Changing attitude about pay to hunt ?

[mnaj_springer]

On topic: Who ma I to care how others spend their time and money? If a guy wants to pay for hunt, so be it. My brother in law does it every year and from the video it looks super fun. They kill a lot of birds.

That being said, I might do it once, but I prefer hunting wild birds by myself. But to each his own.

 

[Lazer-UPH]

Alright - I did some house cleaning - this post got out of control. I will continue to clean it as I thought it was a good read there for a bit until a few people started to ruin it. I did not read everything, if I saw anything that was remotely past the line or contained the fwd message of someone else's post it got removed. I apologize and there are no hard feelings, we just try to keep this site clean of the drama and bs.

 

[Goosemaster]

Yea I have tried hunting as a group too but my experience has been the same as yours. That has not worked out for he reasons you mentioned or numerous other reasons. Part of the reason I enjoy pheasant hunting is solitude and quiet. That has gone out the window. I finally had enough of it and bit the bullett.

I like to hunt with people , who are not trying to compete for the most birds, and just enjoy being out there, weather they get anything, or not.

 

[Goosemaster]

Goosemaster,
I'm curious to know if roles were reversed and you were a private land owner who's
money ,time and efforts created an environment that allowed bird numbers to flourish and offers of financial compensation came your way would you still consider "commercial hunting" the bad guy ?

Ok- I would take donations. I would not build a lodge. I would not have these so called guides. I would not even speak to an outfitter.If a guy wanted to help me on the farm, I would let him hunt.I would not charge 200 dollars a day!!!That my friends,is highway robbery.

 

[Crossing shot]

My brother-in-law got to hunt on an Oklahoma farm last year. This summer he will put a new door on the farmer's house. He owes me. I started him hunting. He can do my chores. Like to shoot a scaled quail. Hope his brush piles didn't burn.

 

[haymaker]

Ok- I would take donations. I would not build a lodge. I would not have these so called guides. I would not even speak to an outfitter.If a guy wanted to help me on the farm, I would let him hunt.I would not charge 200 dollars a day!!!That my friends,is highway robbery.

How is it highway robbery if the guy is willing to pay that price? If you are willing to pay $10 for a loaf of bread because you enjoy that kind of bread does that become robbery when you could have bought a loaf for half that? If the grocer can get $10 dollars loaf why would he sell it for less. The market sets the price. If I double my rate I would probably have some openings that won't get filled. If I can fill my openings at my current price, why would I lower them?

 

[jonnyB]

Alright - I did some house cleaning - this post got out of control. I will continue to clean it as I thought it was a good read there for a bit until a few people started to ruin it. I did not read everything, if I saw anything that was remotely past the line or contained the fwd message of someone else's post it got removed. I apologize and there are no hard feelings, we just try to keep this site clean of the drama and bs.

Thanks...it was getting out of hand and certainly not on subject. While we all like to enjoy "free speech", perhaps there are boundaries that all of us could employ.

 

[Montana Husker]

How is it highway robbery if the guy is willing to pay that price? If you are willing to pay $10 for a loaf of bread because you enjoy that kind of bread does that become robbery when you could have bought a loaf for half that? If the grocer can get $10 dollars loaf why would he sell it for less. The market sets the price. If I double my rate I would probably have some openings that won't get filled. If I can fill my openings at my current price, why would I lower them?

Exactly. Heck how many people spend $100 to rent a little white cart and chase a little white ball around? How many here hunt for subsistence? Almost all I would bet do it for recreation. It is all about priorities, everyone's are different.

 

[Dakotazeb]

How is it highway robbery if the guy is willing to pay that price? If you are willing to pay $10 for a loaf of bread because you enjoy that kind of bread does that become robbery when you could have bought a loaf for half that? If the grocer can get $10 dollars loaf why would he sell it for less. The market sets the price. If I double my rate I would probably have some openings that won't get filled. If I can fill my openings at my current price, why would I lower them?

