PDA

View Full Version : Is this what hunting is all about?



squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 02:30 PM
Is paying 150 thousand plus to hunt any area with any weapon during any season what hunting is all about? Is this what those that paved to way to make FAIR chase hunting possible for us and future generations had in mind?

Listen carefully, i dont want this to become a bash mossback/utah/spider bull thread.

I just want to know if you HONESTLY feel that that is what hunting is to you.

Joe

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 02:32 PM
I just want to know if you HONESTLY feel that that is what hunting is to you.



not to me, but I'm not rich. hunting means a lot of different things to a lot of different people... the one thing we all share, however, is a common enemy.

Cwilder
January 7th, 2009, 02:33 PM
If you have the money why not

SEOBowhntr
January 7th, 2009, 02:36 PM
You can go to your local shop that makes trophies, and buy a trophy, why not go buy the opportunity at a hunting trophy. While he did hunt a LOT for this animal, I don't believe it is a good representation of the direction I believe MOST of us would like to see hunting going in the future.

brandonh324
January 7th, 2009, 02:38 PM
150,000 dollars is a huge some of money but for some folks 400+ dollars to hunt in say illinois on public land is just as unrealistic. Fact is you will always have the haves and have nots. Hunting is about communing with nature not about killing huge animals hunt whenever you can as often as you can and be happy with what you can do personally

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 02:38 PM
not to me, but I'm not rich. hunting means a lot of different things to a lot of different people... the one thing we all share, however, is a common enemy.

i agree 100%, but are these types of tags helping or hurting our cause against this enemy? i dont know, i truly want some more insight on this subject.

Joe

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 02:40 PM
You can go to your local shop that makes trophies, and buy a trophy, why not go buy the opportunity at a hunting trophy. While he did hunt a LOT for this animal, I don't believe it is a good representation of the direction I believe MOST of us would like to see hunting going in the future.

i agree, if you want a world record of ANY kind, chances are you can pay enough to get there. that is not my question. my question is whether or not that type of thing is what hunting represents in your heart/mind/soul.

Joe

Brandon8807
January 7th, 2009, 02:41 PM
Spending a lot of money isn't what hunting is all about. I wouldn't pay all that money for an outfitter to set me on a buck. However, it is what hunting is about if you invest that money on a prime piece of LAND and work hard to manage the deer and plant foot plots etc.

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 02:42 PM
i agree 100%, but are these types of tags helping or hurting our cause against this enemy? i dont know, i truly want some more insight on this subject.

Joe

IDK... but if the price tag is the issue, then we have to lump all outfitters & HF in with this. They may not cost as much, but we'll never agree upon an acceptable dollar amount.

It doesn't represent the type of hunting I do, but neither does HF, hog dogs, baiting, and a number of other practices, but I don't condemn those just b/c I can't, don't, or won't do those things.

I think the spectacle surrounding spider bull is sickening. I do think mossback pulled some sneakies in the process. But, bottom line, WE fed the rumor mill and created the spectacle.

Nimhates
January 7th, 2009, 02:46 PM
I for one am not going to get overly upset at an anomaly. This guy obvioulsy had more money than he knew what to do with. Personally I'm glad that he spent it on hunting as opposed to anti-hunting efforts. God knows there are enough of them.

There are VERY FEW people who would spend this amount of money on a hunt, so supply and demand should not be affected by this particular event, distasteful though it may be. I love to hunt and pay what I can afford on equipment and have a ton of sweat equity in my hunting areas. I drive a pick-up, some drive Ferarris. I don't hate the guy who drives a Ferrari, even though I think he paid too much money for it.

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 02:47 PM
To me its not about the amount of money spent. Its also not about the amount of money earned.

I would have to be Warren-Buffet-rich in order to think of wasting that much money (yes, I said "waste"). In the big picture I also think we should remember how much money some of these guys have and remember where to look first when it comes time to open our wallets in order to fight the anti hunters. We need wealthy hunters. :)

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 02:49 PM
IDK... but if the price tag is the issue, then we have to lump all outfitters & HF in with this. They may not cost as much, but we'll never agree upon an acceptable dollar amount.

It doesn't represent the type of hunting I do, but neither does HF, hog dogs, baiting, and a number of other practices, but I don't condemn those just b/c I can't, don't, or won't do those things.

That is exactly why i want to start this discussion.

i have a very strong opinion on these types of tags, yet someday i want to go to alaska and arrow a moose....what if it is the word record?? then i payed a guide and a large sum of money for the process. then where am i?

that discussion is different though, because the tag is the same price for everyone and you still have to hunt in specified seasons with specified weapons.

who knows??

Joe

bowmanhunter
January 7th, 2009, 02:50 PM
not to me, but I'm not rich. hunting means a lot of different things to a lot of different people... the one thing we all share, however, is a common enemy.

VERY well said:)

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 02:54 PM
I for one am not going to get overly upset at an anomaly. This guy obvioulsy had more money than he knew what to do with. Personally I'm glad that he spent it on hunting as opposed to anti-hunting efforts. God knows there are enough of them.

There are VERY FEW people who would spend this amount of money on a hunt, so supply and demand should not be affected by this particular event, distasteful though it may be. I love to hunt and pay what I can afford on equipment and have a ton of sweat equity in my hunting areas. I drive a pick-up, some drive Ferarris. I don't hate the guy who drives a Ferrari, even though I think he paid too much money for it.

as i understand it, this is not an anomaly....the tag goes up for auction EVERY year i believe. I think it always pulls triple digit thousands of dollars. correct me if i am wrong.


i agree, people can afford it, and people will truly think it is worth it whether i agree or not. i am sure i will buy things that others think are stupid..that is the beauty of america. These types of tags will sell, and i dont doubt they will be more and more common across america.

I just dont know if that is good or bad. like has been mentioned, these people are still HUNTERS (at least in their mind) and they will stand for hunters in the future in battles for rights. but is the tags simple existence good for the sport?

Joe

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 02:58 PM
that discussion is different though, because the tag is the same price for everyone and you still have to hunt in specified seasons with specified weapons.



I think I see what you're saying... yeah, probably not fair that he could buy that special tag that's unattainable by nearly all hunters. But, I come from a state that "draws" NR tags at one price and "sells" guaranteed NR tags at a much higher price if it's outfitter sponsored. Doesn't seem fair to me that those with more $$$ get the guaranteed tag, but they also pay the bulk of our FWP's revenue. Oh well... like most things in this world, money talks and... ahem.. everything else walks.

