Montana legislators say no

LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 01:43PM (MST)[p]
Whether you condone this practice or not, this legislature will do nothing to stop the practice. All it does is outlaw providing info on ?specific? trophy animals. So all one has to do to be legal is not show photos or give info of specific animals. Lot of work to end up exactly where you already were.

Also I read that it has been introduced. Don?t see any info that it was passed into law

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 01:51PM (MST)[p]Doesn't an outfitter/guide sell location info by taking hunters to animals on public land?
 
I had to fire off an email. Got to voice my opinions on the subject.


SB 127 - Prohibit sale of wildlife identification information for hunting

This bill is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment of the United States. While a state does get to control access and use of wild animals within their borders, their authority is not without limits. The supremacy doctrine is why a state law that violates the US Constitution would be unconstitutional.

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual to express their opinions, ideas and knowledge without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

I'm confident that if you were to consult a civil rights attorney that you will find as I have that government does not have the right to criminalize someone for publishing and selling a report containing ones personal knowledge and opinions, regardless of the subject.

I understand that guides and outfitters don't like the practice, but to think it gives a sportsmen an "unfair advantage" is silly. Guides and outfitters sell the exact same information as part of a guided hunt, plus they take people to the animal, spot it, help them shoot it, field dress it and pack it off the mountain. How can one with just the information have an unfair advantage, or not be reaching the standards of "Fair Chase" when a guided hunter uses the same information plus much, much more help?
Also, Fair Chase is the manner in which someone hunts and has nothing to do with whether they paid for information or someone gave it to them free.

This bill is just an outfitters angle to reduce any competition in helping hunters who don't know an area or whom don't have time to scout. The information gives out-of-state sportsmen another option besides a $7000.00 outfitter or going into an area blind with no idea as to where to begin hunting. Please see it for what it is.

Of course outfitters want there to be an exception for them, but why is it considered an unfair advantage or not reaching the standards of Fair Chase if an average Joe sportsmen buys the information from one person who's not an outfitter, but is all OK if he buys the same exact information from and outfitter? Makes no sense.

See the bill for what is, talk with the a civil rights attorney, think about it from an out-of state hunters point of view. Many currently have two options, go into a hunt area blind, having no clue where to begin or pay an outfitter $7000.00 plus a tip. Information reports provide them with quality information about an area without having to spend $7k. They still must hunt the animal, the information just helps a little. Not as much as an outfitter, but a little. It's a lower cost option. It's a good thing, despite how some portray it.

Thanks for your time,



Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Brian sounds like the outfitters in Montana flexed their muscle with their state lawmakers. Just like they did in Wyoming forcing out of state hunters to hire a licensed guide to hunt the wildness area of that state or have a local guide them without pay.

RELH
 
Founder and I disagree.

However, you have zero "right" as an out of state hunter. You are privileged by the citizens of that state to be able to hunt there as an NR. If you're at a "disadvantage" because your not local,too bad, its a privilege to hunt NR.

At some point we are going to have to address tech. With advancements in satellite, its not unreasonable or unthinkable that a "service" could simply relay real time locations. There are "smart bullets" coming to market, as well as self aiming firearms. We seem to have agreed drones should be outlawed. Real time trail cams? I'd imagine as tech improves real time satellite imagery capable of seeing individual animals isn't far off.

The difference as I see it is in theory when your guided, YOU ARE PRESENT. With services you aren't.

Seems like we could start with that as a baseline, ACTUALLT BEING IN FIELD.(if your going to point out guides who camp on animals, ill go one further, I don't believe guides should be able to operate on public land. What they do on private whether its coordinates or camping on critters, is a landowner concern).

This bill isn't being pushed solely by guides, although I'm sure they like it.






From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I just think that because a person doesn't have the time or money to thoroughly educate themselves on areas in other states that they are then just SOL. That is where guides come in, but not everyone can afford or needs a guide. That is where information from various sources come into play. Sure there's free information one can gather on sites like this one, then there's paid information that can help someone more so than what they can get for free.

I use myself as an example. I'd like to possibly someday hunt caribou with my bow, but I have no clue where to begin. So I have to use the free services to get rolling, but then when it comes to knowing where I might find a good number of animals and some good quality, I'd need more help that often isn't available free. So my only options would be to go up north and just hope to get lucky and find game, or hire a $5k guide. I can't afford $5k and I don't want to just hope to get lucky after spending so much to go hunt. I'd want to hunt where some game is. That's where I'd be happy to pay someone for quality information on where game may be and how to hunt that area.

I'm in no way anti-outfitter. I've never used one for hunting, but when we were in Italy we had one show us and drive us around the coast and to the volcano. The option to buy information and do-it-yourself was also available, and I believe that option should be available for sportsmen as well.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I also see this as a huge violation of the first amendment. Residency does not matter. You are in fact preventing a person from sharing knowledge. That is all it is is knowledge that someone else has and that someone else would want.

