Post by: Dave Lay on March 28, 2008, 12:06:00 PM
Post by: luv2bowhunt on March 28, 2008, 12:12:00 PM
Kevin.
Post by: Dave Lay on March 28, 2008, 02:28:00 PM
Post by: Ryan Rothhaar on March 28, 2008, 04:10:00 PM
JMO
Ryan
Post by: Joe G on March 28, 2008, 04:15:00 PM
That is kinda what I got from his Letter..
Joe
Post by: Blackhawk on March 28, 2008, 04:21:00 PM
If your only goal is bag a P&Y animal on every hunting trip, then you will be disappointed. But if your primary goal is to simply enjoy the outdoors with a bow in hand, there is still plenty of wide open spaces to enjoy.
Post by: Adirondack Bowman on March 28, 2008, 04:58:00 PM
Post by: Mark Baker on March 28, 2008, 05:10:00 PM
Putting things in perspective, though, our 5000 acres is probably no more, maybe even less, productive game-wise than your 50. And one guy with a rifle at one end of the 5000 can flat out ruin it for a bowhunter, or anyone else for that matter.....theres nothing in between to "buffer" one guy from another. Temper that with the fond memories of the "good-ol days", and the fact that most of us residents here live here, not for the money, but almost solely for the outdoor opportunities....cause that is all there really is here (or was), and you can see why so many have our "bad" days. At least I do.
Post by: One eye on March 28, 2008, 06:11:00 PM
Dan
Post by: killinstuff on March 28, 2008, 06:27:00 PM
Post by: ethan on March 28, 2008, 07:27:00 PM
Post by: Barney on March 28, 2008, 08:02:00 PM
I've got antelope close enough to watch with a spotting scope. Haven't been able to draw the area. Closest area I've been able to draw is about 2 hours away.
In Wyoming, we get about a month of bow season. That's for everything.
Post by: Seeking Trad Deer on March 28, 2008, 08:03:00 PM
Perhaps there is some wisdom in what he says about the ever increasing limit to land access...the hard question is how this issue is solved...that I am not sure of in my state.
Post by: Don Thomas on March 28, 2008, 08:50:00 PM
Post by: ishiwannabe on March 28, 2008, 09:24:00 PM
I lost 90 acres close to my home to a new owner. I still have 750+ acres to hunt, but that was my honey hole....and that hurt. I cannot imagine what it must be like out west.
Im scared to think about the impact stuff like that will have on the antis.
Post by: vermonster13 on March 28, 2008, 09:37:00 PM
Post by: Barney on March 28, 2008, 09:57:00 PM
A very good whitetail river bottom here was just bought up by a couple extreeeeemly wealthy business men from California. Not "a" ranch but 3 adjoining ranches. Not a few hundred acres either. It is now closed to all hunting and fishing except by them. The worst part is my best friend manages it. Of course you can go down the road a ways and hunt deer by the point on another big ranch.
!["[dntthnk]"]("graemlins/dntthnk.gif" "\"\"")
Post by: Longbowmark on March 28, 2008, 10:12:00 PM
As for those of us who hunt mostely in the east, it is not fair to compare. In most cases, the hunting in Michigan, Penn. and other high hunter density areas is not sought after by out of state interests due to fairly poor "trophy" quality.
I do have friends who live and hunt the trophy states, for the most part, in order to achieve this goal they had to buy large parcels of property. Something that is out of reach for the average person. The ones who can not afford to buy have lost up to 50% of the land they had due to leases by outfitters and out of state interests.
What we see now will likely be magnified 10 times in the next 20 years. I hate to sound skeptical but I think we are looking at the begining of the end.
Post by: Don Thomas on March 28, 2008, 11:14:00 PM
Post by: Seeking Trad Deer on March 28, 2008, 11:17:00 PM
Post by: Widowbender on March 28, 2008, 11:41:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Seeking Trad Deer:All the talk of Ethanol has managed to do so far is drive up the price of corn and its driving up feed prices. We just lost a chicken processing plant and 800 jobs because the company is having to downsize because of rising feed costs due to the new Ethanol "gold rush".
Let's hope the ethanol becomes a big business and farming takes hold to take advantage of the economic value of planting corn.
Hunting everywhere is truly becoming the "Sport of Kings". Here in the southeast we are losing hunting land by the hour. I managed a 5,000 acre hunt club for six years. part of it was sold to a guy who makes hunting videos. The rest I lost last year to a group of folks found out what we had and paid more than we could. Back to knocking on doors. I keep telling my kids they better get a good education and a high paying job if they want
to keep hunting.
David
Post by: Jedimaster on March 28, 2008, 11:45:00 PM
I live in the south and grew up reading about and dreaming of hunting the wilds of the west. I would still like to do that. Unfortunately I really have to keep my eye on the ball at home. Every year, with increasing effort, I fight to keep access to "my" home hunting grounds. It is happening everywhere although I concede it is much worse in many western states. I see more out-of-state tags than local, and they bring their money with them and money talks. Especially in a economically struggling region. I have long since left my rural farm home and now have the means to follow my dreams, but I rue the day that I pay to be a part of a socially elite class of "hunter" that jets in and out and leaves nothing but a bitter taste in the mouth of every hard working man that lives in and loves that land. Call it my protest to over-commercialization.
Post by: Doug S on March 29, 2008, 12:30:00 AM
If it was illegal to take animals with the biggest antlers would anyone pay anything? Would someone pay 300.00 for a NR antlerless tag? If someone say's it's just the challenge of a mature animal, why not shoot an 8 year old doe.
I get access to property's all the time when I am willing to take only antlerless animals. No one travels and pays an outfitter to shoot doe's. These big payers want the racks and the glory we give them for it.
I agree with what BlackHawk said:
"If your only goal is to bag a P&Y animal on every hunting trip, then you will be disappointed. But if your primary goal is to simply enjoy the outdoors with a bow in hand, there is still plenty of wide open spaces to enjoy." Shoot rabbits. No one cares about them.
If you could get rid of the infatuatioon and worship and lust for big antlers it would all go away. Less out of staters, Less leasing, Less purchasing for hunting, less Monster buck shows. Cabalas is brilliant, taking advantage of the lust for antlers by buying and hanging up big racks. People drive for hours to look at them. It's like a religous experience.
Am I wrong? How do we kill that desire in most hunters?
Post by: Tom Mussatto on March 29, 2008, 01:17:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Doug S:No, you're not wrong.
Am I wrong?
Quote
Originally posted by Doug S:At this point I doubt that you can.
How do we kill that desire in most hunters?