Dennis, I agree 100%. It's basic economics. Supply and demand. It seems some on this site bash South Dakota because of the high pay to hunt fees. But for the most part it's the non-residents that are the ones paying the highest fees. As long as they are willing to pay why would you lower your fees. Do I like it, heck no. I've virtually lost all the private land I use to hunt because it all became pay to hunt. But it's the way it is.

 

[jonnyB]

Dennis, I agree 100%. It's basic economics. Supply and demand. It seems some on this site bash South Dakota because of the high pay to hunt fees. But for the most part it's the non-residents that are the ones paying the highest fees. As long as they are willing to pay why would you lower your fees. Do I like it, heck no. I've virtually lost all the private land I use to hunt because it all became pay to hunt. But it's the way it is.

Good summary, George. I'm happy to pay the land owner to keep improving his land for pheasants. Where we hunt, he is continually setting aside parcels for food and cover - there's a cost to doing this for him...

I like the comparison to pay-to-golf written by another. Check out golf fees and a cart - 18 holes for $100. Not every course, but several are at that price point. It's interesting to note that golf has become so expensive that people are turning away from the sport...

 

[UGUIDE]

When I was younger I was certainly in the camp where "I did not get it". Once you own and start paying bills I got a quick education in economics 101.

The biggest gaps in understanding is when you don't have landowner or producer perspectives.

I keep thinking of the Monsanto shareholder that wants their ROI. It all comes from the acres so they compete right up there with everything else for land. And probably the biggest single force of all.

Could be another thread called "The impact of Monsanto Stock Holders on Commercial Hunting".

 

[PheasantWhisperer]

Good summary, George. I'm happy to pay the land owner to keep improving his land for pheasants. Where we hunt, he is continually setting aside parcels for food and cover - there's a cost to doing this for him...

I like the comparison to pay-to-golf written by another. Check out golf fees and a cart - 18 holes for $100. Not every course, but several are at that price point. It's interesting to note that golf has become so expensive that people are turning away from the sport...

I agree it is a really good comparison. A few of us teachers used to work at a golf course in the summers. The amount of fertilizer and weed control and the constant mowing of the place alone is an outstanding figure. The course we worked at charged $70 for 18 holes and $10 for a cart. It slowly lost money over about a 5 year period. Now they have upped their daily rates but lowered their membership rates. So now they have more members and doing a little better. Point being, it costs a lot to keep a golf course running and looking good. A public course anyway. The big country clubs that charge out the butt for membership, well they look gorgeous. And if there are houses built on the course it does even better. May not look as pristine but it keeps it in business.

 

[haymaker]

Dennis, I agree 100%. It's basic economics. Supply and demand. It seems some on this site bash South Dakota because of the high pay to hunt fees. But for the most part it's the non-residents that are the ones paying the highest fees. As long as they are willing to pay why would you lower your fees. Do I like it, heck no. I've virtually lost all the private land I use to hunt because it all became pay to hunt. But it's the way it is.

With the price of commodities right now this is one thing that helps a little. I heard a market advisor on the radio say that farmers can buy corn cheaper than they can raise it. In my neighborhood I am the only one that has any habitat for nesting. If I was not getting paid for hunting there would not less nesting cover.

 

[david0311]

David0311

And because of your commitment to wildlife habitat--everyone around benefits--

Thank you and others that do as well--:cheers:

 

[Miforester]

I agree with you Dennis, we have similar thing here in Michigan with guided float trips for trout. Granted the trips are still on public waterways but the market sets the price for the trip. I have several buddies who guide and they are booked solid during the peak season. From the client perspective it is just as much about the experience as it is the activity as 99 percent of the fish caught are released. It is the same for paying to hunt out west there is an experience factor that goes with the hunt. My first trip to SD was not thru an outfitter but a guy who would take us to his property and others, he let us use his home for lodging and his price was dirt cheap and we left him with a good tip. Would I like to treat myself to a hunt on Dennis' or UGUIDES operation sure I would but I have to live within my means and I just cant swing it at this point in time. My dream when I started my career in wildlife management was to have an operation like theirs, however, land values sky rocketed and I realized just how little resource professional make. Is it still a dream yes, but only when I win the lotto. I have the upmost respect for guys who manage the resource for multiple uses and including making a living doing so.

