and you’re in the mountains
> Two hours south of Atlanta and you’re in the “middle of nowhere” on I-16
> Two hours east or west of Saint Louis and you’re in sparsely populated farm country
> And this list is only the "tip of the iceberg"

3) Finally, fly across the US at night and there are times when few -- if any -- lights are visible, indicating no cities or towns with a horizon based on a ~30,000 foot altitude.

Yes, there is population infringement and, yes, the liberal “soccer moms” see thing much differently than I do. However, there is still one heck of a lot of unpopulated country in the US and one heck of lot of decent hunting territory.

Art Eatman
March 30, 2002, 10:02 AM
RWK, you're not at all contradicting me. My point was that it's less urban sprawl and more the ranchette deal, insofar as habitat loss.

Example: Along the I-25 corridor through Colorado, there have been many residential developments in the foothills of the Rockies. This is winter range for the mule deer and elk. When people first moved into these developments, they saw lots of deer and elk.

Over time, the deer and elk began shunning these developed areas to a certain extent. The loss of winter feeding grounds, or the concentrations into as-yet undeveloped areas, meant a certain amount of increase in winter die-off.

These new people, seeing fewer deer and elk, allowed as how, "Well, it's those hunters, killing my deer and elk."


March 30, 2002, 05:32 PM
"and i can see the concrete slowly creep'n , Lord take me and mine before that comes"...............Ronnie Van Zant

Dan Morris
March 30, 2002, 05:48 PM
Art, it would make you sick to see Colorado today. Area SW of the house, we would go out and see many deer and was prime migration route of Evergreen elk heard. I went out there last Sunday and there has to be 5000 new home sites!
These "wildlife habitate impact surveys" are a joke.Population has dam near doubled in the last 10 years.
Every rock in this state is for sale to the highest bidder!

Art Eatman
March 30, 2002, 06:42 PM
Dan, many parts of Texas are no better.

I first saw Lido Key at Sarasota, Florida, in 1950. There was a half-mile of the key that was totally wild. Now? :( Longboat Key was essentially unihabited. :( A lot of Florida has been paved over. Heck, I remember when it was easy to drive in Miami! Or in Austin, Texas, for that matter.

All along the Gulf Coast. All along the Atlantic Coast. Yuck.

Overall, I'm amazed we have as much farm, ranch and wild lands as we do. That's a large part of why I support the Nature Conservancy and am rather mild about a lot of the government "land grabs". Were it not for the N.C. and the grabs there would be a bunch more ranchettes and subdivisions.

That's a large part of why I'm down here in my little patch of desert. Yuppies and the three-piece-suit crowd don't like it here. But if you really want to see somebody piddle away the beginnings of $100 million--he's halfway there--just go to http://www.lajitas.com for a view of what most of us here think will be "Tomorrow's Ghost Town--today!" (The Rio Grande ain't blue. Computer enhancement, anyone?)

:), Art

Dan Morris
March 30, 2002, 11:55 PM
LOL, I was born n raised in Abilene....hunted for several years about 30 miles west of Shafter..........went to the great Chile Cookoff a couple of times.......grew up with ranch bums...oilfield trash........most owned the ranch or drilling company...........God,
I miss the people and days that a handshake or your word was a good as a mega dollar lawyer!
Thus is life, where ever we landed.

Dan Morris
March 31, 2002, 12:03 AM
Whaca mean threRio ain't blue?????????LaJitas./.........dam son
kinda like the Red River....a mile wide n 2 inches deep...just watch the quick sand!...La Jitas...you gotta be kidding........nothing therew but a dam/yuccas/rocks n Mexico.........

Dan Morris
March 31, 2002, 12:13 AM
LOL, I went to the LaJutas web...............Gawd, Only thing there is Federalies,Ruales a few ranches n Gawd forbid, the nuts that fall for this scam.......Takes a special type of hombre to live in that country!

April 2, 2002, 12:08 AM
The website fails to mention that fluent spanish is required, or else one won't be able to boss around the help. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
April 2, 2002, 09:53 AM
gorlitsa, funny you should mention that. From what some of the top management has said, all employees dealing with their upscale clientele (we can't just call multi-millionaires and billionaires "tourists" or "customers") will be gringos.