Nimhates
January 7th, 2009, 03:06 PM
Squeeks,

I can't see an auction being a bad thing. My hat won't be in the ring for it unless I hit the lottery, but it shouldn't affect the price of the normal guided or semi-guided hunt,and certainly not self-guided. This was public land, and you or I could have taken that Elk the day before that guy got there, so he was taking a real chance that he wouldn't fill the tag, right???(help me here, I don't know the rules on the tag). I wish George Soros, Bill Gates, etc., etc., were all hunters as well. They can hunt their High Fences and Private Ranches all they want. They can't stop me from planting food plots with my 4-wheeler, and putting out supplemental feed for the deer in my area and most wouldn't bother to hunt public ground. But, their money can go to support the NRA, RM Elk Foundation, DU, WU, etc and help protect your and my right to hunt. Money talks and hunting is nearly a $30Billion industry - $2 Billion alone in Ohio. Thank GOD - even the hard core leftys will have to think twice about taking that out of the economy!!!! God Bless ALL of the hunters - Rich, Poor, in-between!!!

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 03:07 PM
I think I see what you're saying... yeah, probably not fair that he could buy that special tag that's unattainable by nearly all hunters. But, I come from a state that "draws" NR tags at one price and "sells" guaranteed NR tags at a much higher price if it's outfitter sponsored. Doesn't seem fair to me that those with more $$$ get the guaranteed tag, but they also pay the bulk of our FWP's revenue. Oh well... like most things in this world, money talks and... ahem.. everything else walks.

look at what wyoming is doing......there is a normal drawing and a "special" drawing for non residents in every area. So even if you have more points that another guy, if he can afford the special draw and you cant, he has a better chance of drawing.

Joe

zyxw
January 7th, 2009, 03:10 PM
Not the way it should be but the way it's going

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:12 PM
You can go to your local shop that makes trophies, and buy a trophy, why not go buy the opportunity at a hunting trophy. While he did hunt a LOT for this animal, I don't believe it is a good representation of the direction I believe MOST of us would like to see hunting going in the future.

gotta agree with Doug (aaaah, it burns! It burns!!!! )

I do not like what i hear about buying special tagsothers have to draw for, and I certainly don't like ANYTHING I heard about mossback goons shooing off other hunters, if true, and spending weeks pre-tracking the animal.

However, I'm not sure we're any better off railing against a fellow hunter or looking to legislate the practice away. You open a doorway for others to come after YOUR hunting as well.

You really want to change it, get everyone you know to boycott any expo where such trophies go, etc. and be sure to let them know why. Will it work? Probably not, and certainly not quickly even if it does. But the bottom line is market drives the industry and until you stop paying into the machine it's gonna be there. Anyone buying DVDs from such outfitters or of hunts produced with them, or whatever, is only adding their cash to the very problem they rail against.

Again I don't see a boycott going serious and big enough to help, but I don;t see better ways out there, either. There's only a handful of super-rich that can do that kinda stuff, and if the rest of us didn't opt to play in "governor hunt states" and buy merchandise advertised using that sort of hunt, there'd be a hell of a lot less of it. Kinda like all the folks moaning about leasing who watch folks who got rich making tv shows on leased lands and then turned around and bought even more leased space with their ad revenue......we feed our own problems

SEOBowhntr
January 7th, 2009, 03:14 PM
gotta agree with Doug (aaaah, it burns! It burns!!!! )

I do not like what i hear about buying special tagsothers have to draw for, and I certainly don't like ANYTHING I heard about mossback goons shooing off other hunters, if true, and spending weeks pre-tracking the animal.

However, I'm not sure we're any better off railing against a fellow hunter or looking to legislate the practice away. You open a doorway for others to come after YOUR hunting as well.

You really want to change it, get everyone you know to boycott any expo where such trophies go, etc. and be sure to let them know why. Will it work? Probably not, and certainly not quickly even if it does. But the bottom line is market drives the industry and until you stop paying into the machine it's gonna be there. Anyone buying DVDs from such outfitters or of hunts produced with them, or whatever, is only adding their cash to the very problem they rail against.

Again I don't see a boycott going serious and big enough to help, but I don;t see better ways out there, either. There's only a handful of super-rich that can do that kinda stuff, and if the rest of us didn't opt to play in "governor hunt states" and buy merchandise advertised using that sort of hunt, there'd be a hell of a lot less of it. Kinda like all the folks moaning about leasing who watch folks who got rich making tv shows on leased lands and then turned around and bought even more leased space with their ad revenue......we feed our own problems
Awe, Come on Mark, it ain't that bad!!!! Hey, we're both glad your Mom was Pro-Life aren't we???? :D

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 03:14 PM
as i understand it, this is not an anomaly....the tag goes up for auction EVERY year i believe. I think it always pulls triple digit thousands of dollars. correct me if i am wrong.Utah and Colorado also have "raffle" type "governor's" tags which I suspect generate far less income for the state wildlife agencies coffers.

You're right though, it has been over $100K for a while. Even Governor's deer tags are getting to the $100K mark in Colorado.


i agree, people can afford it, and people will truly think it is worth it whether i agree or not. i am sure i will buy things that others think are stupid..that is the beauty of america. These types of tags will sell, and i dont doubt they will be more and more common across america.Its an easy way to make some easy quick money that usually is earmarked directly for the species involved (managed by RMEF or MDF). It really doesn't affect anyone because its not counted towards the units hunter allocation and its only one or two folks in the entire state. So; its not bad for the wildlife, it doesn't significantly affect anyone else in the unit (assuming that the number of guides for said tag-holder doesn't outnumber the regular tag holders in the unit ;)), the state makes easy money, the species-specific organizations use them to draw even more money their way...all good things.

I just dont know if that is good or bad. like has been mentioned, these people are still HUNTERS (at least in their mind) and they will stand for hunters in the future in battles for rights. but is the tags simple existence good for the sport?

JoeHis tag had nothing to do with the way the hunt was handled. Past Mossback hunts have been done in much the same manner. Its all or nothing for him and his group. He's done it for Governor's auction tags, Governor's raffle tags (for free), convention tags, PLO tags, and even thrown in a couple guided hunts for disabled hunters. It makes no difference to him, they all get the same treatment.

I've met Doyle on two occasions. I like him. I got the feeling that he's always trying to sell something though. I think he'd give services away for the publicity alone, but that's just my opinion.