Honestly if you condone this practice then you also must condone any article that has ever been writing on how to hunt, you must condone any use of OnX maps, Go Hunt, Eastman's MRC, etc. Again those are all just information that one person has and others find valuable.

Sorry but while this is an issue it falls really short in other technologies that truly limit fair chase, i.e. long range shooting.

At least in this case once you get some information on a location to hunt, you still have the entire hunt to preform.

If passed I am certain the state will get smashed in court.

Also if passed it is really easy to skate around the issue. Show 10 pictures of similar shaped and sized bucks and say one of them lives at this location on a topo map.
 
Hahahahahahahahahahah.............

Land of the Free!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!


One more reg they can screw everybody with. Will it make the hunting better? Nope. Will it help wildlife? Nope. Easier to right more BS laws than actually deal with the problems.

Here's the question nobody has asked. Why is this any different than the companies set up to take your money and tell you what are the good units to apply for? Its basically doing the same thing. Increasing competition for the trophy deer.

I'm trying to figure out what the legislators dislike about these business arrangements. Do they hate people that make money? Do they actually hate people succeeding on a hunt? DO they hate people that communicate about deer? DO they hate people who hunt outside of their closest hunting unit? Show me some logic here folks. They talk about people having a more equal chance at the same deer but that's bullshine and they know it. Hunting and killing deer doesn't have anything to do with "equal chances". If that were the case everyone would hunt with the exact same equipment on the exact same days with absolutely no scouting allowed or outfitters.


You want to know what is killing this sport? Lack of freedom. Years ago a man went into the wilderness and brought out meat for the winter and for a short time he felt free again. Now you go hunt and hope they haven't slipped in half a dozen new regs on you in the last year that you don't know about along with the several other thousand you are still trying to get straight and hoping you don't run into the game warden on the way out.

You know whats crazy? Do you know how many game wardens I talk to that know less about hunting regs than me? ALL OF THEM!. Not because they are dumb. Hell no. They are smart hard working men. But there are so many f-ing regs they can't even keep them straight.

TP&W just came out with more hunting opportunity in my state. 41 counties are going to get to reopen doe hunting. When you actually start to read the regs its in this county between these two roads, and that county only north of this road, and these 16 counties for only four days at Thanksgiving, and this county for the entire season. Its a fricking nightmare.


Land of the free my a55.
 
This will be near impossible to enforce! What a complete waste of time and effort over a handful of deer.

What is the proposed penalty and for who? The buyer and/or seller of info?

Does Montana or Wyoming really think they can regulate a business transaction in Utah?

It will be near impossible for Montana to prove a business transaction happened in a Walmart parking lot in Utah. The buyer of info simply pleads the 5th and Montana doesn't have a case.
 
"Does Montana or Wyoming really think they can regulate a business transaction in Utah?"


They sure hope so because then they can charge all parties with felonies.
 
From a commercial aspect I don't blame guides who are FORCED to pay in state taxes, in state fees from being pissed that these services dont do the same.

On one hand the services will say " what do we do that guides don't do?"

To which the guides then say "fine, pay the same fees, pay the same taxes"

To which the services then say "we aren't anything like guides"


Like I said, at some point a baseline will have to get drawn. And someone on the other side is going to scream bloody murder. But are we concerned with commercial interests, or the resource?

These services don't "share" anything. They SELL info. They are commercial transactions.

Your buddy can "share" legal or medical advice. But your lawyer or doctor dont.

No one is wanting to stop your buddy telling you the hotspot. They are concerned with Buisnesses doing so. There is a slippery slope. We see it with the other issues, including LR. Everyone is going to loose something, because "open season" got tried, and the critters got pushed to the edge because of it.

Tri, we tried unregulated hunting. That didn't work so good, perhaps read some history.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
They are saying it's an unfair advantage over another hunter and not fair chase. Is it still an unfair advantage and not fair chase if I get the exact same info for free?

I still have an advantage, and I would hunt the animal in the exact same way as if I paid for the info.

Or it's only unfair and not fair chase if there is compensation? Curious if B&C or P&Y have any stupid rules like that?
 
For record hossblur, I do pay federal and local tax on everything I earn. I have also asked the forest service what if any permits I need, and none are needed. Outfitters are required to have permits and insurance because they are meeting with clients on federal land.
If someone writes a hunting article about unit 102 in Wyoming, they don't need a permit. They can just visit the place a write about their experience.
If you visit Yellowstone NP, you can return home and write a book about your adventure. No permit needed. If you read up on ?why? an outfitter must have a forest service, you'll understand why the FS doesn't require one for a single individual using the forest and writing about their experience.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Another reason I dont go to the Expo..or any western hunting show.The outfitter welfare. Why support them if they keep us off our federal land and get pet politicians and game agencies to pass unconstitutional laws...BH1
 
Ethics. That's all it comes down too. And that's a matter of personal interpretation. The state just wishes to solidify the interpretation.