Given the apparent requisite for obsequiousness, I dunno that they'll find enough locals to fill the slots. That means importing their labor--and this is still a desert. It will always be a desert. Summertime temperatures will always peak at some 115 to 120. It is dusty. It will always be dusty. Dust is a way of life, and you better learn to love the taste, and to love the daily opportunity to write "dust me" with your finger atop any flat surface.

It's at least a source for much speculation and amusement, since they've spent over double what they've actually gotten accomplished.

But they're gonna have a hunt club.


April 2, 2002, 10:13 AM
Sayeth RWK: Two hours west of DC and you’re in West Virginia

You don't have to go that far. One hour west and you're on the other side of Prince William County. A buddy of mine has either 5 or 10 acres in Haymarket, up on the mtn (can't remember exact ammount). A mutual friend got a deer there last season. I'm sure others do similar. There's also Loudoun County. Another friend has 100 or so acres of farmland in Loudoun (off of Rt15) that we've all hunted on before. I'm sure theres more, but that's where I've been. Suburbia more or less stops after you pass RT234S on I66. Within 1.5 hours and you can be in the GW National forest. That's where I do most of my hunting (I live in Manassas).


April 3, 2002, 02:08 AM
IMHO the problem isn't population density or even the 5 acres 5 miles from town nor is it population growth.

The US would have nearly zero population growth and stable communities if it were not for one causative factor: welfare programs for the nonworking poor and for corporate farms.

This causes heightened immigration of foreign workers, middle class and working class native flight from cities, inflation of agricultural land prices so citizens can't afford to buy family farms, and empowers the socialists who control much of our government.

The key to maintaining our wildlife habitat isn't "smart growth" but rather removing the reasons people flee the cities and subdivide farmland.

Art Eatman
April 3, 2002, 09:04 AM
M&M, in some areas such as my I-25 example, 5A/5miles IS the problem. And we're talking an area larger than some eastern states.

While our birth rate is at or below a steady-state population, our demographics require an influx of younger-aged folks into the labor force. If we're not "producing" them, we gotta import 'em.

For many people, living in an exurban area is better than the congestion of a city. With telecom and word-processing--as well as all the other stuff you can do on a computer (think Oleg Volk)--many folks can make a living just any old where. That ranges from within their RV to that 5A/5miles.

Old farmers and ranchers die; the heirs--city folks in many cases--split up and maybe sell off the land to non-hunters. "I wouldn't hunt; I love to WATCH my deer."

From personal experience, I can tell you that I made more money raising condos than cows, as Austintatious crept out toward the old family ranch.

I guess what I'm saying is that the premise of your final sentence is fallacious, in that the reasons for leaving the cities are increasing, not decreasing.



April 3, 2002, 10:42 PM
the suburbanization of Maryland has increased the forest margin area
and has increased the deers habitat

the politicians are working to eliminate hunting and promote non lethal management

the megalopolis will stretch from atlanta to boston

a walmart every 15.5 miles

Art Eatman
April 4, 2002, 01:39 PM
dZ, per a study in the Ozarks, increasing the amount of forest margin is good for deer, raccoons, cuckoos and feral cats.

It's highly detrimental to song birds, as well as ground-nesting birds such as quail and some species of ducks.

As usual, TANSTAAFL.

April 7, 2002, 01:23 AM
I guess what I'm saying is that the premise of your final sentence is fallacious, in that the reasons for leaving the cities are increasing, not decreasing.

Pardon? You might reread my post. The reasons are increasing not decreasing, but this is due to the reasons I stated. It is very hard to keep people in the cities when the house next door can be bought on low interest subsidised government loan by a crack dealer with no visible means of support except for his $500 SSI check. It is very hard to keep small farmers in business when the billion dollar corporations get hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.