Is it Denny Austad's fault? Not at all. Where we have aspirations of once-in-a-lifetime hunts, he gets to go on them every year. While I am jealous of that, I could only fault mysef, not him.

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Squeeks,

I can't see an auction being a bad thing. My hat won't be in the ring for it unless I hit the lottery, but it shouldn't affect the price of the normal guided or semi-guided hunt,and certainly not self-guided. This was public land, and you or I could have taken that Elk the day before that guy got there, so he was taking a real chance that he wouldn't fill the tag, right???(!

apparently you would need really good camoflage; not so the elk couldn't see you but so it's "trackers" from mossback did not see you and run you off :(

*edit: I guess that's what pisses me off the most--if the stories about mossback and other high-dollar guides are true, shouldn't that mean they are afoul of hunter-harassment laws? Just because they represent another hunter while ruining the first one's hunt doesn't make it less of a crime.....

Shouldernuke!
January 7th, 2009, 03:16 PM
Money is what make the world go around.I do not see where the leaseing of any property is any differnt than the sale of the the same property .It is not smart to lease anything cars included because at the end of it all you still own nothing.

That said it is no differnt than the leaseing of a farm or a house/building for any reason.It is What it is!!I think that there are some who due to lack of funds and drive neither own or lease land and that is ultimately thier problem not that of those who lease or own land with a world record animal or just alot of animals on it !!

If you owned land with what you know is az world record animal on it and were offerd $150,000 for one seasons hunting rights for one person wouldn't you let em have at it ??I would simply because there is no gurentee that the hunter would get that animal now is there ???

Do I like it ?NO !!!!! But the owner has the right to do with his/her land what they want and if there is animals on thet land and they are hunted legaly then so be it .I am not a jelouse person people have and do what they want and can afford to do.Lets face it to hunt a landowners land without paying them is a privilage not a right .If they ask for money or accept it from a hunter with it then thats fine too.

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Awe, Come on Mark, it ain't that bad!!!! Hey, we're both glad your Mom was Pro-Life aren't we???? :D

she's pro-choice........she just happened to choose as she did

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 03:23 PM
NO MOSSBACK DISCUSSION

i know that that is what is fresh in everyones mind, but moss had nothing to do with the tag being offered. He does his job and he does it VERY well. i cannot comment on his character, and i dont know for a fact if the rumors are true.

i understand that the money goes to a great cause in most cases, but is it starting a trend with other raffle, draw, auction, and other special tags that will make the sport go in a direction that is good or bad...that is my question.

i agree with Bobmuley, one tag for 150000 isnt going to hurt anyone.....but what does the future hold as tags like this become more and more desirable?

i am willing to bet that from a strickly tag income point of view, you could make more money by selling 100 tags like this in a state than all other tags combined. while i know this is not 100% valid as huge numbers of hunters stimulate economies way more that just the price of tags, not to mention wildlife management issues...i am just throwing it out there.

Joe

Nimhates
January 7th, 2009, 03:27 PM
If Mossback is harassing other hunters on public ground, then that is completely different. First of all, that would more than piss me off and they would get much more than they wanted if I were the harassee. Public ground is for the public - If they want a restricted, high fence, private ground scenario, then 'have at it'. If they have special permits for camp sites in a given area of national forest as is the case in parts of Montana, then have at that too - but to harass guys on open, public ground would put me and I'm sure others over the edge. Clearly that, if true is out-of-bounds and shouldn't be tolerated at any price.:box:

Skeptic
January 7th, 2009, 03:28 PM
NO MOSSBACK DISCUSSION

i know that that is what is fresh in everyones mind, but moss had nothing to do with the tag being offered. He does his job and he does it VERY well. i cannot comment on his character, and i dont know for a fact if the rumors are true.

i understand that the money goes to a great cause in most cases, but is it starting a trend with other raffle, draw, auction, and other special tags that will make the sport go in a direction that is good or bad...that is my question.

i agree with Bobmuley, one tag for 150000 isnt going to hurt anyone.....but what does the future hold as tags like this become more and more desirable?

i am willing to bet that from a strickly tag income point of view, you could make more money by selling 100 tags like this in a state than all other tags combined. while i know this is not 100% valid as huge numbers of hunters stimulate economies way more that just the price of tags, not to mention wildlife management issues...i am just throwing it out there.

Joe


I really believe if that became the norm....most of us would become poachers.

brandonh324
January 7th, 2009, 03:31 PM
NO MOSSBACK DISCUSSION

i know that that is what is fresh in everyones mind, but moss had nothing to do with the tag being offered. He does his job and he does it VERY well. i cannot comment on his character, and i dont know for a fact if the rumors are true.

i understand that the money goes to a great cause in most cases, but is it starting a trend with other raffle, draw, auction, and other special tags that will make the sport go in a direction that is good or bad...that is my question.

i agree with Bobmuley, one tag for 150000 isnt going to hurt anyone.....but what does the future hold as tags like this become more and more desirable?

i am willing to bet that from a strickly tag income point of view, you could make more money by selling 100 tags like this in a state than all other tags combined. while i know this is not 100% valid as huge numbers of hunters stimulate economies way more that just the price of tags, not to mention wildlife management issues...i am just throwing it out there.

Joe

Part of the reason that the tags bring such a huge price tag is the limited amount of the. Basic Supply and Demand. IMHO I don't think there are 100 people out there willing to pay 150,000 dollars to hunt a given area in 1 state.

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 03:34 PM
.....but what does the future hold as tags like this become more and more desirable?As long as it is limited to a handful of tags its no big deal and would have no significant impact on the herds or the common hunter. In Idaho they have a "supertag" that is given away (based on replying to the previous years hunt) that is much the same as a governor's tag, but is basically free. You hardly ever hear a peep about them or the other raffle tag winners because they rarely hire the big outfitters.

What if the Governor's tag brings $500,000 this year? What if its $1,000,000?

It won't change anything as long as its left at the same number, it'll just limit those that bid for them.

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Part of the reason that the tags bring such a huge price tag is the limited amount of the. Basic Supply and Demand. IMHO I don't think there are 100 people out there willing to pay 150,000 dollars to hunt a given area in 1 state.

but if you do the math you must see what he's getting at--is starting with a few "governors' tags" taking the democracy out of hunting and furthering a trend towards it being a highest-bidder type of commodity for the state rather than a public opportunity?

