>manny,
>Open and read the post "1st
>Deer" by 300Win,
>just posted on this Forum.
>
>I see two really happy sportsmen,
>a father and son, thrilled
>with their deer and excited
>to share it and their
>experience with all of us.
>
>
>Where you ever like them?
>
>Has your satisfaction and exception changed
>over 35 years? When
>did you stop feeling like
>this young man?
>Do you think he hopes
>he can learn more, improve
>his skills, get more days
>afield as soon as he
>gets that drivers license so
>he can "hunt more", like
>you did when you started?
> Do you think he'll
>every say to his Dad,
>"last year was great but,
>lets find a bigger on
>this year"? Did you
>every think like that, before
>you developed your current point
>of view?
>
>You may be one that would
>answer "No", many others can't
>honestly say they're not just
>like 300Win and his son,
>thrilled with the harvest and
>the whole experience that went
>with it.
>
>If you had large amounts of
>discretionary money would you use
>some of it to hunt
>private land, or buy limited
>entry permits, or hire skilled
>guides who have spend a
>lot of time and money
>locating the best an area
>has to give, for you
>to stalk and shoot?
>If the guide asked you
>to publish the hunt in
>a magazine or online, so
>others could see the kind
>of game that guide could
>locat for his business clients,
>would you feel like he
>earned the recognition and want
>to help him, like he
>helped you?
>
>If you owned 50,000 acres and
>could hardly keep the bank
>from taking it due to
>the high cost of tractors,
>combines, bailers, seed, fertilizer, labor,
>taxes, a home, a car
>for Mom and the kids,
>a trip to Disneyland once
>or twice in your lifetime,
>a pickup truck, boat to
>take your son fishing, a
>ATV to fix fence with
>(so you can save a
>few bucks on gas for
>the pickup), buy a couple
>of new Angus bulls to
>try and up grade your
>calf production, at your bankers
>recommendation and then a couple
>of polite gentlemen show up
>at your house one afternoon
>and one of them tells
>you that he's seen a
>really big buck/bull out on
>your north forty and tells
>you the other fellow is
>a hunter from New Orleans
>and he will pay you
>$15,000 if you'll allow them
>to go hunt the buck/bull.
> And you look up
>and see your wife's eyes
>and you know she just
>got a call from the
>power company because your 3
>month's past due on the
>sprinkler system electric pump bill.
> Are you going to
>tell your wife and the
>two guys standing on the
>rug in your door way,
>"I'm sorry and I appreciate
>your asking but, I just
>don't think it's the right
>thing to do, just doesn't
>seem like we should be
>getting into that sort of
>thing here. And Honey,
>those power company people can
>just go on down to
>the bank and take out
>a loan if they need
>the money, after all, that's
>what we have to do?
>
>
>Is that what you're saying you
>would do? Is that
>what you expect from the
>business men and women anywhere
>in the world?
>
>Here is reality. In the
>West, at one time, but
>not anymore, public lands offered
>large numbers of surplus big
>game, mostly mule deer, for
>most hunters antlers were secondary
>to any deer (buck/doe/fawn) for
>the locker (freezer). Ranchers
>had more big game on
>their properties than they wanted,
>and with abundant herds on
>public land, few sportsmen were
>willing to "pay to hunt"
>private property, if fact, some
>ranching operations begged hunters, down
>at the local bar and
>grill, to "come out to
>my place and shoot some
>of these dang deer".
>During Public Wildlife Big Game
>Board meeting came and threatened
>law suits if the managing
>agencies didn't remove more of
>the deer from their properties.
>(Worse than we now see
>from these folks at our
>meeting today, where they express
>concerns over current elk numbers.)
> In the west, mule
>deer were the primary object
>of pursuit, elk number were
>non-existent on most mountain ranges.
> Hundreds of thousands of
>permits were sold and a
>corresponding numbers of mule deer
>(antlered and antlerless) were harvested.
>As mule deer numbers began
>to decline (the decline was
>cause by many factors, certainly
>not just heavy hunter harvest),
>and decline they did, the
>dynamics of hunter demand shifted
>as well. As public
>lands carried fewer and fewer
>deer, hunter experience changed as
>well. Hunters felt crowded,
>even thought it was crowded
>before, with enough deer to
>go around, crowded conditions didn't
>rub sportsmen the way it
>did before hunter success started
>to suffer. A few
>years before most State Big
>Games Agencies started to limit
>the number of permits, hunters
>began to purchase fewer tags,
>on their own, out of
>hunter dissatisfaction. The first
>of the "limited hunting regulations"
>began in some States when
>"buck only, Statewide" became the
>standard. From ther it
>went to "choose your weapon"
>seasons, to spread hunter crowding"
>and on and on to
>where we are today.