Art Eatman
April 7, 2002, 08:01 AM
M&M: Guess I focussed more on "smart growth"--different usages of the term? In different areas, different "planners" seem to use the term differently. And, re-re-reading, "removing the reasons" is beyond the realm of possibility...:)

IMO, the reasons you mention for flight from cities are irreversible. Well, unless there is a 180-degree change in governmental attitudes at all levels about "how to do good" for The Peepul, The Childrun, etc. Heck, add in social behavior such as the riot following the stoopid basketball game in Maryland--who'd want to hang around cities where that garbage is becoming customary? I guess it just doesn't even cross my mind that the quality of life in mega-cities could improve!

Probably the smartest growth would be something like acquiring a 1,000-acre tract, developing only a 100-acre portion, and leaving the remaining 900 acres as "parkland". Clusters of homes don't have the impact of a scattered sprawl. From observation, farmland gone to fallow land soon has a wide variety of increased wildlife populations which make use of adjacent lands.

:), Art

Johnny Guest
April 10, 2002, 04:55 PM
- - - But very little of it looked like that website!

Is Clay Henry (or his posterity) still mayor of that thriving miniopolis?;)

I don't care--Looking forward to getting out there--at least as far as Terlingua, anyhow.

(And I've seen the Rio Grande, from far northern New Mexico all the way to Brownsville. There's none of it that


Art Eatman
April 11, 2002, 12:03 AM
Johnny, Allen's better half has seen over $50 million worth of billings that are "invested" there in the last year.

Their Marketing Director sez they'll have over $100 million in it when the project is completed.

You won't recognize the place!

I still think that it'll be tomorrow's Ghost Town--but, today.


MP Freeman
April 11, 2002, 10:16 PM
I disagree with the idea of this thread. Thinking that folk that hunt are going to vote in such a way as to even honor individual freedom is quite an irrational if not silly logical idea. Hunters are not necessarily pro-individual freedom. I'd bet not even a majority of hunters are pro-gun rights. I'm often shocked to find that many of the individuals on TFL don't belong to the NRA due to sloth.

If you want wide open spaces with little to no development, look to Africa. That continent has be populated longer than any other and has the least development, save Antartica. How many Democratic Repulics exist in Africa? Yet there are few large and developed urban areas and plenty of vastly wild and undeveloped areas. Look to Uganda. Sheesh, look at our northern friends in the PR of Kanada. How many hunters up there? How many individual freedoms?

It is truly good that we are developing our land to serve our uses. We build dams to prevent flooding and drought. This is good. America is advancing along.

Do I agree with all the manners in which people develop the land? No. Do I wish there were more open and wild spaces? Sure.

Just some thoughts,

MP Freeman

Art Eatman
April 12, 2002, 10:02 AM
MP, about 25 yars back I worked in a land-use/environmental-protection program. We got to the point where jokes and cartoons abounded about "whose ox is gored", "striking ahappy medium", etc. The comment you made about hunters reminded me of the ox.

Lotsa bird hunters are unconcerned about "assault weapons" controls. Lotsa benchrest folks are unconcerned about handgun restrictions. (Not all, of course; not all!) I imagine lotsa deer hunters vote Democrat...

From reading, the problem with the undeveloped areas of Africa is dodging folks who want to kill Whitey.

Regardless of all that, hwoever, there has been an unending assault on individual liberties during my lifetime, and it continues unabated in both the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. We once had a good political system, particularly as regards the rest of the world (I've spent a good bit of time in 20 other countries.) but we seem to be headed off in the direction of Canada and/or Greater Europe.

Salt may have been somewhat erroneous in some of his assumptions, but he is correct in being concerned about the overall picture.

We have anti-hunters influencing policy on public lands, and some of the a-h crowd have jobs and influence within such as the BLM, Forest Service and the USF&WS. This is pushing more folks into private-lands hunting, where costs of leases or day-hunt fees have been rising.

It's less the actual urban sprawl covering up hunting lands than it is the voting strength of urban populations--where these populations understand very little of "Nature", etc.


MP Freeman
April 12, 2002, 02:50 PM

From reading, the problem with the undeveloped areas of Africa is dodging folks who want to kill Whitey.