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:35 PM
I really believe if that became the norm....most of us would become poachers.

not me :embara:







* wonders where his ghillie suit is at

sits in trees
January 7th, 2009, 03:37 PM
i'm a do it yourselfer, i would much rather find an area or hunt right out my back door. paying anyone anything to hunt is just not for me. some things in life you just have to pay for and i do understand that, but hunting has never been one of them....

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 03:39 PM
not me :embara:







* wonders where his ghillie suit is atThat's funny, I'm sure you know the origin of "ghillie". Sorry, I found it ironic.

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 03:40 PM
...paying anyone anything to hunt is just not for me...I bet that's a bit strong. License?

brandonh324
January 7th, 2009, 03:41 PM
but if you do the math you must see what he's getting at--is starting with a few "governors' tags" taking the democracy out of hunting and furthering a trend towards it being a highest-bidder type of commodity for the state rather than a public opportunity?

I understand that but that is what NR tags have become anyway. States will increase the price tag until they find where supply and demand meet. Take wyoming for instance. Not every applicant gets drawn. They could increse there price (and they have) the lose out on applicnats but still plenty of tags. A lot of folks can't afford to hunt in another state does that mena that going on a hunting trip out of state is bad because not everyone can afford it? I think the bottom line is life isn't fair and if this leaves a bad taste in your mouth maybe you should take up bowling...........but there will be a guy that has a newer ball then you. It's just life, hunt on your own personal piece of heaven and be happy.

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 03:42 PM
That's funny, I'm sure you know the origin of "ghillie". Sorry, I found it ironic.

:chortle: I had to google it... but that's some funny stuff. darned beasties...

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:43 PM
That's funny, I'm sure you know the origin of "ghillie". Sorry, I found it ironic.

The name was derived from ghillie, the Gaelic for "boy", in English especially used to refer to servants, as in Gillie, assisting in deer hunting or fly fishing expeditions in the Scottish Highlands.

nope, I didn't think of it when I mentioned, but it is indeed ironic considering the thread

sawtoothscream
January 7th, 2009, 03:44 PM
no.

i hunt every thing.

i hunt for the land and trees i use and try to find as many properties around my area that i can hunt.

hunt for srapes, rubs, apple trees and other signs that deer would be in this area.

than after all this is done i hunt for the animal its self.

im not going to spend all that money just to sit in a preset up tree and wait for the deer to walk in. just me.

but many others like it and good for them. if that makes hunting fun to them than thats what they should do. cause thats whats hunting is really about having fun in the wild.

i just like to take the harder route.

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 03:46 PM
The name was derived from ghillie, the Gaelic for "boy", in English especially used to refer to servants, as in Gillie, assisting in deer hunting or fly fishing expeditions in the Scottish Highlands.

nope, I didn't think of it when I mentioned, but it is indeed ironic considering the thread

"The first ghillie suits were made by shepherds who wore them while attending their flocks."


http://www.ghilliesuitsonline.com/ghillie-history.html


now that's what I call irony.

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 03:47 PM
"The first ghillie suits were made by shepherds who wore them while attending their flocks."


http://www.ghilliesuitsonline.com/ghillie-history.html

lmao....even more irony; i thought it was in reference to it coming from guides

Zed
January 7th, 2009, 03:48 PM
If I had that kind of money to spend I would buy land to hunt the rest of my life.
I would not spend it on a guided hunt, or many guided hunts.
To me it seems a better use of my money. IMHO

holger_danske
January 7th, 2009, 03:52 PM
If I had that kind of money to spend I would buy land to hunt the rest of my life.


+1. I'd take a lifetime of elk hunting my own land over one giant bull.

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 03:53 PM
lmao....even more irony; i thought it was in reference to it coming from guidesIt was, Holger's mind is always in the gutter.;)

BowhntrOma
January 7th, 2009, 04:06 PM
I hate to see people pay those huge fees to hunt. IMO it just makes it harder for the rest of us who can't afford to pay to hunt get access to hunting land. The trend toward hunting leases I feel get a boost every time someone pays a huge fee and it's publicized. Landowners see this and think I want my cut of that. It won't be long before I won't be hunting anymore the way this is going. It's almost impossible to get permission to hunt private ground in my area without paying big money. The public ground isn't worth my time because there just isn't any game to be had on it.

5MilesBack
January 7th, 2009, 04:14 PM
To me hunting is not defined by how much you have to pay, or what weapon one is using, or whether you're wearing camo, or a number of other things. Hunting is an activity which is the pursuit of game. How you got there, or how you got the tag is irrelevent IMO. I must say that I love hunting so much that if I was wealthy enough, I'd be buying landowner tags in every state that I could....along with applying for regular tags every year as well. For me it's not the size of the trophy, it's the opportunity to take any type of trophy. If it happens to be a very large trophy....then so be it.:D

matthewsmesiah13
January 7th, 2009, 04:18 PM
If you have the money why not

cause it makes it harder on the people who dont. the main reason people continually loose thier old hunting ground is money and nothing else. and what are these people to do? flood public land and thats why u hear people on here every day complain about how poor public land hunting is

huntin_addict
January 7th, 2009, 04:31 PM
I voted no.

5MilesBack
January 7th, 2009, 04:32 PM
cause it makes it harder on the people who dont. the main reason people continually loose thier old hunting ground is money and nothing else. and what are these people to do? flood public land and thats why u hear people on here every day complain about how poor public land hunting is

You make it sound like you're owed something. Like landowners should just let you hunt on THEIR land for free whenever you want. IMO hunting is a privilege. If we keep treating it as a right, we may not have the privilege for long.

MarkalMod
January 7th, 2009, 04:43 PM
You make it sound like you're owed something. Like landowners should just let you hunt on THEIR land for free whenever you want. IMO hunting is a privilege. If we keep treating it as a right, we may not have the privilege for long.

nobody's owed anything, and you're right, treat it as a right and you'll lose it in time for sure.

But are we doing the same thing by slowly turning it into a big game of Monopoly? Everyone here's played that and you all know the rules: keep making money and buying stuff, it ends when only one person "wins" by remaining.

So, are we starting to open hunting into a bidding-war commodity until it's gonna free-market itself right past all of our pay grades?

matthewsmesiah13
January 7th, 2009, 05:20 PM
You make it sound like you're owed something. Like landowners should just let you hunt on THEIR land for free whenever you want. IMO hunting is a privilege. If we keep treating it as a right, we may not have the privilege for long.

your right it is a privilege. a privilege that i have seen taken away from alot of people case they dont have enough money. I have no illusions of being owed any hunting opportunities by anyone and in fact have worked very hard to buy 100 acres of my own hunting land so i wouldnt have the problems that many have. but your missing the point, before long, if not already, many people will loose thier opportunity to hunt and have thier privilage taken away. what did they do to deserve that? oh yeah, they dont make enough money, how dare they

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM
150000 isnt enough to buy a tract of land large enough to hunt elk on.