>
>That's the history.
>
>Out of that history, came "pay
>for access", "fewer deer, therefore
>fewer large mature deer", "businesses
>based on locating the rare
>and limited mature animals", "more
>hunters are more interested in
>the beauty of the antlers
>than they are the pounds
>of protein", the magazines that
>promote and advertise the locations
>and business that "provide a
>less risky investment of time
>and money opportunity to harvest
>a mature animal, but at
>a corresponding price because the
>business has expenses to pay
>and Mom and kids to
>support too". Landowners changed,
>from begging hunters to get
>rid of surplus mule deer
>to first tolerating the few
>deer they had left, to
>eventually protecting and nurturing mule
>deer because they had gone
>from a liability to a
>very important asset. (This
>wasn't necessarily a contrived conspiracy,
>not to say that aggressive
>people didn't see opportunity in
>the changing environment and walked
>through doors that were open
>to them.) Limited game
>caused more hunters to offer
>to pay for private land
>access, bidding (offers) for the
>best access caused those that
>could pay the most to
>secure the most productive private
>lands. Businesses that put
>the highest bidders together with
>the most productive lands were
>born. In our country
>a man that is willing
>to risk his labor, income,
>family and future into buying
>a ranch and then working
>his butt off every day
>for 40 years to payoff
>the debt has a "right"
>to allow access to whom
>ever he choices, if, for
>whatever reason. At the
>same time public land is
>no longer considered by many
>hunter to be a desirable
>place to hunt and
>his ranch is.
>In America, he has the
>"right" to charge what ever
>he choices or allow access
>to whom ever he choices.
>
>
>If an businessman/woman (outfitter) is willing
>to pre-invest in days and
>months of time and money
>into scouting public or private
>land and pre-buying landowner tags,
>then, after he's advertising his
>talents and successes, at what
>ever expense he choices, then
>it seems he should be
>allowed to offer his knowledge
>and expertise to whom ever
>and for what ever price
>he can garner.
>
>Personally, I'm one that wishes we
>hadn't lost our abundant mule
>deer herds, I wish we
>had three times as many
>elk as we have, I
>wish public land had more
>than a few mature male
>big games animals, I wish
>people with large amounts of
>discretionary money would just donate
>their funds to wildlife conservation
>rather than to landowners and
>outfitters. However, that's not
>reality. The reality is,
>we have way fewer big
>game on public lands than
>we have demand for.
>Ranchers need money to stay
>in business, the same as
>Walmart, Safeway, and Neiman Marcus.
> If some hunters are
>willing to pay, business men
>will grow outfitter and guiding
>companies at considerable personal financial
>risk. People, for the
>time being are still willing
>to buy "big buck pictures"
>and read someone else's story,
>advertiser still fund those magazines
>so we'll know about the
>new crossbow, the new knife,
>scope, underpants etc. But.....it
>is what it is, out
>of natural consequence, our present
>condition.
>
>We (as a group) keep buying
>the goods........................why would so many
>of us do that, if
>we didn't want too?
>
>For the foreseeable future, we can
>do thing and that is
>to maximize the supportable big
>game numbers on public lands,
>so the supply comes more
>close to meeting the demand.
> If that doesn't or
>can't happen, for whatever reason,
>the present condition will continue
>to evolve, that is, as
>the resource becomes more scarce,
>the cost to participate will
>continue to increase and those
>that are willing and able
>to pay the most will
>purchase the best opportunities.
>And the more rare the
>mature animals become, the more
>the magazines will want to
>display them. And the
>more we'll want to see
>them, hoping one day, if
>we hunt hard and smart
>one might come home with
>us, so we can tell
>the story around our camp
>fire.
>
>Diamonds are rare (for good reason
>or not), coal is abundant.
> The hype and the
>cost of each is in
>direct response to availability.
>
>Free enterprise drives the world.
>In the world market, even
>the dictator lives by the
>consequences of supply and demand,
> "cuz you cain't squeeze
>blood from a turnip"!
>
>DC
no i didn't read all the dribble but my boys are men now n ya we had fun during their youth, as i said they're men now so what opportunity do they have of even seeing a monster buck, my point is this mister politician, i never thought i would live long enough to see hunting ruined, but i was wrong, too late...