I could easily take my money I spend out west and go to a game farm in lower Michigan and kill more birds, but where is the fun in that?! We all pay to play thru licenses, guns, shells, gifts to landowners and some can do the all inclusive hunt. Hunting on non crep or wia lands for me is paying to play cause I have to by bloody expensive non-toxic shell. It is all a matter of perspective and what a hunter is willing to do.

It is a shame that we have so many who what to trash the way a person hunts, or choice of dog or whatever within our own hunting fraternity. We need to be a strong solidified voice standing together to build our passion of hunting with others and to fend off the anti's. Reading how this post went in the toilet was disgusting and I'm glad it was cleaned up cause it is that type of petty bickering that the anti groups love to feed on. Ok I'm off my soap box sorry for the rant. Just my 2 cents on this and that.

 

[Dami0101]

The problem with the golf analogy is that golf has always been pay to play, you've never had a mix of public courses, surrounded by private courses that you used to also be able to play for free if all you did was ask but now have to pay to play. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but there is a difference. Maybe this is just me being nitpicky...

I guess I also don't consider things like licenses, ammo, guns, food, or gas as being part of pay to play, these are the tools you need to participate. If I'm playing hockey, buying a stick isn't paying to play because I can't play without it, paying an ice rink for time is pay to play.

Having said that, I think the point that SMO was making about private land not helping public land is that you can build all the wonderful habitat you want and increase the population 1000% on that private land, but unless that private land is bordered by public land, the birds from there aren't making it to the public land. Even if it is bordered by public land, while a few of the birds from the private land may make it over to the public, if the actual habitat of the public land isn't improved so that it can support more birds or entice them to stay then the private land isn't really helping the public land. To me it's like fish stocking, if I have a lake/pond on my property that I spend money to improve and stock with fish and that pond is connected to other lakes around it. If none of those lakes are available to the public then it hasn't helped the public lakes in the area, but even if one of those lakes is available to the public, if that lake isn't setup to support fish, then you'll only find a marginal improvement in the fishing on the lake.

I think the concern, as mentioned already by a few people, is that by going to down the pay to play path, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by turning the sport into one where only those who can pay get to play. But at the end of the day, regardless of if it's right or wrong, it's up to the individual to determine how much, if any, they are willing to pay, they just need to be aware of the consequences.

 

[UGUIDE]

Having said that, I think the point SMO was making about private land not helping public land is that you can build all the wonderful habitat you want and increase the population 1000% on that private land, but unless that private land is bordered by public land, the birds from there aren't making it to the public land. Even if it is bordered by public land, while a few of the birds from the private land may make it over to the public, if the actual habitat of the public land isn't improved so that it can support more birds or entice them to stay then the private land isn't really helping the public land.

going to down the pay to play path, we are shooting ourselves in the foot

I was talking with the head guy at SD GFP and he came right out and said their philosophy is driven by the fact that the majority of land in the state is privately owned and what happens there determines what happens on public land.

Another point to consider is in the case of Iowa where none of the public lands changed much over the years but the bird numbers did. All I hunted was public lands in Iowa and did very well. If nothing changed on public lands why would anything be different.

Have you noticed that they are building a lot more really really nice golf courses these days? Why? Because people want it and are willing to pay. You can still get 9 holes for $17 at the local joint but can also go a few miles away and fork out $120 for 18. It's a different experience.

 

[Dami0101]

I was talking with the head guy at SD GFP and he came right out and said their philosophy is driven by the fact that the majority of land in the state is privately owned and what happens there determines what happens on public land.

Another point to consider is in the case of Iowa where none of the public lands changed much over the years but the bird numbers did. All I hunted was public lands in Iowa and did very well. If nothing changed on public lands why would anything be different.

