Trad Gang

Did any one else read the letter to the editor of the newest PBS magazine, by Don Thomas? if so whats your take? Don is highly respected by me and one of my favorite writers, to see him take this attitude on hunting really bothers me.. is it that bad??  I figured him to be one of the hardest core guys around.. sometimes I really get put out by issues,  but Don Thomas?????????  I hope he was just having a bad day...

I have not read it... care to fill me in on what the letter said?

Kevin.

something to the effect that due to lack of land to hunt, I assume in Montana, he was going to have to re look at his stance on hunting.. he could be afield with a camera or fly rod...  Dang, he is one of my huntin heros...

I read the letter.  You know, some guys (maybe Don, maybe not...I don't know him personally) have had things so good for so long out West that when getting permission to hunt, or access to ground, becomes a little difficult they throw in the towel.  Once again, I'm not saying this is Don's issue, I've never talked to the guy personally, but several longtime hunters I know in MT are making similar comments and I do have a little insight there.  If some of these guys had to deal with getting access "back East" I wonder if they would have ever started hunting in the first place.  Face it the "good old days" whatever they were, are gone.  There ARE some real problems in the West (and accross the US) as far as hunting goes, but when folks back here scrape, scratch, and work their butts off for access to a 50 acre property to hunt deer on, hearing some guys whine because they have to share a 5,000 acre ranch with a couple other locals doesn't ellicit much sympathy.  I understand the overhunting issues with several popular areas in MT, and I know what out of state leasing is doing around the country including the West and Midwest, but it has always been "pay to play" one way or the other - whether money, time, connections/networking or simple friendship.  The only difference is now more folks can afford to play nowadays.

JMO

Ryan

Ryan, I think you hit the nail on the head..
That is kinda what I got from his Letter..

Joe

I have not read the letter from Mr. Thomas, but it's hard to imagine there is no place to hunt in Montana.  I have seen numerous areas in Washington close to hunting over the last 30 years, however, we still have thousands and thousands of national forest land that is still open.

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.

that's funny. What would he do if he had to hunt around here? Kind of seperates the men from the boys.

I'd  chock it up to a bad day, and plenty of discouragement.   Don is one of the guys that has put in plenty of work and lent his credibility to fight "the good fight" here in MT,  and it's tough to see your efforts, year in and year out, go for little or naught.   Like Ryan aptly put it, the almighty dollar rules too many lives here, and in a state with little industry, hunting is big business and trying to keep the balance is a full time job for us  average guys.  It pits freinds and business  partners against each other, and it can get downright ugly at times.    

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.

Perhaps some are hunting for the wrong reasons.  Good luck getting 5000 acres away from other hunters here in Michigan, but I seem to enjoy my hunting every fall.

Dan

Hate to say it but guys, like Don who are excellent writers and can paint their hunt for us in words are part of the problem. I think you can look back at when Don first started writing about the great black bear hunting on the beaches in Alaska. He just about had it to himself and a few others. Now guys are standing in line to hunt those beaches. Don advertised a great product and the people bought it. Who hasn't wanted to go chase a lion or bear with Dom Thomas after reading one of his stories? Sometimes it's better to just not tell the story.

I have always figured it was hard to judge methods, perspectives, practices, whatever, of a particular place unless you've hunted there.

My opinion, and just that.    :readit:    Alot of people who don't live "out west" maybe don't realize some things. You can live in some of the best hunting areas around and not be able to hunt it. You have to draw for alot of it. Imagine buying about 50 dream acres and finding out you can't hunt it. I see it all the time. You can hunt a ranch for years, get everything patterned and loose it as soon as an outfitter comes in and leases that land. Some places that are public can't be accessed if it's land locked. Other public areas, you have to get in beyond atvs with horses or alot of ambition and conditioning. Luckily, I've got horses. Horses ain't cheap. Pretty much everything "out west" is up hill at least one way.

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.

He would really be in a tough spot if he only had Pennsylvania to hunt in... :eek:  

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.

Okay; against my better judgment, it's time to chime in. Yes, I was having a bad day, and no, it's probably not that bad. But... I've had this talk with a lot of friends from the south and elsewhere where leasing has always been the way of the world, and many of them can't figure out quite what our problem is out here. I am not cheap, and recognize that one does indeed need to pay, one way or the other to play. The problem is that good MT hunting ground is being leased to wealthy individuals and corporations -- or their local agents, the outfitters -- who command tremendous financial resources from their homes in Texas, New York or California. They'll pay huge dollar amounts to hunt here, because they have the money and we have the "best" hunting (whatever that means). Meanwhile, Montana, for all its beauty and natural splendor,  constantly ranks among the lowest five states (often dead last) in per capita income. Those of us who live here are willing to trade money for quality of life... but we cannot possibly compete financially with outside dot com zillionaires. Paradoxically, the only way we can enjoy much of what our home state traditionally offered is to leave it. And yes, we did pay our price.. not by shelling out thousands of out of state dollars to outfitters, but by living here, providing vital services and taking care of the place when hunting season was over, all at a fraction of the income we could have made elsewhere. I liken the situation to being colonized by the Crown prior to 1776. And on the subject of outfitters... the traditional guide offered clients a unique experience based on his own skills, hard work, and knowledge of terrain and wildlife... all without costing anyone else with the same amount of drive the opportunity to do the same. Nowadays, the "outfitter' is all to often just the drunk with the key to the gate. Ethics, skill, and knowledge are purely optional. I have a lot of respect for many of my friends who guide the traditional way, but not this. Don

Sounds absoluetly gut wrenching.
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.