Personally I think selling the location of an animal is a cheap shot at the hunting sportsperson taking away from the definition of "hunting" adding to the continued degradation of the hunting world. Keep it up for personal monitary gain and we will continue to witness the ongoing loss of our shooting sport.

Hunting is being driven by greed.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I agree with tailchasers it is a matter of ethics. I like doing my own scouting,research and hunting. If I find a big old buck and can't kill him I would rather see him live than sell him to someone else that never new anything about him. It all comes back to haunt us with ridiculous regulations. I always thought trail cameras were a pretty cool tool for the hunter until they turned them on us. During the wolf wars in central Idaho the radical enviromentalists started putting up trail cameras on every major trailhead and not only but they have trail cameras watching trail cameras. The forest is littered with them. Do you think there taking pictures of wolves, no there watching you and I and they call into the state attorney general every week to see where wolves are killed, it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together. I now consider trail cameras just trash in the woods and help remove them. How about region G you guys talk about so much, and all the drone use there. I live on the edge of the two best deer units in Idaho. We are seeing planes and helicopters flying low during the season. The deserts are being destroyed by these unstoppable razors, guys driving anywhere they want, heck they don't evan need to get out and walk anymore. As for selling GPS coordinates , once again that's personal ethics. Founder is not going to give up a 200 inch deer and I don't really think what he is doing is any different then outfitters sitting on animals for clients. I am not for more regulations but we are all responsible for it since hunting became a high tech sport.
 
What would really be nice is if Montana actually had animals on Public Land that people would be willing to pay for. The legislation may not be needed as few will be willing to pay for the location of the legendary 22 inch four point.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 06:45AM (MST)[p]Founder seams to believe that he does not need a special use permit to operate this business on National Forest or BLM. He may be right. If I was him I would not take the chance and would go the appropriate public land office and apply for one.
This is why.
A permit would give his business more credibility. When a legislator proposes this type of law he could use the permit to justify his business.

If he doesn't some one else will. If I was in this business I would get a permit fast. The Forest Service is only going to give out a set number of permits. Once I had the permit I would get a lawyer to write a letter to all the other people selling locations in the area that I operated in that did not have a permit. That letter would in no uncertain terms tell them to quit. Founder could find him self on the outside looking in.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19
>AT 06:45?AM (MST)
>
>Founder seams to believe that he
>does not need a special
>use permit to operate this
>business on National Forest or
>BLM. He may be right.
>If I was him I
>would not take the chance
>and would go the appropriate
>public land office and apply
>for one.
>This is why.
>A permit would give his business
>more credibility. When a legislator
>proposes this type of law
>he could use the permit
>to justify his business.
>
>If he doesn't some one else
>will. If I was in
>this business I would get
>a permit fast. The Forest
>Service is only going to
>give out a set number
>of permits. Once I had
>the permit I would get
>a lawyer to write a
>letter to all the other
>people selling locations in the
>area that I operated in
>that did not have a
>permit. That letter would in
>no uncertain terms tell them
>to quit. Founder could find
>him self on the outside
>looking in.


It's not that I ?seem to believe?, i know for a fact, no permit is needed, nor does one even exist.
See my post above. I don't just do things and ?hope? all is ok. I do my work. If a permit was required and existed, I'd have one.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I can see both sides of the issue. Technology AND information is making us better hunters, our success rate is increasing fact. If our success rate continues to increase we are not going to be able to hunt as often as we would like fact.

I agree with Founder on sharing information. Is buying a Epic or huntin fool magazine, and a list of past hunters, who are willing to give general areas and info illegal?

What about buying David Long mule deer hunting book?

This new law if passed is a joke, and can't be regulated.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]I'm not sure how I feel about these laws, but I've got to say I don't buy the First Amendment claim. There is still the right of regulation, for instance you have the right to assemble but many cities require you get a permit to do it. Go share your "advice" or "information" as a lawyer or accountant or financial advisor without the necessary licenses and watch what happens.

If you tell your buddy at lunch he should buy this stock you heard about, you'll be fine; but if you start charging people for stock advice you'll go to jail. There's a difference.

As to the HuntinFool comparison, you can go start a blog today about diabetes or cancer or any other malady and share general information, factual or not (see Jenny McCarthy); but if you start charging money to see patients for specific information you'll be arrested.

I'm just saying there's a difference in many instances where general and specific information are delineating factors as well as the commercialization of a service. You can have sex with anybody you want, but if you exchange money for it you'll be arrested. There's a difference.

Again, I'm not speaking to these laws as I don't have a dog in the fight, or really care what people do... just adding some thoughts.

Grizzly
 
Rather than a 1st amendment issue wouldn't there be a question of the Commerce clause? If the buyer is from one state, the seller from another and the info is about a place in Montana or Wyoming, I don't think the state legislature can regulate that transaction. He isn't selling an animal or a guarantee, just a location he saw a deer, right?

We have enough laws that aren't enforced already why add another?