Post by: Don Thomas on March 29, 2008, 01:23:00 AM
Post by: Mike Brown on March 29, 2008, 03:04:00 AM
I don't like it it is just the way it is and has always been during my 49 years.
The last 29 or so years my average drive to hunt has been 5 hours or 250 to 300 miles.
I have made the statement several times that many people who claim that they love to hunt but do not have to pay or drive long distances to hunt would stop if they had to do either or both. This is whether they could aford the cost or not.
I envy those of you who do not have to do either and truly wish you well.
I however have to pay to play and I really LOVE to hunt so I have to put my money where my mouth is.
Post by: Yohon on March 29, 2008, 08:19:00 AM
Post by: Rico on March 29, 2008, 08:30:00 AM
Quote
A very good whitetail river bottom here was just bought up by a couple extreeeeemly wealthy business men from California. Not "a" ranch but 3 adjoining ranches. Not a few hundred acres either. It is now closed to all hunting and fishing except by them.Thats were the trophies and our heros are made.
Post by: allan f on March 29, 2008, 09:42:00 AM
In the States is there a way that outfitters can lease public land and say "no one else can hunt here"? Is that most of the problem or is it that landowners have seized that idea that they can rent the right to hunt on their land to the highest bidder? Or a combination of both?
Allan
Post by: GregD on March 29, 2008, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: bentstick_55 on March 29, 2008, 10:34:00 AM
Post by: bentstick_55 on March 29, 2008, 10:35:00 AM
Post by: bentstick_55 on March 29, 2008, 10:48:00 AM
It is sad to say, but I think this might actually (and I hate to say this) be a good thing. It will destroy the quality of our deer herd, and I doubt anyone will pay $10,000 to shoot a basket rack 6 point.
Over time when the outfitters are then gone things might get back to normal but it will take years.
But in the meantine we will loose a generation of hunters but the anti's wont.
Post by: Molson on March 29, 2008, 10:59:00 AM
Post by: George D. Stout on March 29, 2008, 11:10:00 AM
How long do you think anyone will be able to afford those "big" bucks in Iowa and other parts of the midwest. Most of this lure reminds me of the Viagra commercials.
Personally, I'm thankful to be able to have these millions of acres of public access here in Pennsylvania, where some other mindless folks think no deer exist. And now, as a semi-employed, semi-old curmudgeon, I'm increasingly enjoying our deerless woods 8^).
Post by: Doug S on March 29, 2008, 11:12:00 AM
Don- I really have enjoyed your spike stories. You are one of the few who writes about the experience as much as the bones. Thanks a bunch. Great stuff. More more more.
Allan- landowners can see the antlers reflecting in eyes of todays hunters and now know the hunters are willing to pay alot of money to satisfy that thirst. I don't blame them. Many of them don't care personally about hunting, except for the money they now see it can bring them. We are Boneheaded.
How many of us would pass up a 7x7 bull elk
because we might get a shot at the lead cow? The smartest and most level headed of the group. Probably none of us. Because who is going to slap me on the back or pay me for the story or film of that hunt? More here, than anywhere would, but a very tiny amount of the rest of the hunting world would. They would call me an idiot. And money wise I would be for the lost income I would have made. Which I (or my wife :( ) could have used for something else. What to do?
I guess the only thing we can do is not get anymore excited about an animal someone took just because of it's head size than I would about little head size. And show more excitement about the hunt experience they had.
Gotta start somewhere.
Post by: Diamond Paul on March 29, 2008, 11:14:00 AM
Post by: Don Thomas on March 29, 2008, 11:34:00 AM
Post by: George D. Stout on March 29, 2008, 12:05:00 PM
If you get an opportunity, read "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold.
Post by: Flinttim on March 29, 2008, 12:31:00 PM
We've got the insurance companies demanding the increasing deer herd be thinned, so here in IN now you can hunt with about anything.X bows, shotguns, centerfire, pistols, muzzleloaders, wheel bows and on and on.We were hoping that the DNR would recognize that what they started out to be "primitive" weapons has gotten out of hand but the increasding herd knocks that in the head. To add insult to injury, I know of one place for example, a woods of about 60 acres that was "leased" to some people from Indy for $200 acre per season.It's really funny to watch Escalades towing several ATVs pull up to hunt a 60 acre woods that is less than a 1/4 mile off the State highway ! I'd love to buy a place for hunting but considering the cost and my age, is it worth the effort? I'll get out of this life OK I guess but what about the grandkids ? I hope they turn out to love hunting but where will they hunt ?
Post by: wislnwings on March 29, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
Post by: PrarrieDog on March 29, 2008, 01:57:00 PM
Montana has been "discovered" by the hollywood crowd including Ted Turner (who is the largest single land owner in the state) and others with too much money. They buy ranches and close them off fro the public.
I am watching and waiting for Wyoming to be "discovered" also.
In Wyoming we have a lot of public land that is available.
Grazing leases on public land is a constant fight with lease holders trying to shut down access.
Because land is not marked well lease owners try to bully hunters but access to GPS's are making a difference.
Guard your public land carefully and don't let the government "trade it" for better land unless it is in our best interest. I've watched this happen.
Best regards
Prarrie Dog
Post by: [email protected] on March 29, 2008, 02:27:00 PM
Join up with like minded folks and do what you can to protect your hunting interests.
Wyoming adds an additional twist to the problem with their "you can only hunt in wilderness areas if you have an outfitter" law. They are certainly protecting their interest.
Odd, isn't it, that fishermen don't have the same rule and can do as they please wandering about in the wilderness.
The bears must think hunters are far better eating fare that those guys toting a fly rod.
Bob
Post by: kennym on March 29, 2008, 02:41:00 PM
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 29, 2008, 02:44:00 PM
I have felt all along that the downfall of hunting as we know it would be a result of infighting among hunters and not from any outside source. "Hunting" differs greatly from country to country, region to region, state to state and even county to county. What concerns me may be very different from what concerns Mr. Thomas or anyone else for that matter. What is important is that we as hunters stick together, support each other, and fight to preserve ALL hunting, even if we may not choose to partake in a given legal method, species, or limit.
With all due respect for Mr. Thomas, I personally do not have a concern with land access in my area. I have all the public land I care to hunt within an hour or two of my home. I'm not saying that I have a lot of "trophy" opportunities, but that has never been much of a concern for me anyway. On the other hand, certain hunting methods, hunting of certain species and certain equipment choices are under assault in my area, yet a number of other people, even "high profile" hunters from different regions seem more than willing to throw these things under the bus because they don't happen to agree with, partake in, or have any particular interest in them.