Joe

Skeptic
January 7th, 2009, 05:27 PM
your right it is a privilege. a privilege that i have seen taken away from alot of people case they dont have enough money. I have no illusions of being owed any hunting opportunities by anyone and in fact have worked very hard to buy 100 acres of my own hunting land so i wouldnt have the problems that many have. but your missing the point, before long, if not already, many people will loose thier opportunity to hunt and have thier privilage taken away. what did they do to deserve that? oh yeah, they dont make enough money, how dare they

It's not that they don't make enough money. Granted there are a few that could probably be put in that category.....BUT the reason people complain about not having enough money is 1)because they are lazy and don't want to work that hard for it(I'd put most in this category) or 2)because their real priorities lie elsewhere and they don't know what to do other than complain about not having money:confused: and of course 3)there is a VERY SMALL percentage that are actually hard on their luck due to loss of job, etc

Even with case #3, hunting overall is NOT that expensive in most of America for a Resident that they cannot spare enough money to make it worthwhile, and either get friendly with landowner, barter work for hunting rights, or stick to public ground. Opportunities are out there!

mn5503
January 7th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Is paying 150 thousand plus to hunt any area with any weapon during any season what hunting is all about? Is this what those that paved to way to make FAIR chase hunting possible for us and future generations had in mind?

Listen carefully, i dont want this to become a bash mossback/utah/spider bull thread.

I just want to know if you HONESTLY feel that that is what hunting is to you.

Joe

Not for me.

Septicsam
January 7th, 2009, 05:42 PM
Please note signature below.

matthewsmesiah13
January 7th, 2009, 05:48 PM
150000 isnt enough to buy a tract of land large enough to hunt elk on.

Joe

wrong. i just built a house in lake city colorado, the guy we built it for paid 166k for 58 acres that these pics were taken on


http://s734.photobucket.com/albums/ww344/nellcat1313/elk/

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 05:54 PM
wrong. i just built a house in lake city colorado, the guy we built it for paid 166k for 58 acres that these pics were taken on


http://s734.photobucket.com/albums/ww344/nellcat1313/elk/

ok, if you feel like you can effectively hunt trophy elk on 58 acres, than i am wrong. Occasionally elk will feed across your land, but to really HUNT elk hard you need more than that, in my opinion (but that is just an opinion)

dont get me wrong, in the middle of the winter your 3 acre alfalfa field would make a great hunting area, but NOT during hunting season in most cases.

i was just making a point

Joe

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 05:54 PM
wrong. i just built a house in lake city colorado, the guy we built it for paid 166k for 58 acres that these pics were taken on


http://s734.photobucket.com/albums/ww344/nellcat1313/elk/I'd be willing to bet those elk aren't there come September. Right now they don't have much choice. ;)

A 58 acre elk hunt would last about 15 seconds for me.

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 05:57 PM
So, are we starting to open hunting into a bidding-war commodity until it's gonna free-market itself right past all of our pay grades?

What's the alternative? Let the government mandate what is fair? Government imposed "fairness" is always proven to be a colossal failure.

The free market is the only way it can (and should) work. Well managed properties harboring trophy-class animals will always be more disired, therefore draw top $$. Those that can afford it will pay it. Those that can't afford it can bid on the average-yeild properties...and there will always be more "average" land available than "premium" land.

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 06:02 PM
For those that think paying for hunting opportunities is wrong, at what dollar amount would you feel comfortable saying it stops being "real hunting"?

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 06:07 PM
For those that think paying for hunting opportunities is wrong, at what dollar amount would you feel comfortable saying it stops being "real hunting"?

no one is saying it is not real hunting, just whether or not it will effect the majority's chance at real hunting in the future. real hunting comes from chase, no matter the price tag. I dont think that shooting a doe off a feeder with a 7 mag is real hunting (other will dissagree) even if it is free. yet i feel that some guys that get governors tags for 10K plus here is wyoming hunt their butts off.

Joe

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 06:08 PM
For those that think paying for hunting opportunities is wrong, at what dollar amount would you feel comfortable saying it stops being "real hunting"?
I buy a hunting license every year, so I'm gonna disqualify myself because its obviously at least $35.:D

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 06:08 PM
I buy a hunting license every year, so I'm gonna disqualify myself because its obviously at least $35.:D

:lol:

Lien2
January 7th, 2009, 06:09 PM
Is paying 150 thousand plus to hunt any area with any weapon during any season what hunting is all about? Is this what those that paved to way to make FAIR chase hunting possible for us and future generations had in mind?

Listen carefully, i dont want this to become a bash mossback/utah/spider bull thread.

I just want to know if you HONESTLY feel that that is what hunting is to you.

Joe

You are talking about a VERY small fraction of people that can do this. The ones that can, buy very high profile tags, that's why you hear about them. MOST of those tags (SuperTags, Governors Tags, etc.) give a great deal back to the habitat and help the animals out a lot. Same as me buying my $20 resident deer tag, a portion of that goes back to helping the animal.
By the way, I voted no.

Lien2

Bobmuley
January 7th, 2009, 06:13 PM
no one is saying it is not real hunting, just whether or not it will effect the majority's chance at real hunting in the future. real hunting comes from chase, no matter the price tag. I...

In theory, the money raised from these raffle and auctions INCREASES opportunities for the rest of us.

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 06:16 PM
no one is saying it is not real hunting, just whether or not it will effect the majority's chance at real hunting in the future. real hunting comes from chase, no matter the price tag. I dont think that shooting a doe off a feeder with a 7 mag is real hunting (other will dissagree) even if it is free. yet i feel that some guys that get governors tags for 10K plus here is wyoming hunt their butts off.

Joe

Did the guy that bought the tag to shoot spidey affect your hunting? Did the guy that bought the tag 5 years ago affect your hunting? How far back do LE tag auctions go? Did the first guy to buy a tag affect your hunting?

The guy down the street that bought a Mercedes didn't affect my driving one bit nor did it affect my ability to buy a Chevrolet.

