BHA Supporting Legislation Outlawing the Sale of Information on Big Game Locations

[wyo2track]

If Wyoming listens to all sides, doesn't just cave to the guiding lobby (like they have with the nonresident wilderness law) then signs this into law, I'll 100% support it. I doubt there will be a fair trail, but even if not, I'll 100% obey it.

In the high profile Region G & H, you can bet your ass unsolicited scouting services created quite a bit of ire within the outfitter community. If these regions weren't known for producing world-class mule deer would we even be having this discussion...I doubt it. Supply & demand and the $$$ that can be made from it. Unlike your respect for permitted outfitters and not dropping "right on top of them", most the time that don't happen in Region G & H by all. Deer season is too highly a competitive environment anymore from both public and commercial interests. Does the elk season create this kind of kaos in these same regions...nope, a 320" bull just doesn't create that kind of stir...lol. In the spring of '18, the Wyoming G&F made an argument for the ban of providing wildlife coordinates strictly based on mule deer bucks in Region G & H and those bucks having small home ranges, which, its no secret, as long as they aren't blown out, they'll be in the same general area until they are spooked.

 

[robby denning]

So, non residents were traveling to Wyoming to scout deer and sell their locations? It wasn't locals, or residents of Wyoming?

Yes nonresidents (like me) but I’m sure some residents too.

Just some history since we pulled Wyoming into this. I think, if my memory is right, the last package I did up there (H) for a paying client was in 2013. Personally I haven’t had a Wyoming tag since 2011 and I never hunted it for rifle that year as quality was so down from winter (you detectives can verify that if you don’t believe me) and about that time other scouts were setting up shop so if I got a call, I referred them out.

Since I wasn’t drawing tags myself, it hardly made sense to spend time over there. Contrary to many people’s thinking, there’s not a big profit in this, at least if you’re not solely selling big heads with Phone Skope pics, which we weren’t focusing on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mntnguide]

So, non residents were traveling to Wyoming to scout deer and sell their locations? It wasn't locals, or residents of Wyoming?

Correct. One in particular is the owner of another hunting forum website and figured out by using his website to get him Max point holders so he could draw a tag every year, then by selling locations to deer he could scout for a bigger one for himself constantly while selling off other ones he was finding. A big difference between residents and non residents in any state I think is that residents take a certain pride in learning an area or areas and take that as respect of their own and they would never want to give it away. non resident on the other hand does not have that same respect so for them selling off an area that they can't hunt every year is far easier to do than a resident doing it. I spend every weekend in the summer in the Wyoming high country scouting bucks and there is plenty of areas I could send people to and guarantee finding a shooter buck, but I never would even if I'm not going to hunt that area this year because i put the sweat equity into learning it and don't give that away

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[SoDaky]

What bullchit. When younger i spent weeks as a non-res learning western States off season. Without GPS and all the crap residents have available now. A red herring argument typical of guides and Outfitters that want 5-15 K to waddle around known but public areas year after year as if their private domain but yet want to stop some working young non res(or resident) from buying a waypoint or plan on an area that really gives them little but a chance to start learning that area better. For what?A couple hundred bucks?
Total BS.
Maybe they should outlaw marked fishing maps,Mapquest recommendations for public highways,OnX and Gaia for trails,burns,whatever.How about the UTubers selling ‘knowledge’ and pretty specific locations on their Shows And on and on and ....
Slippery slope slimed by greed more than principle.

 

[16Bore]

I remember when the best part of hunting was not knowing what’s where.....then finding something.

Everyone who got a T-Ball trophy because they didn’t piss themselves now wants a trophy animal and Instagram selfie.

 

[Comerade]

I agree 16 bore. I can't imagine taking any digital stuff when I hunt our mountains. Climb and glass, climb higher and glass again etc. Pretty simple protocol.
A cell phone won't get a signal anyways so it stays in the truck.
Just me and the mountain...kinda peaceful.

 

[16Bore]

My grandmother had this picture that said:

“I’d rather sit alone on a pumpkin and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion”

Pretty good advice.

 

[robby denning]

this article is pertinent to this discussion, maybe even to both sides of the argument. This is the real problem facing hunters in the long term IMO

As Hunting Declines, Conservation Efforts Suffer (Published 2010)

As the years slide by, fewer people seem to care about Wisconsin’s gun deer season, a tradition as ingrained in the state’s identity as beer, brats and cheese.

www.nytimes.com

 

[wyo2track]

this article is pertinent to this discussion, maybe even to both sides of the argument. This is the real problem facing hunters in the long term IMO

As Hunting Declines, Conservation Efforts Suffer (Published 2010)

As the years slide by, fewer people seem to care about Wisconsin’s gun deer season, a tradition as ingrained in the state’s identity as beer, brats and cheese.

www.nytimes.com

Its a function of supply and demand isn't it? That article is almost a decade old and I cannot believe at the increase in hunting pressure and license demand here in the western states. Seems like it grows exponentially every year. Maybe a lot of the those folks east of the Mississippi have been moving out this way looking for new opportunities since theirs have been diminished...