Nemont
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19
>AT 09:31?AM (MST)
>
>I'm not sure how I feel
>about these laws, but I've
>got to say I don't
>buy the First Amendment claim.
>There is still the right
>of regulation, for instance you
>have the right to assemble
>but many cities require you
>get a permit to do
>it. Go share your "advice"
>or "information" as a lawyer
>or accountant or financial advisor
>without the necessary licenses and
>watch what happens.
>
>If you tell your buddy at
>lunch he should buy this
>stock you heard about, you'll
>be fine; but if you
>start charging people for stock
>advice you'll go to jail.
>There's a difference.
>
>As to the HuntinFool comparison, you
>can go start a blog
>today about diabetes or cancer
>or any other malady and
>share general information, factual or
>not (see Jenny McCarthy); but
>if you start charging money
>to see patients for specific
>information you'll be arrested.
>
>I'm just saying there's a difference
>in many instances where general
>and specific information are delineating
>factors as well as the
>commercialization of a service. You
>can have sex with anybody
>you want, but if you
>exchange money for it you'll
>be arrested. There's a difference.
>
>
>Again, I'm not speaking to these
>laws as I don't have
>a dog in the fight,
>or really care what people
>do... just adding some thoughts.
>
>
>Grizzly


Currently I have all the licenses to do what I do, which is none, because none are required. If the Forest Service wants to create a permit for what I do, then they could and I'd buy it. Believe me, the outfitters have tried to get the Forest Service to stop me, but I'm breaking no law by telling people what and where I see stuff on Forest Service land.

BTW - there are many, many websites with legal information. You don't have to have a license to share factual, legal information. Court clerks do it all the time. For example, I can tell you that there is a speed limit law and how to know the speed limit, even if you were paying me for that information. What I couldn't do is give "advice".
Your Googler will explain.


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Founder. Don't misinterpret what I said.

I don't think you're running under the table.

I don't think you are selling exact real time coordinates.

I do think if this industry isn't regulated, your competition will. If they aren't already.

We disagree. No big deal.

I also notice how careful you are to never say "sell". You always use "share". Despite having a pricing structure, you are very deliberate to use "share".

But yours, and your competitors payment structure is different than me telling Bess where an animal is. It just is. If its not a Buisness, why would you check for licencing requirements? No individual does that to talk on this page or a bar. Of course its a Buisness. Like you said you pay taxes on it, and I don't doubt that at all.

We've argued this. No need to again. But you are a Utah resident. As such you are a guest in Wyoming or Montana. States have a vested interest in protecting in state buisness. Evanston requires WYOMING electriciams and plumbers. That's not a constitutional issue. A Idaho electrician doesn't get to "share" his knowledge in Evanston. He is free to take up residency, but screaming "first amendment" is ridiculous.

I think your highly successful at finding big deer. I don't think you do real time. But a guy not a good as you, will need an edge to compete. That's the slippery slope.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
That's apples and oranges Hossblur. Founder is "selling" or "sharing" his intellectual property he isn't offering a service. There is a difference in those transactions that have certain rights both state and federal.

By the way I wasn't talking about un-regulating hunting but at some point, AND THAT WAS LONG AGO, enough is enough.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 11:46AM (MST)[p]Yes, I SELL reports on what I've seen while backpacking, and where. I do "share" information with people. Nowhere does the definition of "share" say that it must have been free.
I "share" photos on my site here all the time, and make money every time someone looks at the page. I guess you could say I sell the viewing of photos. But that would be weird to say to someone, "hey, did you see the photos I'm selling viewing privileges to today on my site?" That would be weird. I'd say, "hey, did you see the photos I shared on the site today?"
You're making something out of nothing.

If I write a book, I'll try to remember to always say, "did you read the chapter I sold in the book about glassing". Not really, that would confuse people.

And yes, I am a business. I publish and sell reports on what I see while backpacking, among many other things I do.

Does that all make sense dude. I say share because that's what I say. I say Fart Potatoes all the time too, it's how I articulate things.

Edit - was just thinking. I probably say share in part because sell typically relates to transferring ownership, and the information I share in my report that I sell, doesn't transfer ownership. I still own the information. Like in a book. You sell the book, but not the information inside. ???? I don't know LOL

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Like I said, there are a lot of protected industries in various states. Its not a first amendment issue.

Ya I think the Wyoming guys specifically targeted you. They target other business as well. So does UTAH. So does every other state. The state owns the wildlife. Its their right.

So where would you, founder, draw the line?

Tri. Intellectual property is regulated. Anyone with a security clearance will tell you that. Folks with non competes.

As you can tell drying times suck today, so this is an interesting question. Founder is in the Buisness so I'm curious as to his thoughts



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Intellectual property is not restricted when its yours.

People with security clearances are dealing with other people's intellectual property, not their own.

