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

[ODB]

No tap dancing here.

1. A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are the inputs in the production of other goods or services. The commodity here, is the location, identified by a GPS number. There is no service provided by the commodity trader.

2. Again, whether or not someone works just as hard as the guided client is irrelevant. Wildlife are held in trust for you and I. Wildlife are not free market products that can be bought and sold on the free market. It's axiomatic federal (and state) wildlife law.

The guide also has a commodity, the location he guides, etc., that is based on his experience, otherwise what would be the benefit of the guide? The guy who generates a dot has also done his service in finding the dot- that’s what you are actually paying for; his leg work - same as the guide. At the end of the day, the difference is slight.

It is most definitely a tap dance because in BOTH instances the intended goal of the buyer is the same: to shoot an animal that is held in public trust for the much vaunted “you and I.”

And I agree, wildlife is not free market, which is why I’m against selling antlers as a business. The demand pull of making a profit on a managed population of animals can and does have consequences. Frankly, I’ve been concerned about the entire hunting “industry” and its neverending onslaught of crap...

 

[Justin Crossley]

I think you all are missing the point in this one. The problem isn't selling a spot to only one person, you're correct in that is no different than a guide. The problem is selling a spot to anyone and everyone. If services are collecting spots from people and then selling them to groups of people all of the sudden those spots are ruined. In my opinion it has nothing to do with fair chase and everything to do with ruining good hunting grounds by selling that information to every lazy ass with an internet connection.

Good in bha and Montana for stopping this before it starts.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Just like what Eastmans and Huntinfool do?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I get to watch many avid BHA members on you tube talk about how great their purchased hunt info is from the services they are being sponsored by. So, to hear this is truly a surprise. I really have no valid opinion on it either way then to simply say if the BHA spent as much time working on public land hunting access as their mission statement suggests, versus political campaigns that divide hunters, we'd all be better off.

 

[ODB]

Outfitting and guiding is heavily regulated since they have some elevated privileges on public land and facilitate the consumption of natural resources. They pay the land managers and closely monitor their impact on the system. I will repeat the fact the such activities are few and exclusive for a given area.

Chumps selling Garmin pins on Facebook are only so noble in fantasy.

You didn’t answer the fair chase question. Heavy regulation does not equal fair chase.

 

[ODB]

Just like what Eastmans and Huntinfool do?

And in a way, ONx maps. They are selling you the locations of public land.

 

[Rich M]

Welcome to technology fellas. There are no secrets anymore.

OnX is awesome, Rokslide helps folks figure out how to do stuff and gives info, eastmans, etc..

 

[chasewild]

Kind of like shooting a cat out of a tree?

I pay a guide $9k, follow him to a tree that his dogs ran an animal up, shoot the cat out of the tree and call it fair chase. I did absolutely nothing except open my check book, go for a walk that someone else made the decisions on, and shoot a cat that is in a tree at 25 yards? I am a fair chase hunter in that scenario.

But if I paid $1k for the location of where someone had seen the cat a month ago, hiked in there, spotted it, and killed it thats not fair chase?

Yep BHA is full of it on this one.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

The outfitter trained the dogs, trained himself, invests in the hunt and, therefore, is able to provide a service. You didn't train the dogs, or train the houndsmen so you need his service.

 

[chasewild]

The guide also has a commodity, the location he guides, etc., that is based on his experience, otherwise what would be the benefit of the guide? The guy who generates a dot has also done his service in finding the dot- that’s what you are actually paying for; his leg work - same as the guide. At the end of the day, the difference is slight.

It is most definitely a tap dance because in BOTH instances the intended goal of the buyer is the same: to shoot an animal that is held in public trust for the much vaunted “you and I.”

And I agree, wildlife is not free market, which is why I’m against selling antlers as a business. The demand pull of making a profit on a managed population of animals can and does have consequences. Frankly, I’ve been concerned about the entire hunting “industry” and its neverending onslaught of crap...

Seriously.....

The intended goal has no bearing on whether something is a commodity or a service. What you purchase with your hard earned dollars is a set of numbers in one scenario AND IF IT RESULTS IN A KILL, you've effectively reduced that animal to a free market product.