So what's your take on the new technologies that have made it easier to share 'scouting' information?
I mean, there's the ability to provide real-time data with todays tools. If there's cell coverage, a scouting service with ON-X maps could easily drop a pin to someone that wants to buy locations. Or with an In-Reach, coordinates can be texted directly to a paying customer. Do you think these kind of scouts would be short lived? Seems like a stretch at first, but, being real, that technology is out there and there are some that will abuse it. There's already scouting service websites out there that upload real-time information upon gathering it and put a big fat $$$$ amount next to that animals' information in certain western States. After seeing this for the first time it disgusted me when I seen those websites. I'm not a member of BHA. I'm just a guy concerned with the direction modern day technologies are taking hunting in like a lot of other guys on this forum.

 

[bluetick78]

My take on this issue is slightly different than most of those offered. I have guided in Idaho and Wyoming...ALOT. Some outfitters are great folks and some are not, but most of them will support legislation that will make their jobs easier, more lucrative, and decrease perceived competition. The root cause of this issue is not the "selling of waypoints", it is about game management. If our agencies in different Western states were managing the herds to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, then people purchasing a blue dot on a map wouldn't matter a bit. Instead, the game is perceived by the State agencies as a naturally - occurring revenue stream, and their objective is to define how many can be sold and killed before the species stops perpetuating itself. Truth is, these animals and their habitat are an extremely finite resource, yet the interest in paying to harvest them is nearly infinite. So before we all go bashing every way of killing and hunting these animals, take two steps back and stare at the big picture for a while. If there were less animals harvested and less predators preying on these animals, then we'd have more of them. Unfortunately, in that scenario, less people would be allowed a chance to harvest one...creating, yet again, another hot issue in the hunting community. I don't have a problem with people that have legally obtained a chance to harvest an animal using technology to help them. Most of us use ONX, Google Earth, etc. But if that technology makes people into a more efficient predator, then it's the responsibility of our agencies to curb that success by limiting the technology or by limiting how many opportunities can be sold.

 

[robby denning]

Its a function of supply and demand isn't it? That article is almost a decade old and I cannot believe at the increase in hunting pressure and license demand here in the western states. Seems like it grows exponentially every year. Maybe a lot of the those folks east of the Mississippi have been moving out this way looking for new opportunities since theirs have been diminished...

So what's your take on the new technologies that have made it easier to share 'scouting' information?
I mean, there's the ability to provide real-time data with todays tools. If there's cell coverage, a scouting service with ON-X maps could easily drop a pin to someone that wants to buy locations. Or with an In-Reach, coordinates can be texted directly to a paying customer. Do you think these kind of scouts would be short lived? Seems like a stretch at first, but, being real, that technology is out there and there are some that will abuse it. There's already scouting service websites out there that upload real-time information upon gathering it and put a big fat $$$$ amount next to that animals' information in certain western States. After seeing this for the first time it disgusted me when I seen those websites. I'm not a member of BHA. I'm just a guy concerned with the direction modern day technologies are taking hunting in like a lot of other guys on this forum.

My take is that it technology certainly affects hunting. And probably negatively in most ways. That’s why I said earlier, if Wyoming bans the practice, then I will obey. I’m fully ready to except limitations on technology. I spent all weekend working with a muzzleloader that can only shoot conical‘s and caps because I want to be in compliance with Idaho laws. I’m not trying to say technology is good or bad, it just has to be managed.

And even if the article is 10 years old, it still is more pertinent today. We lost 2 million hunters in the last decade according to reliable sources. That is not a good thing. Even if they’re just rabbit hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[16Bore]

I’d be curious to see exactly what numbers are dwindling. Are guys jumping in then jumping out? Hunting and a short attention span don’t quite mix. Everyone wants it now and feels entitled. Just look at the threads...

“Whats the best_______”
“Where do you ________”

So on and so on.

The bigger picture is following the money. The “industry” is a beast to be fed. There’s very little, if any, obsolescence in firearms and most of the hunting gear out there. The gear I had 25 years ago works just as well today. Fact. Animals are not harder to shoot.

The “industry” has convinced many that if they don’t have the new “it”, then they will fail.
We have a generation of chicken shits that don’t realize failure is the path to success and want it all now.

Google is not experience.

 

[ODB]

I’d be curious to see exactly what numbers are dwindling. Are guys jumping in then jumping out? Hunting and a short attention span don’t quite mix. Everyone wants it now and feels entitled. Just look at the threads...

“Whats the best_______”
“Where do you ________”

So on and so on.

The bigger picture is following the money. The “industry” is a beast to be fed. There’s very little, if any, obsolescence in firearms and most of the hunting gear out there. The gear I had 25 years ago works just as well today. Fact. Animals are not harder to shoot.

The “industry” has convinced many that if they don’t have the new “it”, then they will fail.
We have a generation of chicken shits that don’t realize failure is the path to success and want it all now.

Google is not experience.

