Don Thomas PBS mag letter

[vermonster13]

As has been said this is a very complex issue. One of the biggest factors is the underfunding of Wildlife Departments, non-resident licenses make up a very large part of the budgets of many "trophy" states and residents would scream if license fees were increased to where they would need to be to make up the loss of those funds. Hunter numbers would plummet even faster. This is an issue that will take the work of all facets of hunting with state and federal agencies together to even attempt any kind of feasible solution.

[Ryan Rothhaar]

Good discussion and thoughts...and I'm sure this is what Don was after in the first place   .  

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

[Bobby Castello]

I'm afraid to say that greed and big dollars are a big part of the problem. I'm also going to go out on a linb and say some of the very organizations we support have created this problem. Being form Central Florida, Turkey hunting is (was) a big part of my life in the spring. I could hunt thousands of acres of private land just by asking permission. After the big hype by the NWTF and to kill a grand slam things have sure changed around here. Since the Osceola can only be found in our area and it is part of the slam, in the last 6 years or so places I could hunt in the past are now getting as much as $5,000.00 per weekend from wealthy hunters just to kill an Osceola. Even public land 3 day permits are being issued to more and more out of state hunters. I was once a member of the NWTF (even a committee member of our local chapter) but became very uneasy with the drive to bring in big dollars at our local banquets. Today everything is about money and the average Turkey hunter can't afford to attend a banquet unless he brings big dollars with him. I've seen this with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation also. If you are a annual member 2 months after you pay you dues your getting a renewal notice! I understand that the things these organizations do are important to all hunters but I feel that the average hunter is being left behind. I guess it's a catch 22 situation but I don't see much changing in the future for the middle class hunter. Same a s the tax situation in our country I guess.

[Ryan Rothhaar]

From above..

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

[T. Downing]

It is interesting to me that there is a faction of traditional bowhunters who have a difficult time with passionate, honest people, like Don Thomas and Dave Petersen. I thought that Traditional Bowhunters were a passionate, different lot, a mixture of hard hunting individuals who loved the sport of bowhunting. I do not understand why Don and Dave ruffle so many feathers, are they not entitled to their opinions and deserve the same respect that the mission statement claims here at Tradgang? Come on everyone, criticism of each other is a complete waste of time. I literally read everything Don Thomas writes and I have never read where he attacked an individual for their different choices in hunting methods. Food for thought. Oh, times are a changing here in the west, and it is a crying shame that the oldest sport, hunting, is taking the brunt of this greedy culture we live in. Why can't we hold on to anything that is honest and pure anymore? T

[Longbowmark]

Getting back to the original point, what Don says is point on!.  Anyone who lives in the east and ventures west or lives in one of the sought after hunting spots will feel the pinch.  I was even planning a hunt to Wyoming for white tail this fall but you guessed it, not now, it got leased.  
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.

[Lenny Stankowitz]

"It is interesting to me that there is a faction of traditional bowhunters who have a difficult time with passionate, honest people, like Don Thomas and Dave Petersen."

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

[SERGIO VENNERI]

Right on again Lenny !!

[Plumbob]

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.

[Don Thomas]

Before the last few unfortunate posts precipitate a round of name calling that earns a justified yank from the moderators, maybe we should look at a few potential solutions. 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. 2. Monitor the organizations you belong to and raise hell when they stray. The RMEF began as a grass roots, blue collar hunter driven habitat advocacy organization. Now it's largely a front for guides, outfitters, and "trophies". What a shame.  3. Remember who owns what and demand that your state's law's reflect it. Private parties may own the land, but the wildlife belongs to the public. That is the cornerstone of the North American Wildlife Model. 4. Think through the financial implications of changing land use strategies. If a rancher makes $20k per year selling beef and $50k leasing for trophy elk, should that land still be taxed at agricultural values? 5. Raise liability issues. MT has a "good old boy" clause that releases the landowner from all liability if he grants recreational access for nothing. That all changes when money changes hands.  When I raise this issue with my rancher friends who have leases to outfitters (yeah, we're still friends in spite of everything), they usually assure me that their outfitter has insurance. Yeah... for him. It's only a matter of time until people start losing their ranches to lawyers because somebody had a heart attack while hunting on their property. Frankly, it won't break my heart. 5. Finally, and this is the sad thing -- we need to remember that ranchers and hunters should be on the same side of a lot of issues. There are a whole lot of influential people out there who don't want cows OR elk hunters on public land, and if we keep squabbling they will get their way. At a recent FWP meeting here to discuss these matters, a rancher I've known for years stood up and said:"Remember, in this county the landowner is KING!" Excuse me, but we fought a revolution in 1776 so we wouldn't have to put up with kings anymore. As long as that attitude prevails, we'll all be losers in the end. Don

[Lenny Stankowitz]

Mr. Thomas:

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

[Doug S]

Amen Lenny! Your last comment is so sad but so true.
  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.

[John Nail]

"Nobody has to pay to shoot doe's anywhere that I know of.."

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"

[kojac]

This is a very personal/touchy subject that I also believe we need to correct.

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.

[Nate Fikkert]

Brian Krebs,

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

[Ray Hammond]

I really dislike the predictable course this seems to be following.

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.

[Bonebuster]

I guess it`s true... sometimes the truth hurts.

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!

[Lenny Stankowitz]

"We chase the dream,he is just there because we want to go."

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

[vermonster13]

What so many see as a problem is also a part of what keeps hunting viable sadly. The dollars hunters spend is a big part of our political clout that keeps hunting alive. Many of the economies of these places get a large share of their income from non-resident hunters. Ask the businesses in the part of western Canada that the hunting rights were purchased by anti's how they've been doing during the time hunting has been closed down. The issues are complex as I stated earlier and always land access is the key issue. Private land will always be exactly that and it will take money to open such lands to hunting and some never will be. Question is how much are you willing to add to your license costs for programs to pay landowners for public access?

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.

[Terry Green]

I'm not sure why this was moved here off the PowWow after 7 pages running on the PowWow.

So, I'm going to move it back to the PowWow for now.....