BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[cob]

I'm with you 12ga mag on the guided hunt issue. I've never been on a guided hunt partially because i cant afford it but mostly because it seems like the guide would get to do the fun part. I know of a small time guide that has a buck on his ranch whos sheds from 2 years ago scored 225 B&C and they say he's still young. I don't know how big he is now, but this guy has watched him grow and tracked his movement for several years and when he decideds that buck is as big as he's going to get the guide is going to let somebody pay him $30,000 to shoot it. to me, shooting that deer would be about as fun as buying his antlers on ebay. so, 12ga, you're right, i think i'll have much more fun working my butt off for a small buck than the guy thats going to pay 30 grand to ride up beside that trophy and shoot him.

[expatriate]

I tend to agree with you in principle on the guided hunt issue. However, is somebody down here in Alabama wants to hunt elk he doesn't have much choice. Sure, it's possible for him to load up the truck and head for national forest land in Colorado. But now you have a southern flatlander 9,000 feet up in the Rockies in November with potentially little or no experience with the area, altitude, climate, or his prey. There's a safety factor involved, not just the safari factor.

[cowgal]

In our part of the country (Colorado) guides do a lot more than just drive you to the animal. In fact often times, you will be packed in by horses or mules because the terrain is rough. Some guides will guide on their own property, but many use public land that is available to everyone. A good guide, will do just that 'guide you' so you can be successful in your hunt.

During warm falls (like we had in 2001) chances are pretty good that even with a guide you will not bag your elk or deer.

Then some folks just like the accommodations that comes along with a guided hunt, which can vary widely from camping to being catered too in a luxurious lodge.

I think guided hunts are a great way to go for someone that is hunting in an unfamiliar area for the first time, and pricing varies widely. If you're on a budget you need to shop and ask around. There are some really good ones out there that do not charge a fortune. For most guides the guiding business is a sideline to their farming and/or ranching business.

Just my 2 cents...

[cob]

I can understand the safty issue thing. I didn't think of that, i guess because i grew up going to the mountains as much as possible. I know guides don't just drive you to the game but you gotta admit it would be more fun if you got to do it yourself. Thats just what i think. There's just a sense of pride in it. that may just be my personality or something like that. Don't get me wrong though, i'm saying anything bad about people that take guided hunts (well, maybe i'm saying something bad about the guy thats going to shoot that $30000 buck)
If anybody else has bird dogs, its kind of like this. I've hunting with other people that had dogs and it was fun, but it's that much more fun when its MY dog and I'M the one that spent the hours training him and he's doing what I say. I know somebody's going to tell me that not everybody has the time to scout for game and thats what you pay the guide for but I just enjoy the experience of doing myself even if i go into an area i've never been and don't know where the game hangs out at. I can look at a map and find what i would think a good spot is. anyway, i'm rambling now so i'll shutup.

[expatriate]

Whatever you do, Cob, don't shutup. I like your posts.

If I won an Alaskan Brown Bear hunt, would I go? No doubt. But like most people, I agree with you that the best things about hunting are free -- mountain air, the smells of fall, and swapping stories over a campfire. So I think guides tend to get under our skin because it seems almost like a form of prostitution. But I do think they have a place in the world, and without them I think there'd be a steep drop in interstate hunting -- which in turn would translate into less support for hunting as a whole.

So I suffer the existence of guides, outfitters, and the wealthy that buy them -- so long as they don't pull a Ted Turner and attempt to monopolize the sport.

[cob]

hahaha, prositution, good one. i agree there's no doubt i would go if i won any kind of hunt.

[moderator]

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.

[expatriate]

I guess I should've been clearer on the Ted Turner issue. I had elaborated more on my previous post. I know Ted isn't a guide. My statement about him monopolizing the sport was based on the empire he's building in Montana and flat-out refusal to allow anyone to hunt on his land. I realize that's his right, but the issue of offering to trade 12k acres of his land to the state in return for 6k acres of excellent public-access fishing waters has me concerned.

It bothers me that he's sewing up large tracts of Montana land for himself, but I get really concerned when he tries to make deals to take prime sportsman property away from the public for his personal use.