The fact that not EVERY gps coordinate will result in a kill does not mean that in some instances, the animal will become a free market element.

Over and out on this one.

 

[FURMAN]

I personally feel this is the equivalent to a Republican running as an independent which only increases the odds of a Democrat winning the election. We do not need anymore division amongst us. A guide service I use also sells scouting packages. Most guys who buy them do so because they can't or won't put in the time. When they arrive to use the information they are still unwilling to or can't put in the effort. In the end they just waste their money. I am not saying some don't take full use of it and kill animals. I see it no differently than paying a guide. It seems to me some of these organizations are doing just as much, if not more, harm than good. I did not see it at first but is becoming clear.

 

[dirtytough]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

The outfitter trained the dogs, trained himself, invests in the hunt and, therefore, is able to provide a service. You didn't train the dogs, or train the houndsmen so you need his service.

You definitely got through to me this time. It is definitely fair chase for me to pay $9k and be led around by the hand to shoot a cat out of a tree. But it is not to pay $1k for the info on where someone saw that cat and actually hunt it.

I understand now. Makes total sense. I can't believe I was so dense to think it would be fair for the cat if someone saw it a month before and sold me its location. I better stick to shooting cats out of a tree that a dog ran up there because that is way more fair for the animal.

smh

 

[handwerk]

I feel OnX is a great hunting tool , a modern mapping system helping us find our way, stay safe and hunt where we belong. Beyond that I have no use for much further technology, I prefer to enjoy the process, doing DIY hunts with family and friends, bringing home meat and memories are more important then those couple extra inches of horns.
The people we're talking about buying this kind of info are likely not concerned with the process of fair hunting, just the end results and they'll do what it takes to get them, sad to say but it's gotten to the point it may make sense for more rules to guide those without the priorities some of us care so deeply about.

 

[Beendare]

This is a non issue, IMO. I would much rather see BHA work with the Colorado bowhunters..instead of working against them or this silly stuff.

So if I tell a buddy what I saw in the Henry mtns over lunch- now I'm a criminal?

Its typical social media, a guy giving advice on elk hunting....and he has never hunted elk. There is going to be so much noise and bad advice on this........guys full of malarky trying to make a buck.........it will be self regulating. PT Barnum was right...but folks will figure this out quick.

 

[bowieknife50]

I have yet to see anywhere near a convincing argument that paying for the location of an animal from a guide that takes you to the spot is different than paying for the location of an animal where you get yourself to that spot.

How is it that a guide fee does not reduce the animal to a market price but a location fee does?

Are the tags for a certain unit going to magically increase because a GPS coordinate in that unit is for sale? If not I don't see how we can be worried this will affect animals at a population level.

I would think either guide or scout service would look bad to the public. Either way hunters are just paying to find their animal.

I'm still open to arguments from the other side but you're going to need a lot more logical consistency to sway me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

As much as you talk chit about BHA, one would think you at least looked into their issues statement. Tough read I guess when the ax grinding takes up all your time.

100% in their wheelhouse:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/fair_chase

So when are they planning on supporting laws against other items that give sportsmen "unfair advantages"? Since obviously it's not limited to drones.

Range finders? Magnified optics? GPS? Apps such as OnX? Crossbows? Compound bows? Mechanical releases? Semi automatics? Or are those ok because the lib bha members like you already use them?

Let me guess, you dont speak for bha so you cant say. Well bha wont say either, just like they wont release detailed financial statements like rmef does.

I'm actually against paying for scouting, but I'm against bha more. I certainly hope you scout for people and point them in the right direction (or lead them by the hand) free of charge.........

 

[HuntHarder]

Guide services reach a very small amount of people each year. The internet has a massive audience. I do not see why any hunter would not want to prevent all these sites from popping up. Sucks when your spot ends up on their website and the amount of hunting pressure increases 10 fold. Let the lazy basterds do their own scouting and find their own animals. Profiting off of the location of animals is chicken shit. This happens on almost every auction tag where finders fees are paid.

 

[ohoopee]

Wouldn't such a ban violate interstate commerce? Also, how would a state ban affect federal properties?