Land access and economics with a burgeoning population all bode poorly for hunting by the common American. We either adapt and recreate what hunting is to us and speak out as one voice or slowly get gnawed away at by ourselves and those who oppose us. Things don't look better for the future unless we start getting proactive and less reactive because by then it is most often to late.

Mr. Thomas, that was a very good reply. Sometimes I think you'd have to live here to understand.

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.  

What Mr. Thomas refers to here is a real and developing problem if the current approach toward obtaining hunting grounds is expected.  With all the "famous" TV hunters showing us where to go and kill a "shooter" deer (a term I find revolting)who could expect less.  If you find yourself living in Kansas, West central Illinois, Iowa or any of a list of other states and have not lost a valued hunting spot to a lease.  You are lucky and it wont last long.  This trend shows no sign of stopping in the places that have been exempt from such intrusion for years and years.   It is very possible that in my lifetime, quality hunting may become a venue for only the wealthy.  

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.

I am glad to see that you guys have picked up on what's really important here: this isn't about inconvenience for me and a handful of spoiled hunters, but the future of hunting. When hunting becomes the exclusive property of the wealthy, it will no longer exist, even for them in the long run. (Ask the British gentry how they enjoyed their fox hunting season last year.) The North American Wildlife Model, which is what distinguishes hunting here from almost everywhere else in the world, depends on two fundamental principles: wildlife belongs to the people, and it should be accessible to all. The commercialization of hunting, as represented by the issues I've been talking about, threatens these principles directly, and threatens the future of hunting more than the "antis' ever could. Don

Let's hope the ethanol becomes a big business and farming takes hold to take advantage of the economic value of planting corn.

QuoteOriginally posted by Seeking Trad Deer:
Let's hope the ethanol becomes a big business and farming takes hold to take advantage of the economic value of planting corn.

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".

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

"the "outfitter' is all to often just the drunk with the key to the gate"  Well put Mr. Thomas.

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.

I think the root of the problem is the want of big antlers. For the glory. It's driving the whole commercialization of hunting. It's the cause of the Cancer.
 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?

QuoteOriginally posted by Doug S:

Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by Doug S:
How do we kill that desire in most hunters?

At this point I doubt that you can.

Doug -- I am with you. People aren't paying big money for quality experiences -- they're paying for big horns on the wall even if that means high fences and genetically manipulated wildlife. And yes, the mainstream outdoor media bear great responsibility for this state of affairs by glorying big horns over everything else. I'm proud to say we've always found room for good stories about shooting spikes... or does... or nothing. Don

Living in Texas I have been paying to hunt all my life. I have a blue collar job.  I make a good living. Unfortunately I have to spend a chunk of it to be able to hunt.

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.

Outstanding post Doug S, you hit the nail on the head with that great post and Tom M's reply would be mine too.

QuoteA 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.

I live in Canada so the system is different here. So in trying to understand the problem, could someone please explain.

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

I think this problem has existed here in the east for years. Look at the prices being paid for even small tracts of land. we are just used to it. I don't see how it can be reversed it's supply and demand. I think ethanol will be the worst thing for wildlife in this country ever. Not just the fact that it takes 2 gallons of oil to make one gallon of ethanol but the increased demand for corn is expected to have a huge impact on crp areas and remaining woodlands. Does anybody see any scenario where this could actually be slowed or reversed? Don I think you should sit down and write Longbows in the far north part 2. That will help get your mind off of this. Hardcover could be out in time for Christmas. I'll advance order one. By the way I don't want to jynx you guys out west but The best trout fishing here is already in large part out of reach. The clubs occasionally will advertise for spots on their waiting lists and some charge an initiation fee that's more than I paid for my first house.  Despite my complaining it's still the greatest thing on earth. I can't wait, I couldn't imagine giving up.  Good Luck Greg

I live in Illinois and it is almost impossible to even lease a place here to hunt because always has more money than you do. I know one farmer who got $10,000 for the short season here from a few wealth Chicago corporate types. Then they never even showed up. I have almost given up myself.

that should read: someone always has more money than you do

Another note: The State of Illinois (government) is very anti-gun and hunting. The Governor has absolutely gutted the DNR here. It is about to virtually cease to exist.

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.

Don Thomas is correct.  He has described perfectly the very people who will end hunting.  It will not be the anti's.

The lure of big antlers to the multitude of mindless zealots has created a monster for sure.
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^).

I think there are a couple of record books that might have started the whole thing. They have done some good, but does that good outweigh the thirst they have caused? I don't know.
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.