I don't have any interest in hunting with hounds, (for anything other than birds) nor do I personally consider it to be particularly sporting. I would NEVER however speak out against it, try to eliminate it or even give the impression that I think it should be done away with. I don't have any interest in hunting with a compound bow but I would also never suggest that it is any less a worthy endeavor than hunting with my traditional equipment. As I said, I do not have any access problems in my neck of the woods, but I would certainly do what I could to protect what others may be losing without infringing on personal property rights of others.
Some may ask where I am going with this post. It's simple really. This thread happens to be about Mr. Thomas and his writings but what I am about to say is not directed toward him alone. It is directed to all those hunters, high profile or otherwise, that would ask for help in preserving what they hold dear. Whether it be access to land, the ability to hunt doves, bait bears, hunt from trees, trap varmints or run hounds. Again, with all due respect, don't ask me for assistance with your concerns while on the other hand speak out against, or work toward eliminating something that I choose to partake in. It is only a matter or time before all the oxen have been gored and we have nothing left to hunt or nothing to hunt them with.
Lenny
Post by: Rico on March 29, 2008, 04:45:00 PM
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 29, 2008, 05:00:00 PM
I don't think you get it. The division is being done by those with the money and the "inches are king" mentality. Those are the guys who shoot the *-bows, go to cabelas spend $1000 and "become bowhunters", put scopes on "primitive" muzzleloaders. Success on big animals is more important to them than anything else. As Don says, Anti's won't destroy us, this inches at all costs will.
Nathan Fikkert
Post by: ethan on March 29, 2008, 05:12:00 PM
Post by: Plumbob on March 29, 2008, 05:18:00 PM
Don has hammered Bear baiting {I believe it was baiting if not I am sure he will correct me} in the past, Doug Borland ripped anything but spot and stalk, and Dick Robertson says if we don't abide by his traditional standards we are sinners and ruining hunting.
Nothing personal Don, but Lenny's point is valid.
As our public land gets lock up by private access for big dollars how wide is our circle of friends?
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 29, 2008, 05:30:00 PM
Nathan
Post by: Phil Tuccillo on March 29, 2008, 05:51:00 PM
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 29, 2008, 05:55:00 PM
Nathan
Post by: Plumbob on March 29, 2008, 06:33:00 PM
And yes I believe this is a huge problem for all hunters.
How to stop it? Man I am all ears.
Post by: Mike Brown on March 29, 2008, 07:15:00 PM
Post by: Curtis Haden on March 29, 2008, 07:23:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nate Fikkert:No offense, Nate, and it may be a little counterintuitive, but I think you just made Lenny's point for him...
I guess I will just say this. In my opinion, and I think others on this thread would share it, losing huntable land and decent game populations is a FAR greater danger than hunters sitting around a campfire (real or virtual) arguing about whether hound hunting, bear baiting, or carbon arrows out of a "trad" bow is ehtical or not.
Nathan
Moving on - I guess that living where I live, with the hunting opportunities I have, makes me a little less emotionally involved on this particular issue. The question that occurs to me is this: Where do you draw the line on commercialization and land ownership/leases???
Is it ok to get pumped up and submit to the book, if a 250 class whitetail makes the mistake of his life, and walks in front of my arrow? (fyi - that's not very likely, and I'd still be happy with an 80 lb. doe...)
Is it ok that I enjoyed reading about Fred's and Rick's trad slams? ...or if I enjoyed reading about Chuck Adams' slam(s)???
What if I won the lottery tommorrow, and bought up 20,000 acres of prime Missouri whitetail habitat, and then said only TradGangers could hunt there with me? ...Is that ok? (you know, we'd have less than an acre apiece if all you blokes showed up one weekend...LOL)
I guess the real point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of opinions out there, and most people of reasonable intelligence have the capacity to defend their choices. Let's face it; we're not going to get rid of compound bows, in-line muzzleloaders, or ESPN Outdoors . And why would we want to??? You won't ever convince me to do any of those things, but there are a lot of people who still enjoy them, and still manage to hunt "ethically". A slob hunter or poacher isn't going to change much, regardless of what kind of weapon you put in his hands.
I'm not trying to make light of anyone's opinions or cloud the issues. The thing is, these are big, complicated problems, and there's probably no good solution. Simple things are never problems, just irritations... If I was Don Thomas, I'm certain I'd have a different perspective! This thread certainly made me think a lot about the future, and the opportunities my kids, and theirs, will or will not have.
I think the best we can do, is stand together, try not to bicker over equipment, and take a kid hunting and/or fishing. (...especially if the kid in question is going to grow up and be the CEO of a multi-national corporation, with exclusive hunting rights to Texas)
Post by: SERGIO VENNERI on March 29, 2008, 07:24:00 PM
Sergio
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 29, 2008, 07:45:00 PM
I think we will always bicker and fight about hunting methods amongst ourselves. I just don't think some "minor" divisions in hunting equipment and methods are going to end hunting as we know it as fast as the issues originally talked about in this thread. Bottom line is I do think something will have to change on this road hunting is going down. Game management alone in many states because it is no longer about science or biology. Game management is now about politics and money.
Overall, good discusion, it is good to positively discuss these issues.
Nathan
Post by: Leland on March 29, 2008, 07:51:00 PM
Post by: nutmeg on March 29, 2008, 08:15:00 PM
Post by: Rico on March 29, 2008, 08:31:00 PM
For a lot of us its about choices.
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 29, 2008, 09:35:00 PM
I appreciate your opinion but you do make my point in a number of ways.
First, you said that everyone has their own version of "the sky is falling." That is very true. It is also true that each person probably feels that his version is more important than the next guys version and unfortunately, many are willing to gore someone else's ox in order to protect their own. It's the nature of the beast, no pun intended.
Second, you say that "losing huntable land and decent game populations is a FAR greater danger than hunters sitting around a campfire (real or virtual) arguing about whether hound hunting, bear baiting, or carbon arrows out of a "trad" bow is ehtical or not." I agree with that but unfortunately these things have not been limited to campfire banter. Not only have certain "sky is falling" issues been written about negatively in national publications but people have worked to have certain methods, species, equipment , etc. stopped because they didn't happen to meet thier veiw of "what the hunting experience should be."
Third, you admit yourself that if you "had great private land I would keep it to myself and those close to me. I wouldn't charge outrageous amounts for others to hunt there." With all due respect, what difference does it make if you charge large sums of money to hunt there or not. If you keep it to "yourself and only those close to you," it is just as inaccessable to other hunters as if you were charging a kings ransom to hunt there.