When you get a security clearance are you no longer allowed to discuss your own finances, hobbies, highschool transcripts.......? NO. You are not allowed to discuss the intellectual property of the government institution or company in which you work BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THEM. Not you.
 
>Intellectual property is not restricted when
>its yours.
>
>People with security clearances are dealing
>with other people's intellectual property,
>not their own.
>
>When you get a security clearance
>are you no longer allowed
>to discuss your own finances,
>hobbies, highschool transcripts.......? NO.
> You are not allowed
>to discuss the intellectual property
>of the government institution or
>company in which you work
>BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THEM.
> Not you.

You'd be wrong. And there are thousands of scientists to prove otherwise.

Judges also place gag orders.

You can't "scream fire in a crowded room".

You keep crossing individuals and Buisnesses. They are different also.

But I already heard your answer, your for open, unregulated.....

I thought founder had an interesting insight since he is on the other side. I know regulations in my industry that I think are important. I'm curious about his.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Like I said, there are a
>lot of protected industries in
>various states. Its not
>a first amendment issue.
>
>Ya I think the Wyoming guys
>specifically targeted you. They
>target other business as well.
> So does UTAH.
>So does every other state.
> The state owns the
>wildlife. Its their right.
>
>
>So where would you, founder, draw
>the line?
>
>Tri. Intellectual property is regulated.
> Anyone with a security
>clearance will tell you that.
> Folks with non competes.
>
>
>As you can tell drying times
>suck today, so this is
>an interesting question. Founder
>is in the Buisness so
>I'm curious as to his
>thoughts
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.


It's not their right to dictate who says what about their property, just as I don't get to dictate what people say about me or my dog.
Anyone can write a report about where my dog likes to crap on our walks, even take pictures, and sell it for a million dollars, and there's nothing I can do about it.
It's their First Amendment right. People write books about Trump all the time that he doesn't approve of and there's nothing he can do about it. And he's the president!

As far as where I draw my line? Not sure what you're talking about.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
"You'd be wrong. And there are thousands of scientists to prove otherwise."

Really? I'd like to meet one. I don't think you understand how contracts work and more than likely these "scientists" you know didn't either.

"Judges also place gag orders."

Again that's not YOUR intellectual property they are silencing. A gag order doesn't mean you can't say anything to anyone. They are very finite.

"You can't "scream fire in a crowded room"."

YES YOU CAN! This is one of the biggest misconceptions about freedom of speech. People keep seeing this on TV and think somehow that's a law. IT AIN'T. Quit watching Law and Order.

"You keep crossing individuals and Buisnesses. They are different also."

Every statement I have made works for both businesses and individuals because it is based on the US constitution. Just because you are a company or employed by a company doesn't mean suddenly you forfeit your constitutional rights and protections.

"But I already heard your answer, your for open, unregulated....."

I'm for liberty and hunting. Not so much for government fixes to things that aren't even problems.


SO Hossblur, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THIS LAW FIXES?
 
I'm just curious, has anyone paid for founders services? I know in Utah guides pay finders fees on big bucks/bulls all the time. Yes guides are licensed but to me it's all weak. Money destroys hunting.
 
>>Like I said, there are a
>>lot of protected industries in
>>various states. Its not
>>a first amendment issue.
>>
>>Ya I think the Wyoming guys
>>specifically targeted you. They
>>target other business as well.
>> So does UTAH.
>>So does every other state.
>> The state owns the
>>wildlife. Its their right.
>>
>>
>>So where would you, founder, draw
>>the line?
>>
>>Tri. Intellectual property is regulated.
>> Anyone with a security
>>clearance will tell you that.
>> Folks with non competes.
>>
>>
>>As you can tell drying times
>>suck today, so this is
>>an interesting question. Founder
>>is in the Buisness so
>>I'm curious as to his
>>thoughts
>>
>>
>>
>>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>>PUBLIC LAND.
>
>
>It's not their right to dictate
>who says what about their
>property, just as I don't
>get to dictate what people
>say about me or my
>dog.
>Anyone can write a report about
>where my dog likes to
>crap on our walks, even
>take pictures, and sell it
>for a million dollars, and
>there's nothing I can do
>about it.
>It's their First Amendment right. People
>write books about Trump all
>the time that he doesn't
>approve of and there's nothing
>he can do about it.
>And he's the president!
>
>As far as where I draw
>my line? Not sure what
>you're talking about.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>@mm_founder on Instagram
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

Is the only measure of acceptable if there is a market?

High fence units GPS their animals. Dudes pay for it. If I chip an elk and sell its location is that ok as long as someone pays for it? What is the difference? Yes I know you don't do it, but real time is happening with cams.

Is there any limit on third party locating or is it up to the market?

Hopefully that made sense


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
The article says this proposed legislation "promotes fair chase hunting ethics and ensures equal opportunity between hunters."

If that's the purpose of the legislation then how in the hell is guiding legal in the state of Montana?

A guided hunter has the advantage over a hunter who purchased a scouting package in EVERY single category a person can think of. If a law like this passes there is no way guiding should be legal.