Well, like it or not, we live in a capitalist society.  Everyone has the opportunity (albeit some have lesser opportunity than others) to find a niche, work hard, and become profitable.  Those who do can spend that money in any way they see fit, often at the expense of those who don't have as much.  If I had lots of money, I would attempt to lock up some prime hunting and fishing areas for myself and my family as well.  I'm sorry, but I doubt anyone here would prefer to go hunt a public access area over a 1,000 acres of prime private access land.  As the population grows, land becomes, essentially, gold.  Like all other species on this Earth, self-interest is the primary interest of humans.  Unless the government steps in and begins buying up land and opening it up for public hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing is going to become primarily the province of the very wealthy.  Before you start railing on these wealthy out-of-staters who buy up the land, ask yourself this: would you want people driving up to your house and coming inside to eat out of your fridge?  Of course not.  If you could afford to buy chunks of prime land, would you?  Would you then regulate who could and could not come and use it?  Of course you would.  In order to preserve our tradition of hunting and fishing, the government is going to have to get involved, but I doubt that's going to happen.  Nevertheless, it's not really fair to blame those who have the means for taking advantage of their opportunities.  Paul.

DougS -- Your post emphasizes some rare good news! Montana has a very enlightened stream access law that it has vigorously and successfully defended against challenges from a lot of rich, selfish people. If a flowing stream is navigable -- and that basically means if anyone ever put a canoe in it -- the public can float it free of obstructions, and can walk up the banks between the mean high water marks. Thats one reason I'm spending more time with my fly rod. Don

Diamond Paul, count me as one of those who would rather hunt public access than to cater to those selfish, ego-oriented who would "lock-up" land for equally selfish and monetary purposes. What separates from other species on earth is the ability to reason, and genuinely care for more than just our self interests.  Hunting is a very different thing to many of us...so please exclude me from any of those aforementioned categories.    :knothead:  

If you get an opportunity, read "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold.

Boys, I feel your pain. Here in Indiana , land is going thru the roof. The ethanol scam (yes a scam) is driving land prices upward at a fast clip. We've seen the value of our family farm(100acres) go from 165 G ten years ago to near half a million today. That place has been my "getaway" for some time and since I'm the only one in the family that hunts, it's been sort of "my own" for long periods of Fall and Winter. But with 3 other heirs to the place, it will likely get sold for the green salad of salvation.At 165 grand we figured we could buy the other 3 out and keep the old place, but 500 grand rules that out. The property is next to what used to be a State Fish and Game area (1400 acres) but the Governor saw fit to give that land to Purdue University. In fairness, you can still hunt there but there are some hoops to jump thru. Most just quit.
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 ?

Down here leasing has locked up land a long time ago and forced the public areas to be overcrowded.  It is an unfortunate thing.  My wife and I have been discussing starting a family in the next year.  This makes me wonder if my kids will have a place to hunt and enjoy the outdoors or if they will have to settle for stories about what it used to be like.

Good subject.  
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

I don't have any effective answers.  

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

Gotta remember the golden rule folks,"the man with the gold makes the rules". 30 years ago there was bout 2 farms I couldn't hunt around here. Now theres bout 2 I can, not countin mine (which don't have any huntin anyways). Don't know a good answer......

As with Mr. Thomas, it is against my better judgement to even respond to this thread but I feel that it is necessary.  

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

How many here have private land that they own/hunt on and leave it open to the public?  Hows the hunting?

Lenny,

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

Reading these posts has made me think alot about what we have here in Tn.  The state is really pro-hunting and there is a ton of public land.  Here in West Tn. there is alot of river bottom land that is bow hunting only.  Once duck season opens the woods really empty out, which is fine by me.  Guess I'm fortunate.

Lenny made a good point Nate.

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?

I know where those guys stand on those issues, but ...Never mind, it is saturday and there aren't any hunting seasons going.

Nathan

Everyone has their opinions on what to hunt with and how to hunt,but access to land should be everyones concern, even if it does'nt effect you at the moment. These are not just Don's concerns they effect all who hunt,fish,& recreate outdoors.

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

Point taken, what I was saying is watch who's pastime you turn your nose down on as you may need thier help.

And yes I believe this is a huge problem for all hunters.
How to stop it? Man I am all ears.

Lenny and Rico I agree.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nate Fikkert:
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

No offense, Nate, and it may be a little counterintuitive, but I think you just made Lenny's point for him...

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)

Yup ! I'm with Lenny and Rico on this one!! no doubt about it!

                  Sergio

I am not sure how I made Lenny's point with what I said.  I would gladly listen to an explanation.  I guess my version of why the sky is falling is just different than that of others.  I think we would all agree that the sky is falling in one way shape or form though.  Rico, if I 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.  

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

The day the wall became more important than the table,is the day hunting died.Just my two cents.  Leland

Anybody from Aroostook county in Maine feeling the same way. Things are really beginning to suck. Hunting will only be for the rich man soon. Our way of life will soon be over.

nutmeg you live in Ct.? Some of those homes there go for the price of a good size farm with a run down house.
 For a lot of us its about choices.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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   :biglaugh: .  

