Don Thomas PBS mag letter

[Lenny Stankowitz]

Nate,

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

[Flinttim]

Another subject, but it does run parallel to this one. When I was a kid, we had no big game in Indiana. We were all small game hunters. As I/we aged , the deer season became a growing enterprise.Deer in Indiana has really only exploded in the past 35 yrs or so (actually more like 25 yrs). Out of all the guys I grew up with I am the only one still hunting. Now those guys have been replaced by what I will call the "new breed " of hunters. These are folks who for whatever reason have more free time to spend doing whatever they choose to do. Back in the day, Dad had to cut firewood on the weekends so we didn't freeze. He worked overtime when he could so Mom could stay at home. That's all changed. Some may not admit it but we do have more free time.(I know sometimes it does not seem so).This leads to bass fishing tournaments,camping, Rving,skiing, snorkeling, skydiving, yada yada yada and yes hunting. I'm not so sure that this thing we call hunting today is not just another fad that will wane with time.Some of us hunt because of some primordal gnawing deep inside of us, some of us hunt because we just love it. Some hunt because it's the trendy thing to do. Maybe their friends are doing it so they follow suit. It's something to jaw about over beers at the local pub. Sort of a "man badge " if you will. I think maybe as hunting becomes too easy, we will see a tipping point where the numbers start going down.Maybe once the gloss wears off they move on to the hobby de jour. Always looking for that " high" whatever it is. Or maybe when they hit that point where it becomes too easy, they look for the next challenge in hunting, and move from compounds to trad gear, or they leave the inline zip gun muzzleloaders in favor of an old time flintlock.
 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.

[vermonster13]

We've been losing a million hunters nationally every ten years on average. Not much of a fad.

[Longbowmark]

Don,
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.

[Nate Fikkert]

OK, I guess I can see how my argument could maybe go on both sides.  My only reason for posting about "if I had private land" was that I believe there is a difference between having a special place for family and friends and "exploiting" a resource.  I know, that is a very grey area.  At the same time that I condemn an outfitter for overcharging for a hunt/access, I believe in private land rights and capitalism.  

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

[Don Thomas]

Against my better judgement? Well, here we go... This started out as a discussion of changing land use practices, the commercialization of hunting, and the threat to the sport. Now we're talking about... bear baiting? My position on that tired old subject has been the same for years: I chose to hunt bears by other means. The rest of you are free to do what you want. I'm happy to tell you why I've reached my decision if you're interested; if not, that's fine too. I have gladly edited and run the few well-written stories I've received on the subject with no negative editorializing (see Kirby Kohler's thoughtful piece a year or so ago). If anyone who has raised the point here can cite an instance in which I have personally insulted or otherwise acted disrespectfully toward anyone who decided this matter in a way that differed from my own, I challenge you to show it to us. Yet every time I express an opinion about anything related to bows and arrows, I have to hear from insecure people I have never met about an irrelevant subject they've never even discussed with me. Back to the tone of my original letter to the PBS, this makes a great case for doing more fly-fishing, wing-shooting, and photography, spending less time trying to talk to bowhunters, and avoiding bowhunting websites. Good Grief. Don

[Brian Krebs]

I remember hunting with a bow for small game in Michigan while growing up; and then stumbling - literally - across bowhunters while out grouse hunting.
 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.

[ghost rob]

I'm not an educated man so I hesitantly enter my opinions. I live in central N.Y. (20 miles north of Binghamton) and even though the hunting isn't all that great as far as so called trophy deer, leasing is starting to become common. I too believe that the desire of many to shoot a "trophy buck" will kick the hell out of hunting as much as anything.                      I work at an areospace manufacturing factory that employs about 1500 people with approx. 300-400 that hunt. Because of the attitudes from most of these guys(shoot a big buck no matter what) I only talk about hunting with 3 or four guys. The price of land has gotton out of reach for many that aspire to have it. I'm lucky to have a couple private landowners that allow me to hunt and very thankful as well. We have state land within a few minutes drive as well. Most people around here never small game hunt and to me that can be as exciting as any deer or turkey hunting.                                                  This concern, as I see it, stems from the overall views of our society of "I want the best and I want it now, no matter what it costs even if I can't afford it."                                                   Keep the faith Don, you are one of my favorites.