Point is that there are always some people with the means to get opportunities. This does not diminish their hunt or their hunting skills one bit. Like someone said earlier, be thankful that some affluent people choose to spend their $$ for hunting instead of against it.

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Like someone said earlier, be thankful that some affluent people choose to spend their $$ for hunting instead of against it.

i agree, and i would hope that i can say YES their large sums of money DID effect my hunting. As muley noted, the money goes (in theory) to improving MY hunting opportunities.

that is the root of the debate sir...does the money generated by these high priced tags benefit hunting more than hurt it.

you have to realize i am talking long run stuff here, no spidey doesnt efect my hunting next year, but if these high doller tags become the trend, and the high dollar questionalbe guids become the trend, and the high dollar land leases become the trend, where does that leave hunting for future generation????

will it help with large stimulus of money??? OR will it hurt by closing opportunities???

that is the question

JOe

matthewsmesiah13
January 7th, 2009, 06:28 PM
ok, if you feel like you can effectively hunt trophy elk on 58 acres, than i am wrong. Occasionally elk will feed across your land, but to really HUNT elk hard you need more than that, in my opinion (but that is just an opinion)

dont get me wrong, in the middle of the winter your 3 acre alfalfa field would make a great hunting area, but NOT during hunting season in most cases.

i was just making a point

Joe

just to be clear i'm not trying to pick a fight. this chunk of property is at the base of a moiuntain in a river valley not far from town. last year he said he sold his landowner tag to an outfitter for 2k and one of the outfitters hunters shot a "trophy" bull. he said the cows frequent the meadow all year and as we all know when the rut is on u can see bull/bucks any place anytime. is 58 acres ideal for elk huntin? no, obviuosly not but, this guy hunted one week for 150k versus a life time on this absolutely beautiful piece of rivershore property in the heart of the san juan mountains, i know which i would choose. just my opinion

Skeptic
January 7th, 2009, 06:37 PM
just to be clear i'm not trying to pick a fight. this chunk of property is at the base of a moiuntain in a river valley not far from town. last year he said he sold his landowner tag to an outfitter for 2k and one of the outfitters hunters shot a "trophy" bull. he said the cows frequent the meadow all year and as we all know when the rut is on u can see bull/bucks any place anytime. is 58 acres ideal for elk huntin? no, obviuosly not but, this guy hunted one week for 150k versus a life time on this absolutely beautiful piece of rivershore property in the heart of the san juan mountains, i know which i would choose. just my opinion


I think everyone on this site would choose likewise....however, if you were a billionaire and worked 100 hrs/wk and took very little vacation.....a $150,000 hunt might be just what your looking for for that week or 2 vacation you take each year.

I'm not gonna fault the rich guy for making himself rich.

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 06:39 PM
just to be clear i'm not trying to pick a fight. this chunk of property is at the base of a moiuntain in a river valley not far from town. last year he said he sold his landowner tag to an outfitter for 2k and one of the outfitters hunters shot a "trophy" bull. he said the cows frequent the meadow all year and as we all know when the rut is on u can see bull/bucks any place anytime. is 58 acres ideal for elk huntin? no, obviuosly not but, this guy hunted one week for 150k versus a life time on this absolutely beautiful piece of rivershore property in the heart of the san juan mountains, i know which i would choose. just my opinion

hey man, no fights at all. and i agree, i know where my money would go...whether there was hunting or not on the land.

kind of show another thing that falls in this category....outfitters buying up landowner tags and leases.....turning small tracts of land into big leases with lots of landowner tags. another place where big money is effecting hunting.

Joe

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 06:41 PM
JUST A THOUGHT

does anyone see this type of thing as an investment??? I mean seriously, take spidey for example....guys spends 250K to kill him. Sells the altlers and rights to cabelas and videos to hunters and makes 1 million....that is a 300% gain. better than the stock market right.

Joe

matthewsmesiah13
January 7th, 2009, 06:50 PM
I think everyone on this site would choose likewise....however, if you were a billionaire and worked 100 hrs/wk and took very little vacation.....a $150,000 hunt might be just what your looking for for that week or 2 vacation you take each year.

I'm not gonna fault the rich guy for making himself rich.

i dont fault him a bit and hard to blame the landowners either for the amount of money some of them are making. my beef was just the way hunting in general is going. all trophy hunts and high price tags really makes me fearful of our hunting future as a whole. i saw another interesting little theory on the web the other day too speaking of trophy management (which i practice). they called it reverse darwinism or something. basically saying we are directly contradicting natures way by passing on young or inferior deer and harvesting the ones wiht the biggest horns and bodies which is natures way of the fittest survicing longest and doin all the breeding. kinda off topic but i thought it interesting point

elecshoc
January 7th, 2009, 06:52 PM
As long as it is limited to a handful of tags its no big deal and would have no significant impact on the herds or the common hunter. In Idaho they have a "supertag" that is given away (based on replying to the previous years hunt) that is much the same as a governor's tag, but is basically free. You hardly ever hear a peep about them or the other raffle tag winners because they rarely hire the big outfitters.

What if the Governor's tag brings $500,000 this year? What if its $1,000,000?

It won't change anything as long as its left at the same number, it'll just limit those that bid for them.

I agree with this here... I think it's more beneficial for wildlife and habitat in the state that it was purchased for... Here the last Commissioners elk tag when for 195,000.00... that goes directly to the AZ elk society for habitat and conservation ... without that tag thats 195,000 less they would have recieved for something we all enjoy... I'm not gonna pay 195,000.00 for a tag as long as I'm able to get a resident tag for the same area... or at least have a chance at a draw :o... Commissioner tags are apart of hunting, along with outfitters and guides... as long as the demand is there the supply will remain... I can only speak for myself in that I enjoy going out there and learning what I can with family and friends... I don't foresee myself using a guide anytime soon... I don't think that this would inhibit anyone else from getting a tag or taking them out of the price range for the average person... at least I hope not...

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 07:01 PM
i agree, and i would hope that i can say YES their large sums of money DID effect my hunting. As muley noted, the money goes (in theory) to improving MY hunting opportunities.

that is the root of the debate sir...does the money generated by these high priced tags benefit hunting more than hurt it.

you have to realize i am talking long run stuff here, no spidey doesnt efect my hunting next year, but if these high doller tags become the trend, and the high dollar questionalbe guids become the trend, and the high dollar land leases become the trend, where does that leave hunting for future generation????

will it help with large stimulus of money??? OR will it hurt by closing opportunities???

that is the question

JOe

More money will increase opportunities for the masses. So many times, people say that money is "ruining hunting". It reality, it works in the reverse...more money will ultimately SAVE hunting. If hunting weren't a multi-billion dollar industry, we would be in danger of losing our hobby. More money spent on our side means keeping the idiots like HSUS at bay.