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.

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

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.

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...

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

Brian,

Outstanding post!

Bob

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

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  :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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

"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

Right on again Lenny !!

QuoteIt 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.

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

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

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.

"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"

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.

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

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.

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!

"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

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.

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.....

Don: "Mean high water mark..."  That's what it says in Georgia, too, as long as it's a "navigable" stream.  I actually had an civil engineer put a numerical value to it.   Sometimes regulations ain't a bad thing, especially when nobody knows what the hell they mean! Just make sure you have a copy!  And just so everybody's clear, I have no problem with what private landowners do with their property; private property rights are the essence of our society.  But here's what kills me:  "NO TRESPASSING  US GOVERNMENT PROPERTY."  Especially here at tax time....

Interesting topic. Living in Illinois and already feeling the pinch that Mr. Thomas has eluded to, I'll offer my take on this and the future as feeble as it may seem. Being a middle income family I can no longer afford to hunt the better ground that has been leased in my state and it is becoming more difficult to find hunting rights every year. The wealthy are in control. The result is that hunting is no longer a legitimate priority for me, I devote my time to other past times that I can afford and access with less difficulty. As a result I no longer put emphasis on supporting hunter rights or issues. This is sad. My question is how many of you will continue to support our hunters rights for the anti hunting legislation when you can no longer afford to actively participate? Do you think that the few wealthy will be able to fend off anti hunting legislation without the strength of the masses? My opinion is that they will not and I foresee the end of all hunting during my lifetime.

Ron Goodrum

What about adding the Pit/Rob 11% tax on   hunting related income to go toward purchase and access. Or a similar type. ALL money going for new access. Why wouldn't this work?
 Missouri gets that 1% on all sales and seems to have the ability to purchase good public hunting land. They also are the ONLY state growing hunter numbers. 101 for every 100 lost. National average is 30 less.
BTW South Dakota has a law that all section lines are public domain (future roads). Therefore you can legally walk these to access land-locked public land. I doubt another state would adopt that today.
Or a Trophy tax.  :)

amen don.had an encounter with some boy's from california two years ago,they set up camp right in the middle of a usfs road which just happens to be my hunting area of 13 years near burns oregon.told me they were hunting the area and i could'nt hunt it. started talkin money for this money for that,in the end he moved his camp off the road via a state trooper (warden)..my point is money does talk but only so loud as the guy thats got his hand out

Wow.. makes me glad our deer herd sucks here, we can bow hunt the 2 million plus or so acres of public here with out to much competition, But I do totally agree with Mr. Thomas. I also feel money and antlers, B&C and P&Y and the "put my stupid face on TV"  are killing our beloved lifestyle. I have always appreciated the doe kills or smaller bucks that folks write about, I have been guilty of a hero picture every now and then, but its from dumb luck on usually public land. All this makes me really think.... I took a all day hike in a wilderness area this weekend, didnt see a deer or any large game at all, did hear a couple turkeys gobble, but I am seriously thinkin about just going to get back to squirrel huntin and other small game. All this crap about money for antlers is terrible and makes me go the other way, Leasing has always been a way of life in southern Arkansas but North and central is National Forrest and that, with the state management areas we have probably close to 3 million public acres. But as I said above the huntin sucks on most of it but at least you can enjoy the time in the woods... I can really see what the concern is after you western guys spoke up..

"how many of you will continue to support our hunters rights for the anti hunting legislation when you can no longer afford to actively participate?"

Ron G. makes a good point. Let's face it: times are hard. The price of everything is going up. If you are on a budget, and saving for a hunt, something else has to go lacking,

Well along comes Ray and Lenny to make me think about what I said.  I used the words "greed" and "for profit" in my post while thinking only of a specific individual I've known personally for years who makes videos for a well-known outdoor company.  This guy has become a walking billboard for all that is wrong with the business of hunting.

Generalizing and lumping this guy in with the many quality outfitters and guides who provide a valuable service is just wrong and somewhat ignorant on my part.

I suppose part of the problem is these types of issues generally evoke an emotional response first from those it directly affects.  Fact is, it's a difficult thing to regulate attitude and intention, and to a large degree that is where this problem lies.

I certainly don't have any solutions to the problem, maybe a bit of insight. Hunting land here in NJ began getting scoffed up by clubs willing to pay for hunting rights back in the '70's, maybe earlier.And it wasn't for the size of the antlers.MANY of those same farms are now sub-divisions. There are alot of hunters here that don't hunt NJ anymore, because by the time you buy your license and permits here,(hundereds of dollars), club and lease fees,(Thousands of dollars), you can have a week of quality hunting out west.

As far as commercialization of hunting is concerned, Who commercialized bow hunting more than my beloved Fred Bear?

And when you point your finger at trophy hunters I personally take a bit of offense at that, even though I've never paid for a lease or club or outfitter, but I'm in pretty good company because the ones who wound me up on mature buck hunting were none other than the Wensel brothers,Bob Fratzke and Roger Rothaar.