Africa is not only suffering from the "kill whitey" mentality, many africaners suffer from tribalistic mentality and collectivistic thinking. Even though they may live in wilderness areas and undeveloped countries. I don't see how having vast undeveloped areas in any nation leads to the people valuing and extolling individual freedom.


I do agree full heartedly that our individual freedoms are under severe and dangerous assault. We are not on the path of Kanada or Sissy Europe, we are headed for one of two destinations. Most likely facism, or possibly communism. Just depends upon a few more pieces of legislation. However, I don't see how celebrating the state takeover of land as being productive towards the end of preserving freedom or of limiting government. Because as you posted, anti-freedom people are in positions of power in governmental beuracracies dealing with the management of public land. Abolish public land and the anti-freedom liberals have no influence. Public land is a terrible concept. Why should a majority of people determine how to spend the money I produce and earn? Isn't that slavery? Even if we are spending my money for more wilderness area? We fall into the trap of crushing individual rights of property, so others can have a place to hunt, so those hunters will respect individual rights! How is this working?

MP Freeman

April 13, 2002, 03:49 PM
If I only cared about my hunting and trapping rights,then I would much rather live in Canada.In polls I've seen most Canadians are okay with fur trapping.Canada will probably be the last 1st world country to ban hunting and trapping.

Art Eatman
April 13, 2002, 06:36 PM
MP, to me, the value of vast areas of undeveloped lands is having a place where it's possible to have a respite from what I consider the "rabbit warrens" of major megalopoli. Elbow room and at least the illusion of "Unspoiled Nature".

"However, I don't see how celebrating the state takeover of land as being productive towards the end of preserving freedom or of limiting government." Hope I didn't imply that, or if I did my words came out all wonky.

If the state takes public lands out of development, that's most likely a short-term loss to private enterprises such as mining, timbering or ranching. The resource base will always be there. I don't celebrate such actions, but I take the long view as to the use of resources. Sort of a reverse curve: The anti-dam/reservoir folks grump that even if they manage to stop a project via politics, the site is still there.

To me, one's attitude toward RKBA is a litmus test which tells much about all the rest of a person's attitudes about life and government--and, to a great extent, vice versa. From that standpoint, the red/blue counties map is rather educational.

It seems to me that beginning with FDR and accelerating with LBJ, expansion of governmental powers and restrictions on rights and liberty has been ongoing through my lifetime. I feel that the once-proud rugged-individual American is pretty much almost gone, and our similar views/actions/efforts are merely holding actions in a losing war.


MP Freeman
April 13, 2002, 09:58 PM
To me, one's attitude toward RKBA is a litmus test which tells much about all the rest of a person's attitudes about life and government--and, to a great extent, vice versa. From that standpoint, the red/blue counties map is rather educational.

Art, not only is that your attitude, it's mine as well. If a man is rationale and consistant, a person's view on RKBA is a logical outcome from one's fundamental or core beliefs.

It seems to me that beginning with FDR and accelerating with LBJ, expansion of governmental powers and restrictions on rights and liberty has been ongoing through my lifetime. I feel that the once-proud rugged-individual American is pretty much almost gone, and our similar views/actions/efforts are merely holding actions in a losing war.

No doubt. The communistg manifesto is being fulfilled every year under either Republican or Democratic leadership. Democrats just do it faster and in the open. Twenty years ago, it was a serious consideration about pulling out of the UN. Today that is an extemist nut-case idea. Republicans used to run and win with it. And Abolishing the Income tax was another real winner, today we are lucky to get a 3% decrease in income tax rates.

I could go on and on and on.....but ultimately, your right. We are in a losing battle using the tactics of "hold your nose and vote Bush". And the other sad truth is that if you vote libertarian, you're voting Democratic in national elections.

About the concern of increased metro-areas, it's a sign of progress and prosperity that we can conquer and control nature instead of nature enslaving us. But I agree fully that with that comes the increasing collectivist morality and worldview. The rugged individualistic worldview is an AMerican rural and suburban phenomenon. I don't think such an individualistic and freedom loving worldview exists in any noticable quantity anywhere else in the world.

I'm out of here, this post is depressing me.

Best Regards,