BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

moderator · Moderator Joined: 27 Jan 2002 Posts: 7655

April 2004 Poll:

Should non-resident hunters be required to use outfitters?

Please use this area to post comments or questions about this poll.

bitmasher · Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject:

I have nothing against outfitters, but I don't think there use should be required if you pay the price/time to go nonresident hunting.

sagebrush · Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject:

I don't agree with the outfitters myself they charge enough already. But if they the state in question would want a resident along with the non-resident. then the state could give the resident some of the money from the price of the tag. from the nonresident. This could possibly help in the trespassing violations/ hunting violations. The state could set up some sort of program for this.

fuzzybear · Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject:

I feel if a hunter pays the required fees for license and tags, he/she should be able to hunt without being required to hire a guide.
He/she should also have the option available if they feel they need one.

saskie · Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:17 pm Post subject:

For me this is a "sometimes". In general assuming that a hunter can prove competency and knowledge of local game/firearm laws then they probably shouldn't have to use a guide.

On the other side...any of you who live in remoter areas will know all too well the sorts of rich "money can buy everything" safari tourists (please note - I didn't say "hunters") who would show up and get lost or into other serious safety issue troubles that (hopefully) having a competent licenced guide would avoid.

Ferguson · Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:33 pm Post subject:

In the lower 48 NO!
Grizzley a big Maybe?
It is commercialization of public ground. The outfitter can bid on a area and or purchase it from another outfitter. Then the laws requires you to go through him. That is just plain not right. To top it off,,,,You can't get a local to go with you hunting. This is really unfair to the local people as much as the NR's
Here is a prime example. I bear hunt in Montana. When we take a bear we can not have anybody local to pack it out on a horse. I can't even get a horse back ride to the back country. Even if they are not with me when I am actually hunting. The only person that is allowed to pack out game or help you get to the back country is the licensed area outfitter. So I avoid the outfitter at all costs because of that. If,,,it was fair to all I would probably go to the outfitter first then to the local people if he was busy. Currently I pull a wagon as close as I can and haul the bear out myself. Nobody wins, not me, not the locals, not the outfitter. I can rent a horse to pack a dinner or tent in on a hike or camping trip but if I hunt it's against the law. If that makes sense I'll kiss your

On the other side of the coin,,,,if I go look'n for a grizz ,,,I'll probably want someone with me. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out? Although,,,,if someone new don't take a back up then I guess they don't need in the human gene pool of anyway. Should we make laws to protect ourselves from ourselves? I don't think so!

fuzzybear · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:42 am Post subject:

Well said Ferguson!

There is plenty of hunting available for the outdoorsman. If an area is restricted by laws and regulations that dictate I can hunt only if I use services offered by a local outfitter. You won't see me hunting that area.

The only exceptions for myself would be dangerous game or if I was headed up into some unforbidden terrain after sheep or goat and wasn't familiar with the country, and that should be a wise alternative, not a requirement.

hunter777 · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:39 pm Post subject:

Some people get no satisfaction from a hunt when they didn't do ALL the work themselves.
Don't forget to buckle up!