No my friends, it's simply that our great nation, where else in this world of starving people is there a multi million, perhaps billion dollar industry devoted to the growing of food plots for game animals? our great nation's economy revolves around new housing starts. That is not good for hunting. Just not enough land, too many people.

In Iowa we had, a couple that I can think of in particular, dandy public hunting areas mostly bought and paid for by hunters, Brushy Creek and Volga Rec. Before you knew it politicians and lawyers from my home town clear across the state diverted funding to turn these areas into giant motor home parks with giant stock damn, and yes I meant that, lakes for boaters, replacing the clear running streams with awful smelling muddy cesspools.  On a farm we hunted for twenty years, 900 acres, hunters came and went with no money request from the farmer.  Then he let a multimillion dollar surgeon on the land,  he threw money at the farmer, who still would let anybody on for free, but the good doctor then proceeded to go out of his way to try to force everyone else off because he parted with some of his precious money.  I went back to hunting public land because this is supposed to be fun, not some damn greedy land grab.  If that is what it takes I will quick hunting with my bow for the same reason I quick hunting ducks, not enough places for the poor man to hunt without getting forced out by aggressive land hordes that can't share the resource.  A lot of this also has to do with the desire to shoot record book bucks.  The chances go up when you have no competition and no one else scenting up your hunting area.  When one hears of how the hunters numbers are going down, that is the reason for it and not antihunters.  Come to think of it last year during turkey season both times we went out and had toms working we got rushed by shotgun turkey hunters, that ruined the chance for the kid I had with me to get a shot.  I am giving up taking kids turkey hunting and turkey hunting for myself, since I can not get access to anywhere that will not happen.

I don't have the time right now to read all the responses--got about halfway in--but a few thoughts I'd like to share.

1.  I've said for a long time that this current trend of skipping small game hunting and heading straight to the big game hunting ranks is not a good thing for a ton of reasons.  They said just as much way back in the Witchery of Archery and it is ever so true today.  

2.  The point made earlier where 40 acres in the east may have more habitat/critters than 400 or 4000 in western states...so very true.  We have to be careful when making any blanket statements on these topics.  

3.  When I read Don's post, knowing him fairly well, it made me sad.  I too have multiple interests--bowhunting surely being very high on the list--and the thought of hunting becoming so frustrated that I am forced to "switch" to something else like fishing, camping, etc. is scary.  I love where I currently live and still (for the time being) have good hunting close by.  Those days may short-lived, I'm afraid with even non-ag 's*&^' land going for $3-4,000/ac. in eastern Nebraska.  I'm the sort where that may mean I'll be looking to move to a place where I can still hunt if and when I'm priced out here.

4.  The record books were begun with good intentions, but the current insatiable appetite for 'book' bucks has been bad for most of us in keeping our hunting spots.  I'm willing to pay money if I have to, to hunt.  Heck we already do with how expensive the hobby/lifestyle is w/o lease money...gas, equipment, licenses, clothing, etc.  But leasing has created a whole new can of worms, and much of that has been with the record books in mind.

In fact, there are very few trends today in hunting that bode well for the future...

I'm not trying to start an argument with Uncle Don cause he and I hashed this out privately a few years back with neither of us giving an inch. We're still friends but have just agreed to disagree on this subject. But here's my opinion for what it's worth;

This country is great because of the free enterprise system. That's supply and demand.
I have no problem with leasing land to control it's use and produce a product be it pumpkins or wheat or big deer. I work two jobs to pay fees to hunt on land that doesn't belong to me. I love it.

How much effort do people put into having a place to hunt?  Perhaps I should rephrase that to "how much effort are you willing to make?"  I often wonder.  When I was growing up we had few deer to hunt in Kentucky.  Going on a deer hunt meant driving hours to a location that actually had a few deer to chase. When I lived in the Detroit metro area it meant driving an hour or more outside of town and knocking on lots of doors.  It sometimes involved hunting on public land as well.   Places were always available to hunt...it was a matter of how bad I wanted to hunt and how much effort I was willing to make.

I think more people have issues with the volumes of leases versus the idea of a lease.  Do 4 men need 1000 acres for success?  It will obviously vary per region but the overall net effect is you people who truly have more than they think they need.  I sacrificed some of my child's educational money to buy because I feel the woods has taught me more about life than a book.  I hope our herds explode and weaken in quality which should bring this issue to a for front or cause the demise of hunting.  Either way we have our answer...

We are shopping for land to hunt on or own, with the high price of corn crop land is out of our range.  With the dollar going down and stock market crumbling those richer than me, shifting their investments, are beating me out of the places we have found so far.  I believe our economy is being manipulated.  I keep looking for private land to hunt on, but in our part of the state there are no sleepers that are getting over looked.  Some of this private property only sees the owners once or twice a season, when it was in the hands of the friendly farmers in our area the same acres provided an influx of bowhunters through out the season.  If we do end up buying our own, it will be primitive archery only and we are planning on sharing, with those restrictions strictly upheld.