The point I was trying to make is that ALL these issues are important to ALL hunters. If we expect other hunters to ban together and protect our particular ox, we probably shouldn't make it a habit of trying to gore someone else's.
Lenny
Post by: Flinttim on March 29, 2008, 09:54:00 PM
Most of us here would freely admit that when "hunting" becomes "killing" we're done with it. Maybe that notion is more prevalent in types like us but I do believe it lives down inside everyone.For some it will just take longer.
Post by: vermonster13 on March 29, 2008, 10:19:00 PM
Post by: Longbowmark on March 29, 2008, 10:25:00 PM
On your original post you stated "against my better judgement" you decided to contribute. In my opionion it would have been against your better judgement to step aside. The folks on this site respect and admire you and your contribution to the outdoor life style. This topic is real, it is impending and most of us face it with a degree of fear. If not for us than for our kids and the hope that they will enjoy the lifestyle that we have. What ever you do Don, go against your better judgement.
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 29, 2008, 11:55:00 PM
Bottom line is this, something is wrong, and I believe it stems from the "inches is king", and "trophies at all costs" mentalities. Hopefully that part of it is a "fad" and people get back to why they started hunting in the first place. Hopefully, for most, it wasn't for trophies!
And Longbowmark, well said!
Nathan
Post by: Don Thomas on March 29, 2008, 11:57:00 PM
Post by: Brian Krebs on March 30, 2008, 01:01:00 AM
I gun hunted; and the best of the best gun hunters in the 60's was the guy that shot a big buck; in the first few minutes of the season: every year.
I did the math. How much time did that guy spend in the woods each year to become the 'best deer hunter'?
Back then you sat on the same stump your grandfather sat on opening day - and it wasn't like people were scouting.
I remember when I started bowhunting; and started hearing deer making sounds.
"HA HA HA - A buck snort huh!!??"
No; I heard something other than a gasious hunter; or a doe snorting; I was hearing does bleat; and bucks grunt.
That was all in my imagination according to everyone- "deer only snort".
When I got into bowhunting; the first morning out for deer; my friend left me in the dark on a well used trail. After a cold morning sit; my buddy showed up and asked if I had seen any deer.
I hadn't - but he instantly spotted deer; and it took me a while to see them. You see they were walking and feeding; and I was used to gun season; where deer ran full tilt with tails high and guns blazing.
Bowhunting to me was like a whole different world. A world where deer walked and acted naturally and not in fear. Where I started really seeing the other wildlife.
Something I didn't see was other bowhunters. I was used to sitting in the woods on opening day; and if I didn't hear 500 shots by noon- it was a 'bad year'. Now; while bowhunting; there were no shots; the tornado of gun season was now a quiet gentle place; where everything was relaxed and everything was calm; and sounds were from the wind; and the rustle of leaves; and the calls of birds and squirrels. It was just a different place.
I loved it. I still love it. I need it.
Hunting some say is a 'sport'; but I think the words of a traditional bowhunter that described it as an 'instinct' best describes it.
I have my parts of the world that are pretty much 'mine'(by virtue of remoteness) - but I have had conflicts.
I think bowhunting is like liberty; the price is eternal vigilance.
I am angered when people just submit; when they don't even try to protect their right to hunt; and it is a right- even where it is considered a 'priviledge'.
But- what I seek to protect is what I know is right; the way of hunting that has existed for so many thousands of years.
It is not pompiety; it is reality. Ishi hunted with a bow that is similiar to what I hunt with; the principal is the same.
It is so far from " I put my pin on the management buck; and waited and waited for the shot to appear; and the chance to squeeze the trigger". To that it is not comparable.
But even where I am; in the remote part of Idaho; where the babies born cannot keep the up with the old folks dying- there are moments of anger.
When I found a guy with a rifle sitting in my ameristep blind; over my bear bait; after he moved it to make it more for his advantage; or seeing that he had driven his atv back in the woods far from the road to get there- man ! That is just as bad as finding a 'no trespassing sign' on a place you hunted for decades.
Yes- it is becoming 'a rich mans sport'. I don't believe it is good: that it is doing that.
And I am constantly told I should take the hand of that guy who moved my ground blind; broke one of the fiberglass poles; and was hunting over a bait I had been carrying in each day: for months.
Hold hands with him because he is a hunter too.
Nope.
On the way up to my bait; everyday for years- I would drive by a colony of ground squirrels. I would stop and try some stalks; and some shots. In an average year I might take 3.
Last year I talked with a guy and his buddy that 'wiped out that mess of ground squirrels'.
They sat in their truck and shot out the windows at the squirrels; and that was the last I saw of the squirrels. They will return; but the point is; myself and my friends had gotten hundreds of stalks and dozens and dozens of hunts on those squirrels; and killing one- was really a rare thing.
In one afternoon; two hunters shot those squirrels down to unnoticable numbers. ...One afternoon...
I am supposed to hold hands with them too.
And I am supposed to hold hands with the guys that take their cash and slap it down to cover all the pain and time of ~really~ hunting; shooting deer and other animals in pens; or in areas where the caretaker goes through just before the clients arrive: and shoots them with a BB gun to make them act wild.
Nope.
I watched a tv show the other day; it was about hound hunting for bears. The host said what a hard hunt it was; especially compared to bait hunting where no physical effort was required.
I carry a bait into my bear bait on my back every day for months; I put up stands; take them down; move them to another tree; and loose a LOT of sweat doing it all.
Bear baiting; when your doing the baiting; is hard work. It is also more time consuming -I hunt 60 days each year; and this clown says I am lazy- because when he hunts over bait; he forgets he hunts over someone elses sweat and effort- and just plunks money down.
And to add insult to injury; I saw the area he was hunting in; and he was driving roads with hounds- driving roads where I used to bait; until I got tired of hound hunters starting their hounds on my baits.
I recognised where my son had a bait out and their hounds struck a bear on that area.
I am supposed to hold hands with that guy?
NOPE.
I know the saying there is safety in numbers; and I say that does not work well for lemmings.
This thread is about someones anger over the loss of the concepts of what hunting is; and I will not go down on the ships of those that have no idea what real hunting is.
Because its not shooting the 'management buck'; or securing square miles of land for exclusive hunting rights; and it is not collecting record book animals as if they are collecting baseball cards.
WE are not doing enough. Getting mad and quitting is not the answer.
Going WITH our better judgement is a good start.