Hossblur stated that it's different because a guide is actually with a hunter, but by the reasoning of this law shouldn't that be "more" illegal? That guided hunter has increased odds and opportunity over every other hunter out there, and if we are going to make laws about "fairness" then we better start getting rid of guides before anything else.

I could understand laws that would require a business like Founder's to register as a guide, or buy some kind of permit, but that's not what this is. This law is saying that what Founder does is unfair. The state of Montana literally has 100's of people guiding hunters and doing everything for them except pulling the trigger and that is "fair", but giving a guy some intel on an area for a fee is not. COME ON!
 
>"You'd be wrong. And there are
>thousands of scientists to prove
>otherwise."
>
>Really? I'd like to meet
>one. I don't think
>you understand how contracts work
>and more than likely these
>"scientists" you know didn't either.
>
>
>"Judges also place gag orders."
>
>Again that's not YOUR intellectual property
>they are silencing. A
>gag order doesn't mean you
>can't say anything to anyone.
> They are very finite.
>
>
>"You can't "scream fire in a
>crowded room"."
>
>YES YOU CAN! This is
>one of the biggest misconceptions
>about freedom of speech.
>People keep seeing this on
>TV and think somehow that's
>a law. IT AIN'T.
> Quit watching Law and
>Order.
>
>"You keep crossing individuals and Buisnesses.
>They are different also."
>
>Every statement I have made works
>for both businesses and individuals
>because it is based on
>the US constitution. Just
>because you are a company
>or employed by a company
>doesn't mean suddenly you forfeit
>your constitutional rights and protections.
>
>
>"But I already heard your answer,
>your for open, unregulated....."
>
>I'm for liberty and hunting.
>Not so much for government
>fixes to things that aren't
>even problems.
>
>
>SO Hossblur, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM
>THIS LAW FIXES?


Not sure it fixes anything. I think its an admission or attempt to limit the exploitation of a limited resource by a third party. That's why I am honestly asking founder his thoughts.

I think we are on the preciface of their being an ability for the taking of game from ones couch. In fact the only sticking point would be hauling off the carcass. The tech in imagery exists. The tech in weapons exists.

Imo lr was just the starting point were computers starting substituting for skill. Old school cams you still have to check, so they show what WAS there. I keep saying I see founders point that HE only shows what was there as well. But what stops the next guy from going further.

My cousin works for defense contractors. BTW he doesn't own his intellectual property. The lag in what is available today, and what is actually produced, isn't that long.

Sat tech can pick up individuals now. It can pick them out of a crowd. GPS projectiles aren't new. Self aiming guns aren't either.

So. I'm not sure it stops the progression. But like I said originally, it has to start somewhere.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 03:59PM (MST)[p]>The article says this proposed legislation
>"promotes fair chase hunting ethics
>and ensures equal opportunity between
>hunters."
>
>If that's the purpose of the
>legislation then how in the
>hell is guiding legal in
>the state of Montana?
>
>A guided hunter has the advantage
>over a hunter who purchased
>a scouting package in EVERY
>single category a person can
>think of. If a law
>like this passes there is
>no way guiding should be
>legal.
>
>Hossblur stated that it's different because
>a guide is actually with
>a hunter, but by the
>reasoning of this law shouldn't
>that be "more" illegal? That
>guided hunter has increased odds
>and opportunity over every other
>hunter out there, and if
>we are going to make
>laws about "fairness" then we
>better start getting rid of
>guides before anything else.
>
>I could understand laws that would
>require a business like Founder's
>to register as a guide,
>or buy some kind of
>permit, but that's not what
>this is. This law is
>saying that what Founder does
>is unfair. The state of
>Montana literally has 100's of
>people guiding hunters and doing
>everything for them except pulling
>the trigger and that is
>"fair", but giving a guy
>some intel on an area
>for a fee is not.
>COME ON!

The hunter is actually with the guide. My point being the hunter is in the field.






From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>
>The hunter is actually with the
>guide. My point being
>the hunter is in the
>field.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.


WOW just WOW
 
Hossblur,

I'm sorry your cousin believes he has no intellectual property.

"My point being
>the hunter is in the
>field."


So the hunter isn't in the field that buys intel on a big game animal????????? SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?


You also spoke of this is all to stem a future bigger problem??????? Who the hell rights laws to stop something that has nothing to do with a problem that doesn't exist yet?????????


This is fixing nothing. There isn't a problem. This is nothing more than people whining to a legislator about something not being "fair" by their definition and then she caved and proposed a law so she wouldn't have to hear a cry baby anymore.
 
So Founder......