Get used to the idea "play to pay" What's happening to Don in Montana happened a few years ago to us here in Kansas!
I lost one of my favorite hunting spot to none other than the Wensel Bros, who leased up the area, an area I hunted for free. Right next to them were some fellas from Texas, who thought they needed to pay also. Truth be known, they probably could have hunted for free also, except that they wouldn't of had it to themselves or their clients.
No bad blood here, I'm just say'in GET USED TO IT !
Some fella a few pages back hit the nail right on the head. You advertised the idea and it sold.
Same thing happened to the Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester. Oklahoma residents(or nonresidents with lifetime licences) used to have a very good chance of drawing each year, that is, until someone decdided to write about the area and their experience in TB. There was a time I was lucky enough to draw 5 years in a row. Since the story came out several years ago, I've drawn once. Several of my buddies haven't been drawn at all.
If you want to keep a good thing, better keep it to yourself or be very selective on who you tell, but then again, that doesn't sell magazines.
I guess it's a catch 22, so like I said...Get used to it.
John

There seems to be a thread in here that hunting = free.  That is very romantic and very untrue.  I don't know if modern day hunting (say the last fifty years or so) was ever free.  It always cost something.  So if it costs something, then the question is how much?   Or what are the things I must pay for and is a leasing/access fee one of them?   I paid $650 for a MT license last year is that too much?   I am sure not the one to say.    I would also add that the cost of everything goes up.  Hunting is not any different.

So given that...I have a thought for you. What if capitalism isn't the problem?  What if it is the solution?  Packaging is cornerstone of marketing you know.  So if the problem today is a small number of  folks -- leasing large tracks of land for the year.  Maybe the solution is larger numbers of hunters leasing land for several days.   More hunters, more money in a given year.  More money coming into MT or elsewhere.

I am not offering the above example as a "solution".   Heck I know it is already done in places.   I am just saying that capitalism affects our lives in many ways beyond hunting, so expecting hunting to be any different is goofy.    BTW:  You know politics and money are bed-fellows so any legislative changes in MT or elsewhere are also responses to capitalism in many ways.  

Lastly,  I would also offer that capitalism has a way - in time - of finding a nice balancing point between differing positions which we clearly have.

What I do know, is quiting isn't the answer and I suspect so does Don.

- Dave

I have stated it here more than once.

I hunted New Mexico a few times in the early 80's.  I joined their state assocaition.  The newletter that I recieved stated two things that burned my ass.  #1.  Price the non-resident out of the state.  #2.  Make 80% of the revenue from the non-resident.  Most of the land is National Forest.

It made me stop hunting out of state.  But don't gripe about coming to Texas and having to pay a fee to acess PRIVATE LAND.

As far as I am concerned other HUNTERS kicked me out not ANT-HUNTERS.

Now I recieve letters wanting donatations from the Elk foundation and such.  Yeah right!

I know these type of threads get testy at times...but please refrain from personal attacks and name calling.  Nothing good comes from that, but if you leave that out, something might.

Thanks.

Mr. Thomas,

We share a very common thread between Montana and Iowa.  The issues we face have tough and limited answers for sure.  
Here in Iowa we are currently attempting to ammend our constitution to include sustainable funding for our natural resources.  One of our "many" issues is we are at the bottom of the country as far as public hunting acres per State.  The demand for limited access has been unrelenting and very damaging to Iowa's hunting heritage.  Iowa needs to place priority on securing public areas for our residents.  Even with a large increase in funding possibly in the future, I fear we won't be able to secure enough ground before the demand has taken it's fullest toll though.  Most Iowan's, (like folks from Montana) simply can not afford to compete with people from out of State.

Anyhow, it is nice to see a person of your celebrity take a stance on this issue, many obviously won't.  I suppose it would be career suicide for some.

You have my support.    :thumbsup:

Morning Star, you are welcome. Us out of staters have made boosted the Iowa economy tenfold.
It's a shame that everything the IBA does is so selfish in nature cause basically, it's a good bunch of folks.

Biggie, I knew you'd be along shortly.  Do you love to hate me?  :D  

Tenfold huh?  You got a spreadsheet with some figures for me?

I'm hoping the sustainable funding makes it, because it will be based off of sales tax.  As of yet, extremely little of your mentioned economy boost has done anything for our natural resources other than tie them up from residents.

We are taking actions for the resident's future. Nothing will happen fast.  With a little forsight, hope and hard work maybe we can prepare Iowa to be a place for everyone.  That's what I'd like to think.  It's a work inprogress, obviously not progressing as fast as most people want, but that's life.

Once sales tax starts funding the DNR hunters will lose a great part of their voice in how it's run. Everyone will be paying a share of the budget so everyone gets a say so to speak. Be careful what you wish for.

Well see in Idaho; the money from tag and license sales goes into the general fund; from which the money for the fish and game gets its funding.

And your right Vermonster; the Fish and Game here has a long practiced way of operating.
They make a decision about what they are going to do.
 They hold meetings and workshops to discuss the cleverness of their plan.
 They ask for public input.
Then they do what they decided to in the beginning.
 I rememeber one meeting when our fish and game department was discussing with us the next seasons rules. Thing was; I knew people in the department; and the rules had already been sent to the printers to be printed up.