That's my issue -- not whether Ted's a guide, but that he moved into Montana and is trying to make it his personal fiefdom. That kind of mentality doesn't sit well with Montanans, who believe that newcomers to the state should adapt to the state's culture, not expect the entire state to adapt to theirs. Peter Fonda, Dennis Quaid, and the Bridges Brothers are pretty good examples of this; they've been in Montana for years and have integrated well with society. However, there are others like Ted and Jane (well, just Ted now) that move up there and decide that all the natives have to conform to their view of the world.

So I don't have anything at all against wealth. The issue is people who use their wealth to shut out everyone else.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-06 16:34 ]

[moderator]

I agree with you Expatriate. Whether it is Ted Turner today or the oil and railroad barons of yesteryear, the issue of those with copious amounts of wealth locking out those without sufficent funds is a real one. It is exactly the issue that spawned the national park system.

Americans tend (not all, but most) to hold that the land is something of the people, and anytime public land is threatened, hackles go up.

[expatriate]

So here's a topic, moderator:

Are modern environmentalists acting like the old oil and railroad barons, locking up the land for themselves?

I'm thinking specifically of all of the forest service roads that have been closed or obliterated, off-road ATV prohibitions, etc.

It seems the objective of the environmentalists is to cut off access to everyone but young, physically fit backpackers who can afford the equipment. The policies they're pursuing are effectively eliminating access for senior citizens, the handicapped, and the poor.

Given yesterday's election, it seems like now's the time to lobby the Department of Agriculture to reverse some of those Clinton-era restrictions on National Forest access.

[moderator]

That is an interesting topic Expatriate, one that certainly has merit. I would like to read people's opinions on this one.

Please start a new thread for this topic (it may get lost being in the "Rich Hunter" thread). Please elborate on the access restrictions for everybodies sake (including mine) if you have some info readily available (links).

[ This Message was edited by: moderator on 2002-11-06 17:04 ]

[cob]

I'm all for people making a buck. I don't think anybody was saying anything bad about guides. On that subject I just don't think it would be as fun or rewarding to take a guided hunt. I also don't think anybody has anything against people that dish out the money to go on the hunts. I'm with expatriate in that I think prices are higher because there are weathly people that are paying them and I don't like seeing the ted turners that are basically monopolizing hunting and helping turn it into a rich man's sport. Like I said i'm all for making a buck but he doesn't need all that land. I didn't know he owned that much of montana. I guess i only hear about what's happening a little closer to home, New Mexico. I don't remember the numbers but the percentage of NM that he owns is shocking/disgusting. He could do something more useful with his money.
moderator, 3k IS a lot to pay for a guided hunt. i realize that usually includes meals and a place to stay and when its all said and done, if you were going to stay in the same accomodations it's probably not that much more. It doesn't stop with that 3k though, you still have to buy a tag and pay for transportation. I know i'm probably stingier than average but I when i travel i bring my own bologna and sleep in a tent or my pickup.

[expatriate]

Here's the scoop on Ted.

Ted Turner owns 14 ranches, two of them in Argentina. All told, they add up to 1.8 million acres. He owns over 1,700 square miles of New Mexico -- 1.5 percent of the state.

He owns more land than any other private citizen in the US.

Oh, and I was wrong. Apparently he is willing to allow occasional hunts for those of the aristocracy willing to pay the price.

Good reading here:
http://www.americanprowler.com....._9_23_17_4

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-06 21:53 ]

[bitmasher]

One of the interesting things about the concept of public land and public game is that it is pretty much communist. If game management was capitalist, hunting would always go to the highest offer.

Now before anyone jumps on me for sparking a red scare, please consider the U.S. loves private management on nearly everything, even when it stands a good chance of turning out sour (telcom deregulation, power deregulation in CA (Enron)). However lots of people agree that the land is the people's and is best managed by the government, this is in essence "community" management, not capitalism.

I agree that $3k is high to go hunting. But it is probably not unreasonable if you are asking somebody to feed you, drive you around, get your tags, find game, pack your game, butcher your game, and perhaps even process your game.

[bitmasher]

Holy Smokes! :eek:

1.5% of NM! I had no idea, you weren't kidding Cob.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2002-11-06 22:01 ]