The article mentioned a gentleman from Utah (assuming its you)
Did the article have a typo or are you offering the same knowledge about bull elk as much as bucks or not at all?
I







"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Telling where a animal was in June doesn't mean he will still in that same drainage in Sept, Oct or even 2 days later in June.
So how does Wyoming $ Montana, think they can regulate what a guy does in Utah. So is it illegal to sell a animal location in Utah?
Kind of like a gun magazine law in California you can only have ten rounds, But they can't tell a guy in Montana that he can only have 10 rounds in his.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>Hossblur,
>
>I'm sorry your cousin believes he
>has no intellectual property.
>
>"My point being
>>the hunter is in the
>>field."
>
>
>So the hunter isn't in the
>field that buys intel on
>a big game animal?????????
>SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
>
>
>You also spoke of this is
>all to stem a future
>bigger problem??????? Who the
>hell rights laws to stop
>something that has nothing to
>do with a problem that
>doesn't exist yet?????????
>
>
>This is fixing nothing. There
>isn't a problem. This
>is nothing more than people
>whining to a legislator about
>something not being "fair" by
>their definition and then she
>caved and proposed a law
>so she wouldn't have to
>hear a cry baby anymore.
>

You should check who "she" is. She's a lot more aligned with you than BHA.

It is difficult to discuss this with you. Your frame of reference is such a polar opposite to western hunting. You guys can night vision pigs. Chopper gun them as well. 98% of your hunting land is private. Its filled with exotics.

The Texas model is much closer to agriculture than it is to Montana.

No one is writing laws on what "could" happen. It is happening. Founder traded info last year for points in Wyoming. Though not my favorite idea, no one is writing a law to stop it. The law is addressing or attempting to address the definition of fair chase as it applies to locating animals. I personally am fine if they expand it to guides on public land as well.

Government imo should level the playing field on public land. Meaning anyone who steps on it to hunt, should be equal to anyone else. Imo that means not buying some advantage. If you want to buy an advantage, there is a ton of private ranches to do so.

I'm not going to die on my sword fighting for it, in more interested in where there should be a line or IF there should be.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]>So Founder......
>
>The article mentioned a gentleman from
>Utah (assuming its you)
>Did the article have a typo
>or are you offering the
>same knowledge about bull elk
>as much as bucks or
>not at all?
>I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>So we must and we
>will."
>Theadore Roosevelt

Why does it always have to be Utah? This, $fw, land "transfer", Utah dude hacking WGF, BLAAAMM.

I don't blame surrounding states for detesting the arches or ski license plate.

Sorry for highjacking your thread. I thought founders points were interesting.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19
>AT 03:59?PM (MST)
>
>>The article says this proposed legislation
>>"promotes fair chase hunting ethics
>>and ensures equal opportunity between
>>hunters."
>>
>>If that's the purpose of the
>>legislation then how in the
>>hell is guiding legal in
>>the state of Montana?
>>
>>A guided hunter has the advantage
>>over a hunter who purchased
>>a scouting package in EVERY
>>single category a person can
>>think of. If a law
>>like this passes there is
>>no way guiding should be
>>legal.
>>
>>Hossblur stated that it's different because
>>a guide is actually with
>>a hunter, but by the
>>reasoning of this law shouldn't
>>that be "more" illegal? That
>>guided hunter has increased odds
>>and opportunity over every other
>>hunter out there, and if
>>we are going to make
>>laws about "fairness" then we
>>better start getting rid of
>>guides before anything else.
>>
>>I could understand laws that would
>>require a business like Founder's
>>to register as a guide,
>>or buy some kind of
>>permit, but that's not what
>>this is. This law is
>>saying that what Founder does
>>is unfair. The state of
>>Montana literally has 100's of
>>people guiding hunters and doing
>>everything for them except pulling
>>the trigger and that is
>>"fair", but giving a guy
>>some intel on an area
>>for a fee is not.
>>COME ON!
>
>The hunter is actually with the
>guide. My point being
>the hunter is in the
>field.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

The hunter is in the field the same amount in either case. The guided hunter just has further advantages of real time advice and help with every task of hunting besides actually shooting the animal. Again, by the reasoning of the law, guiding would be "more" unfair, "more" unequal, "more" unethical, and "more" illegal in every way.
 
Government imo should level the playing field on public land. Meaning anyone who steps on it to hunt, should be equal to anyone else.



wow
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 05:54PM (MST)[p]>Government imo should level the playing
>field on public land. Meaning
>anyone who steps on it
>to hunt, should be equal
>to anyone else.
>
>
>
>wow

You believe its gov job to prop up folks based on their wallet?

Isn't that the complaint with Wyoming wilderness? Gov picked a special interest group to prop up?