Alright now, stop making sense.

 

[Gobbler36]

o god not another hunting is declining article and we gotta sell everything under the sun to help out those poor poor new hunters so its easy so they stick around....... geez if i have to read one of those again in reference to products being sold to save hunting im gonna puke. this narrative from the hunting industry is over played and imo has nothing to do with helping hunting.

 

[Gobbler36]

My take is that it technology certainly affects hunting. And probably negatively in most ways. That’s why I said earlier, if Wyoming bans the practice, then I will obey. I’m fully ready to except limitations on technology. I spent all weekend working with a muzzleloader that can only shoot conical‘s and caps because I want to be in compliance with Idaho laws. I’m not trying to say technology is good or bad, it just has to be managed.

And even if the article is 10 years old, it still is more pertinent today. We lost 2 million hunters in the last decade according to reliable sources. That is not a good thing. Even if they’re just rabbit hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

idk some see it as bad thing, but i dont
some could argue for it being a good thing. look at how hard it is to obtain some tags now where 20 years ago some of those used to be general hunts all because more and more people want the tags. for people that are here to stay declining numbers might be the best news yet, even if it means paying more to support the system and im ok with that.

 

[Comerade]

In British Columbia, non resident Canadians must have a guide to hunt in this province. Guide/ Outfitters have dedicated areas and they don't overlap. Resident hunters are not limited by commercial interests, in fact the Outfitters keep the trails open for themselves and resident hunters.
I belong to BHA here and I I know outfitters that do also.

 

[16Bore]

o god not another hunting is declining article and we gotta sell everything under the sun to help out those poor poor new hunters so its easy so they stick around....... geez if i have to read one of those again in reference to products being sold to save hunting im gonna puke. this narrative from the hunting industry is over played and imo has nothing to do with helping hunting.

They should just make video games that squirt out beef jerky if you win. Of course, someone would want to google cheat codes for that too.

Here’s my dream hunt:

Fly somewhere, go to Walmart and buy all my gear, get dropped off in the middle of nowhere for 5 days and hunt. Then sell all the shit on Craigslist and fly back home.

Full cooler or empty. Wouldn’t matter.

 

[bigdesert10]

My take on this issue is slightly different than most of those offered. I have guided in Idaho and Wyoming...ALOT. Some outfitters are great folks and some are not, but most of them will support legislation that will make their jobs easier, more lucrative, and decrease perceived competition. The root cause of this issue is not the "selling of waypoints", it is about game management. If our agencies in different Western states were managing the herds to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, then people purchasing a blue dot on a map wouldn't matter a bit. Instead, the game is perceived by the State agencies as a naturally - occurring revenue stream, and their objective is to define how many can be sold and killed before the species stops perpetuating itself. Truth is, these animals and their habitat are an extremely finite resource, yet the interest in paying to harvest them is nearly infinite. So before we all go bashing every way of killing and hunting these animals, take two steps back and stare at the big picture for a while. If there were less animals harvested and less predators preying on these animals, then we'd have more of them. Unfortunately, in that scenario, less people would be allowed a chance to harvest one...creating, yet again, another hot issue in the hunting community. I don't have a problem with people that have legally obtained a chance to harvest an animal using technology to help them. Most of us use ONX, Google Earth, etc. But if that technology makes people into a more efficient predator, then it's the responsibility of our agencies to curb that success by limiting the technology or by limiting how many opportunities can be sold.

I go back to the oft-quoted Aldo Leopold statement about how if you keep improving the pump but don't improve the well, the well runs dry at some point. We can only do so much to offset environmental factors that affect game populations. So more management is focused on how many animals are taken in hunts. The only ways to control that are to reduce opportunity, like you mentioned, or reduce efficacy (i.e. success rates). When faced with the decision between hunting less, or hunting the same amount, but with certain limitations on equipment, I think most hunters would choose the latter.

 

[16Bore]

Fewer hunters keeps more water in the well too.

More hunters = more revenue = higher demand/stress on animal populations = more hunting competition = higher (need) cost of management

Fewer hunters = less revenue = lower demand/dress on animal populations = less competition = lower (need) cost of management.

The only losers with fewer hunters seems to be the ones driving for an increase.....the manufactures of hunting crap, government agencies, and groups like BHA.

I’d rather the woods not look like a pumpkin patch myself.

 

[robby denning]

Fewer hunters keeps more water in the well too.

More hunters = more revenue = higher demand/stress on animal populations = more hunting competition = higher (need) cost of management

Fewer hunters = less revenue = lower demand/dress on animal populations = less competition = lower (need) cost of management.

The only losers with fewer hunters seems to be the ones driving for an increase.....the manufactures of hunting crap, government agencies, and groups like BHA.

I’d rather the woods not look like a pumpkin patch myself.

Man, I appreciate your viewpoints and always read and consider what you have to say. But I gotta disagree that the only losers with fewer hunters are those listed. I firmly believe, and it’s been said by others in this thread, that if we keep losing hunters, we’re going to lose hunting.