Post by: ghost rob on March 30, 2008, 09:21:00 AM
Post by: RC on March 30, 2008, 09:48:00 AM
ps the Famed Paridise club that is known so well here as a great place to hunt and it is ,I`ve hunted there a couple times has a 10,000 acre tract across the river and down river a couple of miles.I killed 12 pigs there last year with a stickbow. On the same side of the river two miles down is another tract I think is around 3500 acres.Thats just within a few miles ,you can go up about 75 miles and you got 18,000 acres and a little farther maybe 30 miles is another 20,000 plus.Ga. has issues but public land hunting ain`t one of them.RC
Post by: B.O.D. on March 30, 2008, 10:03:00 AM
I thank God everyday I'm outdoors for the freedom and vast tracts of Crown(public) land that we enjoy here in Ontario.
We can hunt almost anywhere within a short drive or even walk from our homes. There is over 25,000 acres of public land in 50 mile radius from my house.
Good thing is, you would not believe the hunters who don't know that it is indeed, public...
:) ;)
Want to go on a moose hunt? no probs, head up north about 10-12 hours and you can hunt off almost any logging road for free. No fees, no ownership. Logging companies have the rights to log it, but they have no say if hunters want to hunt it after they are done.
I LOVE living here :)
BD
Post by: John Nail on March 30, 2008, 11:10:00 AM
Very little public land, and what we have is "multi use" Meaning ATVs, horse camps, Yuppie hikers, ect. Everyone here deer hunts, so it's difficult to get permission on private land, because sons, grandsons, ect. are using it. Farm Bureau has convinced farmers to post their land for liability reasons, and who can blame them? The price of "Junk" land has risen steadily because of this, and ground you can barely walk on brings from $5000 to $7500 an acre. Chump change to a guy making $250,000 a year.
The simple fact is, we have bred ourselves away from the table. Too many people, not enough land. Someday in the near future, a lease will be the only way to hunt. If I'm still around,I'll take up bird watching.
Post by: George D. Stout on March 30, 2008, 11:21:00 AM
Frankly the outdoor shows are mostly nauseating; the mindset of trophy hunting is basically degrading to the sport. I'm glad I've never been sucked into that vacuum.
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 30, 2008, 12:15:00 PM
The reasons I am drawn to bowhunting with traditional archery equipment are much the same as what you describe. Unfortunately, what discourages me is also the same as you describe.
The reason for my first (and subsequent) post on this subject was never to turn this into a bear baiting thread as was suggested. I was simply trying to illustrate that hunters, of all disciplines, have different "hot buttons" or "the sky is falling" issues that we are very passionate about. I specifically mentioned baiting bears and running hounds because I know that Mr. Thomas very much enjoys one and well, not the other. He has said so numerous times both on these forums and in other publications. BUT, in my opinion, this is NOT about Mr. Thomas and it is NOT about bear baiting and it is NOT about running hounds. What it IS about is the future of hunting, ALL hunting. It is about being willing to pick up the torch for something that you may not personally choose to partake in but do so for the preservation of "hunting" in general. Even if you are not willing to "pick up the torch" per se, at least try to refrain from talking openly against them.
It would be very easy for a guy like Big Dog, who admittedly has all the land he wants to hunt...and more, say to Mr. Thomas and others who are seeing their access to hunting land dwindle, "Cry me a river dude, I've got all the land I need here in Ontario...here's a quarter, call someone who cares." I suspect he knows better though, because he has watched his spring bear hunt become a thing of the past by the stroke of a pen.
Over the last few years in Michigan, we have had numerous proposals on the ballot to eliminate certain types of hunting. Two notable examples happened to be hunting bears with dogs and the other happened to be dove hunting. I have never done either one, nor do I think I have the desire to ever do either but I did what I could to protect them both. One was successful and the other was not. Should I have said (or thought) heck, I'm never going to hunt doves...let them have it and maybe they will be satisfied and go away? Should I have said (or thought) I'm never going to run bears with dogs, and besides, sometimes those darn houndsmen really screw up the baits, so if we eliminate them, it will make it better for me and my buddies AND maybe the antis will be satisfied and go away? That could have been a win/win for of those that bait bears, BUT we ALL knew that if they were successful in eliminating the running of bears with dogs, they would come after ALL bear hunting next. Fortunately, Michigan hunters...even if they never intended to hunt bears by any means at all, overwhelmingly voted to support the houndsmen. We were not so successful when it came to dove hunting. I wonder what the next target will be? Will it be trapping? Bowfishing? Spearing? Bobcats? Who the heck knows? They don't care, they just want to pluck away, one thing at a time.
How does this relate to big money tying up large tracts of land? It really doesn't. What it does relate to is the willingness of other hunters to come to the aid and support of those people that ARE affected by it. I have absolutely no idea what the answer might be. I am a staunch supporter of personal property rights so for me, there is obviously a very thin line between the rigths of the landowners and the ability of the average Joe to find a decent place to hunt. If Mr. Thomas has a solution that is acceptable, I would be MORE than willing to do what I can to help him out. I am also MORE than willing (and have done so) to support those that want to trap, run bears with hounds and hunt doves, even though I may or may not particularly enjoy them.
That IS the point in my opinion. We all know slobs and unethical hunters of all disciplines. Same goes for fisherman, trappers, and the list goes on and on. We all need to do what needs to be done to eliminate those people from our ranks but in my opinion it is NOT by eliminating entire methods of hunting or entire equipment choices. There are extremely ethical hunters that choose to, and enjoy baiting bears...Brian is a perfect example. There are very ethical hunters that choose to, and enjoy baiting deer, baiting hogs, shooting doves running cats with dogs, trapping coyotes and there are very ethical gun hunters, compound bowhunters and crossbow hunters (in their respective seasons). There are slobs in EVERY one of those camps also.
We all know people, including many of us on this site (including myself), that have had a dream of owning their own land, to hunt, fish, trap and to pass on to our children so they can do the same if they wish. Many still do have that dream...even in Montana. Are we to assume that if a person wants to buy his own little slice of heaven and protect it for his family, that he is the ruination of public access hunting? Is it really any different if someone buys a ranch in Montana, a farm in Iowa or a chunk of cedar swamp in northern Michgan, for only his family and friends to hunt on and some rich dude with the idea that he is going to charge people to hunt there. The land is just as tied up. Actually, the argument can be made that the rich dude is actually giving MORE access than the family guy, albeit at a cost.