Have you noticed that they are building a lot more really really nice golf courses these days? Why? Because people want it and are willing to pay. You can still get 9 holes for $17 at the local joint but can also go a few miles away and fork out $120 for 18. It's a different experience.

What is their philosophy and how does what's happening on private land determine what happens on public? Is their argument something along lines of they don't need to develop public lands if they are near private because the birds will move there?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Iowa comment? Seems like there are lots of possible reasons for why bird numbers would be down even without public land changing, so sorry but I'm not seeing where I'm supposed to go with that.

And no, I haven't noticed them building more courses, I've noticed more and more courses closing down and nearly every metric seems to indicate a decline in the sport. Once again, while similar, I still think the golf vs. pay to hunt analogy isn't comp[letely accurate. I can pay my $17 for nine holes and while I'm won't be teeing off from pristine tee boxes, hitting out of white sand bunkers, and putting on bent grass greens, I'm still going to get to play, to hit that little white ball into the cup, paying $125 a round just gives me a nicer course to do this on.

Pay to hunt vs public hunting is a different beast. There's not guarantee that when I walk into that WMA that there's a bird within 10 miles, I might just be going for a walk with my gun that instead of hunting pheasants. I'd actually be curious to know how many of the WMA's in MN that are listed as being managed for pheasants actually have even one pheasant on them, guess I'll find out this fall.

I'm not judging those that pay to hunt because they want a better shot at or a guarantee of birds, if I ever want to hunt with my dad it will have to be a pay to hunt situation due to his health and age. I'm just saying I'm in the camp that doesn't believe private habitat helps public habitat if they aren't bordering and that there is a fear amongst some of where starting down the pay to hunt path ends.

 

[Crossing shot]

Every time Missouri gets a jump in quail numbers, we have a severe winter and have to start over. The majority of land is public and not managed for wildlife, the public land becomes isolated. Takes a long time to rebuild populations.

In the old days, there was no isolation. There were upland bird highways. Birds could travel around at will. Repopulate areas hit by natural disasters. Most towns were connected by these quail highways. Theses quail highways were railroad right-of-ways.

 

[Stonebroke]

My thoughts on the topic (for what they're worth ). A community is about people coming together to help each other. There are volunteer fire departments, ambulance crews, as well as little league coaches, soccer coaches, and all sorts of volunteers in the communities throughout "Pheasant Country".. In our area the vast majority of volunteers are not farmers and ranchers as they live too far from town to be able to help. When there is a fire or the ambulance is needed, it's mostly people in our near town who respond......business owners, law enforcement personnel, etc.

Our economy is based around agriculture. Our town wouldn't exist if it wasn't for farming and ranching, but "one hand washes the other", as the old saying goes. Without the community farmers and ranchers wouldn't have the teachers and schools for their children. They wouldn't have the local grocery store, clinic, and other businesses that they utilize every day. They wouldn't have the county road dept. to maintain the roads from their farms and ranches to town, etc., etc., etc.,

Is it really too much for those of us in the communities to ask to hunt without paying? Only a very few are fortunate to be born into a farming or ranching family. The only way to get into farming or ranching these days is to be born into it, marry into it, or win the lottery.

As everyone knows, the landowners do not own the game on their land. We pay through our licenses to support the Fish and Game departments that protect the wildlife. If it were not for our laws, fish and game departments, etc. there probably be no pheasants and other game (or very little). This will be a never ending debate. There is no good answer. Landowners control their land and under our current laws they have every right to charge to hunt if they choose to.

Several years ago I coached little league baseball. A local farmer had a son who played. I picked up his son for practice and games and brought him home afterwards as he lived relatively close to us. I did this for several years as I went from coaching Little League to Babe Ruth. When I asked for permission to hunt on their property, I was denied. I never said a word, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me. It was more important to me to see that their son had a chance to play baseball than it was to be able to hunt on their property....

Some farmers and ranchers struggle financially, but not many. The ones around here do very, very well. Very few need the few extra bucks from either charging to hunt or leasing their land out...