Herds will always need managing. Hunters en mass are a vital part of each respective state's management strategy. Hunting tags for the masses far outnumber the limited tags. Yet, limited draw tags are just another management tool...if more animals were required to be harvest to meet habitat management goals, there would be more tags available. Where many animals need harvesting, tags are el cheapo. Right?

The reason many hunters hate the money game is because hunting has been viewed as an entitlement program for so long. There was literally no cost to hunting. Many hunters had free reign of available land. And now landowners have discovered there is a value for property access, the market is adjusting, and some hunters have their nose out of joint about it. It's not that hunting is becoming a "rich man's sport" (a phrase that is much too generously thrown around), it's just becoming inconvenient for some hunters because now they actually have to invest some time or money into hunting, where before they got it for the price of a trip to Wal Mart to buy a license. I even saw one guy say "I already paid for a license and a bow if I have to pay for access too, that takes all the joy out of hunting". :rolleyes: That's akin to buying a tire and expecting someone else to give you a car to go with it.

brendog84cj8
January 7th, 2009, 07:05 PM
not to me, but I'm not rich. hunting means a lot of different things to a lot of different people... the one thing we all share, however, is a common enemy.

From one fellow Montanan to another I couldn't of said it better myself.

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 07:08 PM
More money will increase opportunities for the masses. So many times, people say that money is "ruining hunting". It reality, it works in the reverse...more money will ultimately SAVE hunting. If hunting weren't a multi-billion dollar industry, we would be in danger of losing our hobby. More money spent on our side means keeping the idiots like HSUS at bay.

Herds will always need managing. Hunters en mass are a vital part of each respective state's management strategy. Hunting tags for the masses far outnumber the limited tags. Yet, limited draw tags are just another management tool...if more animals were required to be harvest to meet habitat management goals, there would be more tags available. Where many animals need harvesting, tags are el cheapo. Right?

The reason many hunters hate the money game is because hunting has been viewed as an entitlement program for so long. There was literally no cost to hunting. Many hunters had free reign of available land. And now landowners have discovered there is a value for property access, the market is adjusting, and some hunters have their nose out of joint about it. It's not that hunting is becoming a "rich man's sport" (a phrase that is much too generously thrown around), it's just becoming inconvenient for some hunters because now they actually have to invest some time or money into hunting, where before they got it for the price of a trip to Wal Mart to buy a license. I even saw one guy say "I already paid for a license and a bow if I have to pay for access too, that takes all the joy out of hunting". :rolleyes: That's akin to buying a tire and expecting someone else to give you a car to go with it.

i agree with you, i guess i am just affraid that if it keeps going things could get bad. I just dont want it to ever get to the point that tags for land i have hunted for years has to be drawn now, or something like that.

i think that i am with you on this, the way it is RIGHT NOW is probably not hurting near as much as it is HELPING hunters. i can just forsee this becoming the norm and losing some hunting priveledges in the future. it will take close management and carefull eye, provided by us "normal joe" hunters.

Joe

squeekieslayer
January 7th, 2009, 07:11 PM
From one fellow Montanan to another I couldn't of said it better myself.

common enemy=wolves?? HAHA guess that would be more idaho.

Joe

bigrackHack
January 7th, 2009, 07:14 PM
i agree with you, i guess i am just affraid that if it keeps going things could get bad. I just dont want it to ever get to the point that tags for land i have hunted for years has to be drawn now, or something like that.

i think that i am with you on this, the way it is RIGHT NOW is probably not hurting near as much as it is HELPING hunters. i can just forsee this becoming the norm and losing some hunting priveledges in the future. it will take close management and carefull eye, provided by us "normal joe" hunters.

Joe

If there are more available hunters than a resident herd can maintain, then draw tags are necessary. If it ever got that way where I hunt, I'd hate it if I missed a season because of not being drawn. But if that's what it would take keep the herd from being overhunted, then so be it.

Anyway, I've appreciated the conversation. Now I must head home to the horrible children. The future of hunting. God help us all. :D

5MilesBack
January 7th, 2009, 07:53 PM
the guy we built it for paid 166k for 58 acres that these pics were taken on


last year he said he sold his landowner tag to an outfitter for 2k and one of the outfitters hunters shot a "trophy" bull.

You need at least 160 contiguous acres to even apply for landowner tags.

And as Bob said......it wouldn't take me long to hunt 58 acres either. I have always said I need at least 9 square miles for a real elk hunt.

MarkalMod
January 8th, 2009, 08:33 AM
What's the alternative? Let the government mandate what is fair? Government imposed "fairness" is always proven to be a colossal failure.

The free market is the only way it can (and should) work. Well managed properties harboring trophy-class animals will always be more disired, therefore draw top $$. Those that can afford it will pay it. Those that can't afford it can bid on the average-yeild properties...and there will always be more "average" land available than "premium" land.

not a fan of public hunting grounds, national parks, etc hack?

I'm not suggesting we can mandate "fairness", but too much free market in anything without any curbs invariable leads to monopoly; make hunting more and more of a money game and it will get priced beyond where kids will continue to enter the fold as their fathers quit

MarkalMod
January 8th, 2009, 08:36 AM
More money will increase opportunities for the masses. So many times, people say that money is "ruining hunting". It reality, it works in the reverse...more money will ultimately SAVE hunting. If hunting weren't a multi-billion dollar industry, we would be in danger of losing our hobby. More money spent on our side means keeping the idiots like HSUS at bay.




is that how it worked in Britain and most of Europe as landowner estates grew and access diminished?

Skeptic
January 8th, 2009, 08:40 AM
is that how it worked in Britain and most of Europe as landowner estates grew and access diminished?

If we the VOTER do our part and keep the crooked politicians out of office then it should never come to that. We've done a poor job of that in IL and things are suffering for our DNR. They just don't have the funding that they should, especially considering all the money that is brought in in this state for hunting. Politicians are what is increasing the prices due to their GREED. I could go into detail but I just don't have the time.

hpo
January 8th, 2009, 08:43 AM
That's not what hunting is ALL about IMO-but it is hunting. If I had that kind of jack I know I'd be taking some guided hunts for trophies....