Like what we said had any bearing on what they already were printing up.......


So our fish and game could give a hoot about appealing to hunters needs; and wants; they have to satisfy the legislature; and their friends with money. NOT we hunters !!  

I would like to see existing rules enforced. Like about ATVs on public land; and misuse of funding; and hey do these people who are charging huge hunting and leasing fees- pay taxes for the tips they are given; for the money they haul in from leasing?

I watch these hunting shows in Africa and how the native people are allowed to go with the hunter and track the wounded game; and skin it; and carry it out; and know what? Some day it will be us next to some grinning fat cat that somehow waggled the right to hunt from US.

I see guys now that file a mining claim at the end of a closed to motorized vehicle road; and never shake a pan for gold; they charge their buddies to drive back in with them to hunt where the average Joe could not get out an elk.

I see ranchers feed the elk all winter for several consecutive years; and trade dirt for high quality public land that turns from being a place to hunt... to no trespassing signs with huge homes on it.

Why should I pay what I do for my 3.5 acres; when I pay more than a person with 20- if they run a cow on it and label it 'agriculture land' for the tax break? And that happens with thousands of acres too. They make a ton; pay less taxes; and we are deprived of the chance to buy land because their practice drives prices up.

I have seen bare dirt; where there WERE grasses; on state land; and the state leases it out for grazing; knowing full well the cattle will drift over to forest service land to feed. Forest service land where the cattle compete for food with wildlife.

If you have ever seen what 2000 sheep in a flock can do when the sheep herder stops over night in an area- it would make you sick.

Those sheep herders are paid squat; are ussually from Peru or Spain and the owner of the sheep lives in a mansion and drives a lexus.

The priority is letting the fat cat get fatter; while wildlife suffers. And with it our hunting opprotunities- on PUBLIC LANDS.

The thing we CAN do is attack those things that need be attacked. And we need to !!

We are taking actions for the resident's future. Nothing will happen fast. With a little forsight, hope and hard work maybe we can prepare Iowa to be a place for everyone. That's what I'd like to think. It's a work inprogress, obviously not progressing as fast as most people want, but that's life.

Morning Star, NOW you're talking!

I understand the frustration from both sides, really I do. It just seems funy that many on here doing the whining are the same guys who have no problem coming down here and hunting on OUR leases. Land we've leased to make a bowhunting only place so we can have some game to get after.

We can admit here that all hunters don't have the same philosophies and ethics. We've all argued on Tradgang about many topics. So, in order to have a good camp with like minded hunters, you lease a place, take care of it the way YOUR group sees fit. Hunt the way YOUR group wants to hunt. Drink Coke or Crown whatever YOUR group is most comforatble with. Pray at meals or not. Shoot big deer or small deer.....there is no other way to control the options that YOUR group desires.

It's been hinted at a few times but one word comes to mind for me: PRIORITIES.  Gene mentions it in his book.  Unfortunately, if we all chose to save our pennies and hunt where all this discussion is about- it just adds the supply and demand issues.  My wife and I both work full time jobs to raise our family.  Yes, we spend vacation time traveling to summer softball tourneys for our oldest daughter to pursue her dream of pitching in college.  I still have managed to hunt MO for the last 2 years, but that will not be the case for awhile.  Cost of gas, and everything else in life is making me change my priorities and use the money for family.  It all stems from the mighty dollar and those trying to make more of it.  The rich will continue to get richer- and the rest will have to figure out how to survive.  Farmers/ranchers have found out that they can charge people to hunt- and make more money... not an earth shattering deal for a small local guy.  But, as demand continues to skyrocket for large antlered game animals, the prices will continue to follow.  This will not change until the prices exceed what the normal guy will pay.  The rich won't care- they have the expendable income to pursue the antlers.  The rest of us will have to work more hours, get a 2nd job, whatever it takes to put some cash in the coffer for our hunting trips.
We make our own list of PRIORITIES- and spend our money accordingly.  Now, do I choose family or myself- currently family.....
When someone like Don speaks up- it certainly raises a few eyebrows, and puts a topic on the front burner- this only helps us all to debate the topic and begin to figure out how to correct some issues, thanks Don.

I'm only on page 5 of this thread but I have to make a comment on what I have read so far.  What disgusts me about these sort of threads is the shades of socialism/communism and class envy that creep into the discussion.  I don't envy or hate the man who has the ability to make a good living.  There is no inherent goodness in being dirt poor or inherent evil in being well off.  To look after one's own interest or the welfare of your family is not bad.  To seek to own your own piece of land, and pay hard cash, earned by your own sweat/ingenuity/perseverance and sacrifice is something to be lauded. Whether you wish to emulate that is your decision.  I know many have talked about wanting to hunt the Sweat or Paradise and those things happen on private land, owned by someone(s) who paid for it by their effort, or a parent before them.  Many of us on here own our own land and YES we post it against others using it.  Is it because we are selfish or short sighted?  No.  Look, we all make our own choices, and some have more limited choices than others for a host of reasons. Some guys decide they'd rather live year round in an area that is "heaven on earth" even if it means making less money and having less opportunities and some chose to live near where money can be made and just enjoy nature in small segments.  I have my preference between the two but I don't begrudge either man his right to pursue his own dream.