 

[ODB]

I have yet to see anywhere near a convincing argument that paying for the location of an animal from a guide that takes you to the spot is different than paying for the location of an animal where you get yourself to that spot.

How is it that a guide fee does not reduce the animal to a market price but a location fee does?

Are the tags for a certain unit going to magically increase because a GPS coordinate in that unit is for sale? If not I don't see how we can be worried this will affect animals at a population level.

I would think either guide or scout service would look bad to the public. Either way hunters are just paying to find their animal.

I'm still open to arguments from the other side but you're going to need a lot more logical consistency to sway me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. An unintended consequence of this type of legislation is what happens next. Because the realistic line between these two issues blurs into almost nothing, to those outside the realm, they are the same. So, once you have a law that says activity A is illegal, you’ll have some genius apply the theory that, “If two separate things are both equal to a third thing, then those things themselves are equal.” Then, activity B, which was at one time supported by those who were against activity A becomes illegal because people will argue A and B are, at the end of the day, not materially (not even semantically) different enough to warrant a distinction. Then, bye bye paid outfitters.

You really have to think like the enemy in these circumstances. An example: go read about how Connecticut wants a 50% tax on ammo..they likened this tax to the cigarette tax that was enacted to help curb smoking and death. Again, if two separate things are equal to a third thing, those two things are themselves equal. In that case smoking (A) lead to deaths and ammo (B) lead to deaths, thus to CT, A and B are equal and should be taxed to offset the cost of mitigating deaths from both. This is a real life example that is happening right now.

If anyone wants to bury their head in the sand and think that no one is out there connecting dots like this to move the needle in their direction, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Trial153]

Up for auction: trophy rocky mounatin elk. Public land, OTC unit. The winner will be provided with Locations via GPS cordinates, up to date picture confrontation with GPS embedded locations. Parking locations and
Spotting locations and specific information that will help you harvest this trophy of a life time.
Starting bid 4250

 

[whereisfredbeckey]

I understand the concern about new digital tools, but I think the fundamental issue this rule is designed to address has been around a while.

Putting aside the ethics, I think the language in the bill is a bit confusing and would both be hard to implement as well as have (probably) unintended consequences. BTW, this applies to game animals as well as trophy animals so it isn't just about antlers.

SB 127

I'm puzzled over a few parts:

1. The language in Section 1 seems, at first, to apply to any game or trophy animal and then concludes by talking about a specific animal. So, it isn't clear whether someone giving advice about a general area "...yep, saw a few deer over in that canyon...sure, I'll mark a square for you..." would be violating the rule.

2. What exactly is the issue with 'advertising' in the first section? (I'm not sure if it is defined term in Montana law.) As written it stands separate from remuneration. I can see that any company helping you book a hunt would violate that part since they would likely show photos of animals and probably maps of the area you would hunt...and they aren't exempted from the rule. Also, I can see someone being in violation if they posted a scouting photo on-line.

3. Section 4(b) defines resident landowner activities in a unique way. As stated it says that if you are a resident (say you own a house in town) and lease a [different] property that you hunt you are exempt. More or less you are treated as an outfitter/guide from where I sit.

4. The exemption on outfitters and guides [Section 4(c)] seems to only apply if they are guiding a non-resident. So, if you are a resident and hire a guide or outfitter they can't mark a map for you? But, they could is you were a non-resident? I'm not sure I get the distinction on why one is okay but the other isn't.

Maybe someone who owns a scouting service can chime in and explain what they think about SB 127.

 

[MtGomer]

People that would buy or sell a location are certifiable dipshits, no doubt.
But I’d like to see BHA dedicate their time to something more meaningful, like sue one of the dozens of landowners illegally blocking public roads or trails that lead to our public lands.
A fraction of the $250k they spent on TV commercials against Ryan Zinke could have went a long way to access issues that would directly benefit the members.
Is BHA taking a position on Phillips (D-Bozeman) bill to ban wolf hunting in Montana hunting districts 313 and 316, in the Beartooth Wilderness(our public land)?
I’m genuinely asking, as I dont know. Anybody?