Wow doesn't mean much



Btw. Thanks to you guys. I literally am watching mud dry today. This helped pass the time and is informative.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>>LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19
>>AT 03:59?PM (MST)
>>
>>>The article says this proposed legislation
>>>"promotes fair chase hunting ethics
>>>and ensures equal opportunity between
>>>hunters."
>>>
>>>If that's the purpose of the
>>>legislation then how in the
>>>hell is guiding legal in
>>>the state of Montana?
>>>
>>>A guided hunter has the advantage
>>>over a hunter who purchased
>>>a scouting package in EVERY
>>>single category a person can
>>>think of. If a law
>>>like this passes there is
>>>no way guiding should be
>>>legal.
>>>
>>>Hossblur stated that it's different because
>>>a guide is actually with
>>>a hunter, but by the
>>>reasoning of this law shouldn't
>>>that be "more" illegal? That
>>>guided hunter has increased odds
>>>and opportunity over every other
>>>hunter out there, and if
>>>we are going to make
>>>laws about "fairness" then we
>>>better start getting rid of
>>>guides before anything else.
>>>
>>>I could understand laws that would
>>>require a business like Founder's
>>>to register as a guide,
>>>or buy some kind of
>>>permit, but that's not what
>>>this is. This law is
>>>saying that what Founder does
>>>is unfair. The state of
>>>Montana literally has 100's of
>>>people guiding hunters and doing
>>>everything for them except pulling
>>>the trigger and that is
>>>"fair", but giving a guy
>>>some intel on an area
>>>for a fee is not.
>>>COME ON!
>>
>>The hunter is actually with the
>>guide. My point being
>>the hunter is in the
>>field.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>>PUBLIC LAND.
>
>The hunter is in the field
>the same amount in either
>case. The guided hunter just
>has further advantages of real
>time advice and help with
>every task of hunting besides
>actually shooting the animal. Again,
>by the reasoning of the
>law, guiding would be "more"
>unfair, "more" unequal, "more" unethical,
>and "more" illegal in every
>way.

I agree.

Not sure how guiding gets treated different than mining, logging, grazing. Guides pay nothing for the resource. The resource is owned by the public(state in This case) same as the timber, grass, minerals are. I've never got how guiding on public land isn't treated similarly.

So I agree with what you said.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Many of you touched a real sensitive area that I want to chime in on as far as "fair chase" is concerned and that is the firearms and scopes that are available nowadays that allow animals to be taken at 600, 700 and even over 1000 yards. That is Ludacris to say the least and someday a person who calls themselves a "hunter" might be able to just sit on their front porch and touch off a round a mile away and say, "I got him"!! It makes me sick to see someone who is too damn lazy to hike, scout, scout and scout (get the point?) and to use skills to get close enough to make a humane shot on an animal. Long gone are those days for many so called "hunters" or those that think that is hunting. The quality/trophy bucks/bulls etc. don't have a chance with that type of technology. Every year it seems to get more and more advanced to the point of ridiculousness. In my opinion, those that use these advanced technologies are not true hunters, but lazy a55es. Another gripe I have as long as I'm venting, is those that post on here or tell others, "I don't have time to scout, or I put in for an area I don't know and then ask for someone else to tell them where to kill a 180-200 inch buck or a 350+ inch bull. It's all bull$hit as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have time to allow for scouting or are too damned lazy to use "normal" weapons to harvest an animal, THEN PICK ANOTHER SPORT!! Just my opinion. My now deceased Father and Grandfather who both taught me how to hunt and how to use "fair chase" to sneak within range (not a half mile, either) to shoot an animal would both roll over in their graves if they knew what this "sport" has evolved into. As far as what Founder is doing with GPS locations and selling that information, I think is also selling the future of the animals down the drain.....JMHO
 
I'm not opposed to Founder making a little return on his scouting investments, but it will eventually backfire on him as more and more people learn about his limited number of hot spots and return, in future years along with unlimited others, to hunt these hot spots on their own.
 
Its always refeshing to see who the people are that hunt for personal gain, and those who hunt for themselves. This thread among others helps me understand who I'd want to share a camp with and who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Carry on...
 
So I guess you have not ever been on a guided hunt and wouldn't piss on a guide if he was on fire....

And since I have used a scouting service once 15 years ago and have been on a guided hunt twice I I have to be sure I don't combust near you.

And guess I haven't learned the error of my ways because when I finally pull a Utah bull tag I will be using a guide for that once in a lifetime hunt as well

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I remember seeing the Facebook page advertisement this article is talking about. Pics of big game animals diplayed like pups at the local kennel.

You too, can kill a 400" bull. click here and put in you CC info you will be mailed a google earth link to the animal.

GMAFB




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Fantastic Buck for antlerhound
20181009_182346.jpg
E91647BF-02A9-4B18-B518-8D3B76DA2124.jpeg
FB_IMG_1647232563398.jpg
885D694C-F328-4084-9A31-CCE6595182DB.jpeg
789D7CD1-6AFB-4E8E-8950-B9075E5B1075.jpeg
96A40D89-7BA5-4D26-A017-3ECC9EB9D2EF_1_201_a.jpeg
NE Elk Hunt 409.8.jpg
BE12314A-793C-4362-AE40-27E0DBBB74C0.jpeg
08B238E8-7639-48A5-B488-EE25011AAB75.jpeg
IMG_2397.png
PB162041.JPG
Back
Top Bottom