Recently hunted in Kansas and the way they do it is if you hit a deer and can not find it or hit it and might not of killed it you are done hunting. I dont know if i agree with this, I mean its hunting not killing. I could see it if it was gun hunting but this is bow hunting. A guy in camp with us hit one and they never did find it and the hunter believes that he didnt kill the buck, but regardless they would not let him hunt any more. If i was in that guys shoes I wouldnt be very happy. Im just curious as to what everyone else thinks. Let me know what you think.
UltimtePredator
Joined
·
339 Posts
read the fine print...
If this was the "outfitter's rule" some kind of disclaimer should have been made in writing or verbally before the hunt took place in my opinion. I am lucky enough to live in kansas myself. I hunt whereever i can but i will NEVER pay 1500-2000 dollars of my hard earned money to kill a buck or doe when i can have the same opportunity for 20 bucks at wally world. I think its a good idea for one shot,one kill but i think it should be made known upfront if the outfitter is going to charge you to hunt.
If this was the "outfitter's rule" some kind of disclaimer should have been made in writing or verbally before the hunt took place in my opinion. I am lucky enough to live in kansas myself. I hunt whereever i can but i will NEVER pay 1500-2000 dollars of my hard earned money to kill a buck or doe when i can have the same opportunity for 20 bucks at wally world. I think its a good idea for one shot,one kill but i think it should be made known upfront if the outfitter is going to charge you to hunt.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