For me hunting is about the excitement - the enjoyment of nature - and getting out of the house!

MarkalMod
January 8th, 2009, 08:44 AM
If we the VOTER do our part and keep the crooked politicians out of office then it should never come to that. We've done a poor job of that in IL and things are suffering for our DNR. They just don't have the funding that they should, especially considering all the money that is brought in in this state for hunting. Politicians are what is increasing the prices due to their GREED. I could go into detail but I just don't have the time.

I've heard IL is a desert in terms of public lands......here I have thousands and thousands of acres within a 20-mile radius


point was in Europe hunting became a money game as lands were bought up and consolidated in the "free market" and laws were passed in favor of the wealthy; I'm not saying the spider bull is the death of hunting, or Gov. tags, but putting too much emphasis on buying your way in has the potential to damage the sport, and there's certainly precedent.......

there's things worth keeping an eye on besides just the jackarses at PETA

old Graybeard
January 8th, 2009, 08:52 AM
It's not for me, if I want to go shopping I'll hit the mall.

holger_danske
January 8th, 2009, 08:58 AM
common enemy=wolves?? HAHA guess that would be more idaho.

Joe

I meant antis, but no, we have puh-lenty of wolves. I was crawling all over wolf scat at the south end of the bob marshal last fall

bigrackHack
January 8th, 2009, 09:21 AM
I've heard IL is a desert in terms of public lands......here I have thousands and thousands of acres within a 20-mile radius


point was in Europe hunting became a money game as lands were bought up and consolidated in the "free market" and laws were passed in favor of the wealthy; I'm not saying the spider bull is the death of hunting, or Gov. tags, but putting too much emphasis on buying your way in has the potential to damage the sport, and there's certainly precedent.......

there's things worth keeping an eye on besides just the jackarses at PETA

Laws favored the wealthy in Europe because only the landowners had the right to vote! Not the same here (unless your Lib buddies have their way :D).

5MilesBack
January 8th, 2009, 10:11 AM
If we the VOTER do our part and keep the crooked politicians out of office

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Keep the crooked politicians out of office..........oh that's a good one. If we keep all the "crooked" politicians out of office, we'll have no government. If we have no government, we'll have anarchy in society. As it stands now, we only have anarchy in the government.

BigDog2
February 20th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Remember that in most cases that money goes to help wildlife thorugh organizations like Mule Deer Foundation and RMEF. As a minimum it helps fund the state fish and game programs.

Without hunter $$$, wildlife would be lost. Whether it comes in in small gifts or large donations, it all helps.

ShootToKill10
February 20th, 2009, 03:39 PM
nope spending that kind of money is not hunting

Scotsbowhunter
February 20th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Hunting to me is all about being able to get out there away from it all. Embracing the beauty of ones land. Becoming one with mothernature.

The thrill of the hunt comes into play aswell but there is a combination of things. I love the peace and quiet, the beauty of the surroundings and being able to stalk my prey, kill it, skin it and eat it.

It's what I was born to do.


But to spend thousands of pounds/dollars on a hunt? Unless someone else was paying for it not a chance in hell.

grizzlyplumber
February 21st, 2009, 09:14 AM
Do you know how much money those gov tags save all of us little guys? Nobody ever thinks about what the money gets used for. If I can keep my license and tag fees cheap so I can still hunt every year because some guy with more cash than he knows what to do with wants to drop it on a dream tag then I am all for it.

Steve in KC
February 21st, 2009, 09:28 AM
honestly, who cares? Our constitution says we are ALL (rich and poor) entitled to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness. There's no guarantee that you'll ever be happy, just a right to pursue it. So this guy pursued, and got what he wanted...good for him. I see no big deal.

High fence huting doesn't affect any one person's right's or ability to hunt free/fair chase...so what's it matter? So a rich person did something hardly anyone else can afford to do. Stop the presses. I'm agast. :rolleyes:

Think about it this way...and I've reworded your original statement below to make my point...and used caps to point out said differences, not for shouting purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is paying 5 MILLION plus to BUY A HOME with 20 BEDROOMS and 30 BATHROOMS what HOME OWNERSHIP is all about? Is this what those that USED TO SCRIMP AND SAVE AND PAY CASH FOR HOMES DID to make HOMEOWNERSHIP possible for us and future generations had in mind?

Zach_Harmon
February 21st, 2009, 09:35 AM
honestly, who cares? Our constitution says we are ALL (rich and poor) entitled to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness. There's no guarantee that you'll ever be happy, just a right to pursue it. So this guy pursued, and got what he wanted...good for him. I see no big deal.

High fence huting doesn't affect any one person's right's or ability to hunt free/fair chase...so what's it matter? So a rich person did something hardly anyone else can afford to do. Stop the presses. I'm agast. :rolleyes:

Think about it this way...and I've reworded your original statement below to make my point...and used caps to point out said differences, not for shouting purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is paying 5 MILLION plus to BUY A HOME with 20 BEDROOMS and 30 BATHROOMS what HOME OWNERSHIP is all about? Is this what those that USED TO SCRIMP AND SAVE AND PAY CASH FOR HOMES DID to make HOMEOWNERSHIP possible for us and future generations had in mind?


You make a fair argument. :darkbeer:

ssdaubert
February 21st, 2009, 09:37 AM
First of all I probably will never be able to afford that and hunting is so much more than just shooting an animal it is about the whole experience. The thrill of doing it yourself is much more satisfying

svilla
February 21st, 2009, 10:31 AM
No it is not! And if it get that way I will just be another poacher! :mad:

Jwillman6
February 21st, 2009, 06:23 PM
I do not have the money to do this sort of thing, but no matter how much money I had I would not spend a $150,000 for an unlimited type tag. I realize these tags raise money for different things and that is good, but hunting is more of an experience for me. $150,000 could take me on many hunting experieces for many years and if I did not come close to killing a world record I would be fine.

Stanley
February 21st, 2009, 06:36 PM
Itís kind of like this. Land owners used to bear the burden of expense. They owned all the land, paid the taxes toiled the ground and let us hunt for little or nothing. Now hunters are starting to own the land. Those that canít afford to own land, lease or outfit a hunt. It is just hunters taking the burden of expense from the farmers and land owners. Nothing wrong with that. Why should I feel it is my right to leach off a land owner and expect to hunt for nothing?

goblism
February 21st, 2009, 06:42 PM
I think that the governor tags are a great thing. They contribute more to nature than i will in my lifetime!