This debate has been going on for the age of man.  The indian resisted the white man and his concept of land ownership, the mountain man resented the settlers, the cowboy resisted the fencing of the west, on and on.  I would love to buy a couple hundred acres and roam it freely but every year people move down here from up north and drive up the price of land so that only a select few can hope for that kind of land ownership.  These are people who exchanged an entire life in an urban setting for the hope of retiring to a rural life of ease.  Do I resent that?  Yeah, to be honest I do, but only to a point.  But I wouldn't exchange my life for theirs.
 Couching the arguement in a rich man/poor man scenary probably isn't accurate for the most part.  Certainly there are the Ted Turners and Corporate entities that buy up land but there's also collectives of middle to lower class people that band together to lease land.  Outfitters who's main customers are guys like who work with me that save year after year to go on an outfitted hunt maybe every other year or just once.  I don't blame them for wanting a memorable experience and to have something tangible to bring back.  Horn envy isn't always about ego or records (though a lot of it is) but sometimes it's just about the uniqueness of the experience and the wow factor.  Sure, a small game hunt, or stalk on a cow elk can be just as unique an experience but, to be honest, some guys can't see the subtle stuff and only recognize the obvious.  So for them a successful hunt is getting a big rack, or maybe just having a chance at a big rack.  That doesn't mean they don't enjoy shooting a small buck or doe here at home but they wanted to go somewhere they have a chance to shoot something different, something unique from where they live, and they are willing to work and save for it.

 Having said all that, I do think States have a responsibility to steward their natural resources for the use of every citizen BUT they will only act in accordance with how motivated their citizens are in making sure they do.  Whether that's navigable water laws or securing public access to public land, or securing more public land, I don't know, each State has to work out their own answers.

EDIT: As I read further I see some good comments against the use of the word greed and how it's always the other guy who is greedy.  Thanks for those.

QuoteIt just seems funy that many on here doing the whining are the same guys who have no problem coming down here and hunting on OUR leases.  

Don't know what to tell ya other than it's not me showing up.  Maybe you should ask them why.  :thumbsup:

Very good post Talondale.
 :thumbsup:  

Here's a question for you all.  Is it really a matter of not having enough land to hunt or is it a matter of not having the land you WANT to hunt?  

I know here in Michigan, we have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of acres of State and Federal land that is open for anyone to hunt.  Is there a "booner" behind every tree? Not hardly, but there are adeqate numbers of game for all to be had. In many areas, they can't kill enough deer to keep the populations within the carrying capacity of the land.  We have roughly 300,000 licenced bowhunters and 700,000 firearm hunters in this state and it's not very hard to find places to hunt that you will never see another hunter...even during firearm season.  Sure, you may have to drive an hour or two or three but come on...  Yet I hear people complain year in and year out that there is "no place to hunt."

I have friends that go to IA, IL and MS every year they can get a tag and they have NEVER had a problem finding farms to hunt or even public land where they don't run into anyone else, not to mention they return most years with some VERY respectable deer.

I don't know what it's like out west, because I have never been there but this idea that there are no hunting opportunities left for the average guy...come on.

It may not be the farm next door, or within walking distance of your house.  It may not contain trophy class animals but from what I read on most of these boards, "it's the destination," right?

People think nothing of dropping a grand on a new bow (or two) every year or two but ask them to drive a couple hundred miles and you'd think you'd asked them for their last dime.  

In Mr. Thomas' area, they may very well have access issues that need to be addressed but lets not turn this into a "it's all about money" thing because it's not.


Lenny

Laddy, I don't know where you got the wealthy guys like Biggie line, but brother are you wrong.

Like DRR324 said, it's all about priorities. I've always had two jobs, one for my family and the other for my bowhunting passion. I decided as a sophmore in High School that I needed enough education in my life to allow me to do the things I wanted to do. If you're working (not you personally but anyone crying class envy) for $10 an hour and you're over 30 years old, you've made some bad decisions in life.
Me, I work 12 hours a day and usually 6 or 7 days a week so's I can afford my addiction. Ask any of my close friends, they'll tell you it's true. Heck, wehn we went to Africa, the day before we left I dumped my change bucket for pocket money!!

Biggie, Like I said before most people love to hunt until it costs them money.

Just like they like to go to church until the collection plate gets passed.

Again. IF it wasn't for the antler frenzy the cost for access on private land would be nill.
Iowa wouldn't have as much money though. If no one cared about antlers who would go to Iowa?
Leases would be defunked. Land owners would open back up for a hand shake.
We have caused it. Every time we buy a magazine or Dvd on big racked animals we help keep it going.
I am now an anti-antler activist. It's ruining the hunt.
Later