[RC]

After reading all this I realize and thank God for how blessed I am.I can drive less than twenty minutes in any direction from my house and be in prime public land loaded with game. Deer ,Turkeys,HOGS,small game and more hogs. The best fishing in the south with areas you can fish with and without a boat.The smallest tract I hunt on is I think 3500 acres of riverbottom on the Ocmulgee.It can be crowded at times but I`ve been in a 1000 dollar lease that was crowded.I`ve been trad bow hunting for a lot of years and have yet to be "skunked".God is good.RC

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

[B.O.D.]

Don,

           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

[John Nail]

The Montana situation is all over this wonderful country in one form or another. Indiana is a perfect case in point:
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.

[George D. Stout]

The term "hunting lease" was never heard much until a few years ago, now it's a regular term used over and over again.  The worst thing to happen to bowhunting in the past twenty years has been this rabid chase for "trophy" heads with numbers instead of points.  Terms like "shooter buck" was not heard of twenty years ago.  It all seems to have coincided with the steroid controversy   .  

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.

[Lenny Stankowitz]

Great post Brian.

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

[Jeff Strubberg]

This isn't a hunting issue.

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.

[Jeff Strubberg]

And I would suggest you stay in close touch with your state DNR.  Not sure if it's the same out west, but I know what I want to happen here in the Midwest when Joe Landowner goes to the DNR asking for nuisance permits to trim his deer herd...

[SteveB]

I hear a lot of "whats wrong" in this thread and how we are headed downhill.

I hear little, if any suggestions/plans to change it.

Are there any?
Serious question.

Steve

[[email protected]]

Brian,

Outstanding post!

Bob

[Don Thomas]

It was only a matter of time until private property rights entered the discussion, so let me address it. I am a landowner, and I have never suggested that other private landowners lack the right to control access to their land. However, the image of today's western rancher as the last of the rugged individualists fighting for a living by the sweat of his brow is just a bit exaggerated. Most of these individuals receive whopping subsidies from the government -- and that eventually means us, the tax-paying public. They graze cattle on public land for about 10% of what private grazing leases run. They routinely restrict access to our public land just because they own the land surrounding the road that gets you there.  They receive more payments from more government programs than you can imagine. (It's all a matter of public record.) Point? No, technically they don't owe us anything, including hunting access to their property. But we really don't owe them anything either, and since they are getting a whole lot from us they ought to be able to sit down and talk about compromises for the common good. But our largesse has been going on for so long they consider it an entitlement. Funny how nothing turns a tough, conservative rancher into a welfare mother like a generation of government handouts. I've been challenged to suggest solutions... a highly complex topic beyond the scope of this quick discussion. But I can tell those of you planning to travel to MT to hunt elk or antelope this year that you are in for a big legislative surprise, if you haven't heard about it already. Both the archery antelope permit and all elk hunting in limited entry (rifle) districts, including most of eastern Montana, will now require a limited entry drawing, and by statute no more than 10% of those tags can go to NR's.  This was FWP's response to state-wide concerns among resident hunters similar to those I voiced. It is far from an ideal solution for any of us, for a number of complex reasons. The bottom line is that a lot of you will not be hunting here this year, I will not be hunting a lot of the places I traditionally hunted, and no one will be happy... all because greedy landowners and outfitters couldn't put on their big boy pants and negotiate some reasonable compromises that took the concerns of resident hunters of average means into consideration. Ya' see? This DOES affect you , right now, right this season. Sorry... Don

[Littlefeather]

I wonder how the Thompson Bros would feel about hunting in the 1950's, 60's, 70's in comparison to the days when they first started hunting?

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     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

[Molson]

There's a difference between buying land for your own use and having corperations or wealthy individuals leasing up thousands of acres for profit or greed.  You may buy or lease the land but you do not own the game residing on it.  Game is a resource belonging to the people.  That is why you, as a property owner, are required to follow game management laws on your own property.

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...