There are some implied assumptions in this thread I would like to challenge.
-If you are a guide you are not necessarily wealthy or looking to monopolize the market. Expatriate, your example of Ted Turner locking up land and locking out regular hunters is a good one. However Ted cannot by most any measure be considered a typical guide.
-Guides prices are not necessarily outlandish. Many guide's prices are sub $3k, which is roughly the cost of a top-of-the-line computer these days. If you want to do a drop-camp (they just dump you some place), the cost is even less.
-If you use a guide you are not necessarily lazy or unskilled. For instance, if you draw an out of state dall sheep tag in Alaska, you are required by state law to use a guide. Furthermore, guides offer an entry path to hunting to those that did not grow up with a hunting heritage. Any process that creates new hunters has value to all hunters.
-Most guides are ranching/farming converts, looking to use their land to earn money. This is particularly true in Texas where the ratio of private to public land holdings is much higher than other states. Arguably, this is a bad thing for regular hunters, since they must pay to gain access. However, taken from the other angle, is it wrong for someone who homestead land to want to make a buck off of it? Delicate issue, I admit.
Personally, I think the existence of guides has nothing to do with the cost of hunting. Except in two cases:
-Regions like AK, where you may be required to use a guide if you are coming from out-of-state.
-Regions where private to public land holding ratios are high.