Where and how do we draw the line? As I said, I have no idea. I do know however that the answer does not lie in pitting one group (large or small) against the other. We are ALL hunters, outdoorsmen (and women), fisherman, etc. WE are the ones that protect and provide for the resource. WE are the ones should come to the defense of each other. There is NO other way folks. If there is an end to hunting or hunting access, it is because WE have allowed it to happen, even caused it to happen, in many small instances that eventually add up to be very large losses. If we lose the right to hunt or areas to hunt, it will not be because of the anti's or governments or even "rich dudes." It will come from within. How can we speak out against rich dudes charging other rich dudes to hunt, and then in the very next breath tell everyone about the guided deer hunt or the guided elk hunt or the guided moose hunt that we have booked? I don't care if it is in our home state, Canada, Africa, or Jupiter for that matter. If we have ever paid to hunt (which I have, and will most like do many more times) we ARE the problem. It's just a matter of degree. As long as we are willing to pay even a little bit, there is always going to be someone that is willing to pay more to get more. Spending a thousand bucks to hunt bears in Canada with my traditional bowhunting buddies is no different than spending 10 grand to hunt elk on a ranch in Montana or 20 grand for the hunt of a lifetime in Africa. It is only a matter of how much you are willing to spend and where you want to go.
I never wanted to turn this into an argument or point fingers in any way so this will be my last post on the subject. I simply wanted to clarify what I was trying to say.
Lenny
Post by: Jeff Strubberg on March 30, 2008, 12:56:00 PM
It's a land use issue.
Unless y'all are planning on rewriting land ownership in the USA, you are chomping at each other over your favorite pet peeve, rather than the subject at hand.
Don, this isn't a "west" issue. It isn't an "east" issue. The laws of the land say that a man has a right to do what he wants with property he owns. That includes chaining it off, leasing it out of filling it full of goats if that is his thing.
I'm sorry you are being run over by the problem, but wing shooting and fly fishing are every bit as prone to this bulldozer as hunting.
Post by: Jeff Strubberg on March 30, 2008, 01:40:00 PM
Post by: SteveB on March 30, 2008, 01:56:00 PM
I hear little, if any suggestions/plans to change it.
Are there any?
Serious question.
Steve
Post by: [email protected] on March 30, 2008, 02:11:00 PM
Outstanding post!
Bob
Post by: Don Thomas on March 30, 2008, 02:45:00 PM
Post by: Littlefeather on March 30, 2008, 02:47:00 PM
It's simply a supply and demand issue. As the population of the human race increases we are "forced" to compete for limited resources. In some cases the supply doesn't even come close to the demand. Of course we've then got to look into the free enterprise issue. Should a land owner/land manager have the right to seek financial security through free enterprise?
The fact is that our population as the human race is increasing at an alarming rate and our natural recources will not be able to support the demand the population will soon be looking at. Heck, there is nothing hapening here in the US hunting industry that hasn't been happening in Africa for years. I'm a poor guy that can't afford the prices African hunts now demand I pay to play. Oh, I suppose I could have afforded a hunt there years ago before the demand became so high. There are those who can afford to pay those prices therefore they get to play. This has driven the prices of hunts sky high, created Preserves(high fence operations), and also created the killing fields that take place between the land owners and the government officials who will take the land if they don't secumb to the monetary desires of those in control. So, is it actually the money mongers who are creating the problem or the actual hunter :readit: who will pay the price to play. Africa didn't start out as a preserve and I'm quite sure that there were those who felt the same about their hallowed hunting grounds as we feel about ours. Now, who's hunting Africa, Australia, etc? The rich! The poor are still hunting the properties that their finantial status allows. For some that simply means they hunt the tiny woodlots surround town and read about their adventures that they cannot afford.
The solution is as simple as it can ever be.... You either reduce the demand, take away the supply, or destroy the free enterprise system(Communism). Yea, it sucks as much for me as it does for anyone else. I too remember when we knocked on the unknown farmers door and asked permision to hunt. That was Texas in the days before the lease. I also remember when you could buy a gallon of gas with a few coins.
No matter how angry we get about this issue, we all need to realize that the problem is global and transcends all aspects of the human existence.
God bless you Don for standing up and awakening the thought process in so many of todays bowhunters. Unfortunately, I believe there is no solution. It's simply what happens when the population's consumption needs exceeds our ability to provide it. The rich always overcome the poor. Curtis Kellar
Post by: Molson on March 30, 2008, 02:49:00 PM
The State of Ohio didn't come up with our quality deer last year. It took decades and millions of dollars to get where we are. If you want to come in here and take, for profit, what we collectively have made, then you should be regulated by the Division and you should pay for it.
The State of Ohio is now charging violators for the actual value of the animal killed. Fines can be in the thousands. The same should be done to non-residents or leasee's who use OUR resource FOR THIER PROFIT. Make them pay the State back for their greed.
Regulate these types of activities as you would any other business. I can't just put up a gas station in the middle of a neighborhood without going through a lengthy process. Doesn't matter whether I own the land or not. Why should the BUSINESS of hunting be any different.
I could go on but have to get to work. As for Don Thomas' last comment... Right on again. It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine. What a waste...
Post by: Littlefeather on March 30, 2008, 02:52:00 PM
Quote
It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine.Amen!
Post by: vermonster13 on March 30, 2008, 03:07:00 PM
Post by: Ryan Rothhaar on March 30, 2008, 03:29:00 PM
It sure goes beyond the first layer when you get into these issues. I guess my point is less about bashing spoiled hunters and more about maybe razzing some guys for trying to have it both ways. Most of the "high profile" guys I hear bellyaching are not dealing with other hunters while hunting on such worthy attempts at public access at Kansas' "Walk in Hunting" program or Montana's "Block Management" program (referred to by many of my MT buddies as "The Dead Zones") where landowners are paid by the state to allow public access, but are moreso complaining about losses of thier "personal" hunting grounds. If these "high profile" guys really want to save hunting and give access to all hunters then working for expansion and support of State Game Department "leasing" for walk in access would do more good than giving up or going underground.
I DO understand the argument from the "old timers" though, and sympathize in many cases more than I let on as I increasingly feel like one myself -- sometimes it's not simply your age in years that defines whether you are an old timer ;) .
R
Post by: Bobby Castello on March 30, 2008, 03:32:00 PM
Post by: Ryan Rothhaar on March 30, 2008, 03:38:00 PM
It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine. What a waste...
I think his skin is probably a little thicker than that...
R
Post by: T. Downing on March 30, 2008, 03:59:00 PM
Post by: Longbowmark on March 30, 2008, 04:16:00 PM
I find it interesting that elements of the hunting industry are so willing to turn on each other. Certain groups will throw anyone under the bus if they dont agree! Does'nt matter if it is bear baiting or black rifles.
This alway seems to happen to the folks that put themselves out there with the power of the pen and do more collective good than any 100 of us combined.
Mr. Thomas, for the record I value your effort and contribution to the sport, THANK YOU! History will be kind to the words you have put on paper.
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 30, 2008, 04:21:00 PM
Good point. Passionate and honest people can be found on both sides of every issue. Isn't it ironic that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Peterson are considered honest and passionate (which they are) but people who may honestly and passionately disagree with them on certain issues are considered by some to be "morons?"
Lenny
Post by: SERGIO VENNERI on March 30, 2008, 04:35:00 PM
Post by: Plumbob on March 30, 2008, 04:43:00 PM
Quote
It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine. What a waste...Ya know I may not be good at making my point. But I have been around a while. I have given a pretty good chunk of my time to archery and conservation through the years. I thought that may entitle me to an opinion.
As far as being respectful on this board I guess that is reserved for the insiders.
Post by: Don Thomas on March 30, 2008, 05:23:00 PM
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 30, 2008, 05:48:00 PM
Good ideas all.
" Suggestions: 1. De-emphasize the value of "trophy" hunting. I've managed to write about shooting spikes, does, and nothing for 30 years. Demand that editors in the outdoor press reflect your views about the value of the hunt."
If we could manage the above, nothing else in my opinion would need to be done. It wouldn't take long before the "hunt" would become more important than the "kill" again. Let's face it, who is going to pay huge amounts of money to shoot does and forkhorns.
It has been said many times that hunting is "becoming a rich mans sport." I tend to disagree. TROPHY hunting is indeed becoming a rich mans sport. For the most part, at least in my neck of the woods, if a hunter is looking for meat to fill his freezer and the experience of the hunt, "quality" hunting ground is more than plentiful. If you equate quality with quantity (size of racks) that's where things get expensive.
Now, any ideas on how we can successfully de-emphasize the value of trophy hunting? Many times a person like myself, that is happy shooting a doe or a smaller buck, is only met with contempt. Almost as if he has "taken something away" from a trophy hunter.
Lenny
Post by: Doug S on March 30, 2008, 06:32:00 PM
I like your 1,2,3,4 Don. Not sure how to spread that but I can start with me. And the tax one is interesting.
I have a question though. Why do we call landowners and outfitters greedy? For taking what hunters are so willing and eager to give them.
Like Kurtis ask: So, is it actually the money mongers (I won't call them that)who are creating the problem or the actual (horn monger?)hunter who will pay the price to play?
I was just on the Wensels site. I know we all revere the Wensels. But it's commercial, making money off the antler frenzy. But hey were buying! I don't fault them for the big buck, lease or buy the land or pay an outfitter to get the big one craze. Their very smart businessmen. Seriously.
It appears they have rented a ranch in texas and you can pay to hunt pigs there. At least thats the way it appears. I don't know for sure.
So they are outfitting. Now: are they greedy for doing this? I don't know. Is the landowner greedy for taking the money? I don't know. Are they greedy when they reach a certain income? If so, what is that so I'll know when to call them greedy? Gotta be some greed right? (sarcasm) Joe blow obviously can't go there and ask to hunt anymore. I personally don't know if anyone is GREEDY. Greed is in the heart. Someone can be dirt poor/dumb and greedy. What if someone ask to give you 10,000 to catch worms on your lawn. You don't care about worms, can't even understand why anyone would, but the other wormers really value and worship them and will be mad at you and call you greedy. After all you use to let them worm for free. You would take the money (I would). You don't care about worms.
I have never leased a property to hunt but I don't think someone who does even to outfit is greedy, anymore than a guy who leases a truck to haul stuff is greedy for being a truck driver. People are paying him. WE are paying them. IT's our fault!
#1 de-emphasize the value of "trophy" hunting.
Nobody has to pay to shoot doe's anywhere that I know of. It's the hunt not the head. Lets not care what the head looks like.
Post by: John Nail on March 30, 2008, 06:40:00 PM
Yeah, if you hunt in Texas on a lease, there's a $300 out of state license, and usually a fee of about $35 for shooting a doe. That's why I hog hunt down there, and deer hunt up here.
I completely agree that a low Tax rate for non-agricultural use is wrong. Land should be taxed according to "Highest and best use"
Post by: kojac on March 30, 2008, 07:46:00 PM
I personally have struggled with this for the last 15yrs and believe our best option is block management(for those that don't know what block mng is, a % of money generated from a hunting license is set aside to fund the leasing of private land for ALL hunters)
Yes there are dead zones at times but the more property you put in place the less dead they become. In my opionion this is our only hope to save hunting on privately own land.
That is not to say we don't need to presurve huntings romantic/emotional value.
Post by: Nate Fikkert on March 30, 2008, 08:24:00 PM
Great Post! very well put.
Now some solutions and ideas are coming up, that is great.
Eliminating "green taxes" is really a great place to start. Many of these guys make all the money they need, and more, on the hunting rights. They just run cattle, or cut alfalfa, because that is what they have always done. Change the tax status and things could change in a hurry.
I am struggling with memberships of "conservation organizations". I love the idea of RMEF. I am not sure I still love where they are going. In Pinedale Wyoming, where I lived previously, I began to question what the annual fundraising banquet had become. Showing off who had the most money by purchasing over- priced collectible guns? Yeah, I spent money there, I was even on the comittee, but where is it going? The ironic thing the people who spent the most money and "supported" RMEF the most where the ones who are drilling gas well after gas well out on the BLM land. Guess what, that land is/was one of the last great intact winter ranges for antelope and deer. Now these guys want to move up onto the Forest Service land to start drilling. It is almost like RMEF should say "thanks for the money guys, but you are doing more harm than good, so no thanks". So do I keep my membership with RMEF, do I look for a different conservation group that holds more of my conservation and hunting views? Should we all do that? RMEF still financially supports some great conservation efforts. But, I also know they have special ranches where only the "elite" of RMEF get to hunt. If RMEF and some of the other high profile sportmans conservation groups are part of the problem should we pull our memberships?
If enough of us thought Cabelas was helping push us down this dangerous road, and boycotted, and told them why, would they even care? It would maybe be worth a shot.
There are some very valuable and wise opinions on this site. I am glad we have that.
Nathan Fikkert
Post by: Molson on March 30, 2008, 10:14:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Molson:Don't read into what I'm saying. I'm talking about the self-proclaimed (armchair) experts who always seem to find a way to disguise a personal attack as a difference of opinion. Those type of people eventually push away or silence those with real knowledge and experience. We all lose because of these individuals.
It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine. What a waste...
There's nothing at all wrong with individuals having different opinions. That's what makes us think and often leads to a better understanding of the issues. However, if you are one of the people I described above, then I am truly sorry you were here to read this.
Post by: Alex.B on March 30, 2008, 10:28:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Molson:Actually, after reading this thread down from A to Z, since I love Don's and David Petersen's outlook and philosophy on hunting, as well as their writing, UNCONDITIONALLY, I thought your use of the word "morons" (instead of self-proclaimed experts) to describe their critics was most appropriate. way to go, Molson
QuoteOriginally posted by Molson:Don't read into what I'm saying. I'm talking about the self-proclaimed (armchair) experts who always seem to find a way to disguise a personal attack as a difference of opinion. Those type of people eventually push away or silence those with real knowledge and experience. We all lose because of these individuals. [/b]
It is not a fair trade to lose the knowledge and experiences of Don Thomas on these boards in exchange for morons who beat him down simply because he writes something they disagree with in a magazine. What a waste...
Post by: Ray Hammond on March 30, 2008, 11:18:00 PM
Use of a word like "greed" is always present in these discussions. Let's talk about it. Are you greedy when you leave one employer who has invested a great deal of time and effort to train you and help you to be a valuable asset to their company, for a new employer paying you a dollar an hour more?
Though he wouldn't like you leaving,I doubt he would call you greedy.
By the same token, an outfitter or guide doing whitetail hunts in Alabama will probably make a lot less per daythan one in Iowa. That's NOT his doing- its OURS. We chase the dream,he is just there because we want to go.
The word greed,like the word racist, gets misused a lot these days-hyperbole is the norm in conversation any more:awesome, unbelievable, unreal. There's a few, rare cases of greed,like one I witnessed in Arizona/N Mexico by someone a lot of folks here probably know, but I don't think we can paint most outfitters or guides with that brush.
This problem is not simple and the solutions, if there are any,will not be simple/easy either.
In the East,there's little in the way of public land. Out west,the resource itself is often the limiting factor.
Don makes some good points, and Curtis in my opinion is also right in pointing out that access to the resource always gets more expensive when there are more folks wanting to play. I also think Kojac's onto something with his suggestions.
Post by: Bonebuster on March 31, 2008, 07:26:00 AM
Take a kid hunting. Take a bunch of them hunting, and show them the way it`s supposed to be.
It may well be our ONLY long term hope.
Don Thomas... I have always enjoyed your input to the "sport" of hunting. Keep on, keeping on!
Post by: Lenny Stankowitz on March 31, 2008, 08:02:00 AM
I mentioned that earlier. Any one of us, including myself, who has ever paid to go on a hunt is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Is it right for "us" to pay to go on an African dream hunt, or a Canadian moose or bear hunt, or a buffalo hunt in Australia, or a whitetail hunt in Illinois, or even a hog hunt in Texas and then return home to complain that outfitters are leasing up all the land in our back yard for the purpose of charging someone else to help fulfill their own specific "dream."
Ray brings up a very interesting point regarding "greed." It very much is a word or a "concept" that is much overused and misused for that matter. Greed always seems to apply to "other people" trying to make a living, but for some reason, it never seems to apply to "us." Are we somehow more noble because of what we hunt with?
In my opinion, if we are ever going to solve the problems that Mr. Thomas and other's (including myself) are concerned with, we might need to explore the "concept" of greed a little further.
People like Chuck Adams and Ted Nugent are routinely criticized for "selling out," making their living by pimping themselves out (endorsing products), writing articles and selling them to different publications, speaking at seminars etc. How is that different from the owners of TBM selling advertising space in their magazine, selling TBM logo apparel, etc, etc, etc? Mr. Thomas and many others make their living as outdoor writers. Hunters and fishermen support them by purchasing their books and the publications that buy the accounts of their exploits, many times in far off places and exotic locations. Many of these writers are given free hunts, with the idea that they will promote that specific outfitter in their next story. Is this a bad thing? In my opinion, MOST DEFINATELY NOT. I admire a man or woman that has found a way to make their passion their living. Does this make them "greedy?" I don't think so, but we still need to be honest with ourselves. WE ARE THE PROBLEM. How can we rant and rave about the "greedy landowners" leasing their land for high dollar hunts and the commercialism that has taken over our sport, and then purpetuate that very thing by either doing the very same things ourselves or supporting those that do? Is it right for me to pay to hunt bears in Canada, Whitetails in Iowa, and Hogs in Texas and then try to eliminate or severely curtail the right for someone else to do the same thing here in Michigan? Is it right for an outdoor writer to make his living writing about his exploits and then expect his readers to not want to do the very thing he writes about? Is it right for a publication to print a compilation of these exploits every month, for the sole purpose of selling them to as many subscribers as possible, which in turn allows them to sell advertising in their publication? Is it then right to expect the readers of these exploits to not turn around and want to participate in such things? Lets even go one step further. It was mentioned earlier that maybe one way to curb this trend is to tax landowners at a higher rate if they are leasing their land to hunters. Should we then expect outdoor writers that get free or reduced rate hunts to report the fair market value of those hunts as income? What about a "personality" that gets free equipment? Should they report that as income? I'm quite certain that many of those "perks" go unreported. I'm not saying they should be reported but we need to look at ourselves as closely as we look at others.
Before someone calls me a name for piling on, or disrespecting Mr. Thomas, or TBM, or even Chuck and Ted, understand that I personally buy the books, subscribe to the magazines and pay to hunt in other states and countries. I AM ALSO PART OF THE PROBLEM. I mean no disrespect to any of the above, I am just trying to illustrate what Ray said in his earlier post. This problem is very complex and it has many different levels and layers.
I don't have the answers but I do believe that if squirrels and carp had antlers, someone would pay thousands of dollars to kill the biggest one.
Maybe we should start there.
Lenny
Post by: vermonster13 on March 31, 2008, 08:23:00 AM
Working with your state to find ways for better access to public lands through right-aways and enforcement of laws on the books that grant those accesses is key. Many folks aren't even aware of their rights when it comes to BLM lands and such in western states. These ranches are paying for grazing rights and that's it, they have no right to deny access and many gates are illegal. Knowing property lines and such is important, I have friends who hunt such lands and carry a GPS with the boundries programmed in so that they can prove exactly where they are when hunting and they know their rights.
Lack of education on our part is part of the problem. Get involved, get educated and work to help others.
Post by: Terry Green on March 31, 2008, 09:10:00 AM
So, I'm going to move it back to the PowWow for now.....