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

[dirtytough]

What about if someone sells the location of the track?

Because that is going on. The method of hunting lions is to use dogs, but doesn't it make some kind of sense for the hunter and dog owner to at least find their own lion tracks to run?

IMO/E a bit part of the challenge with lion hunting is having to locate the track, seeing how the dogs work, and having to chase them all over hells half acre to hopefully tree them.

It wouldn't be even close to the same experience if we would have been buying track locations from guys off the internet.

Maybe you don't see the difference, but I think many surely do.

My problem is the double standard. If they deem it isn't fair chase to sell a location. How can it be fair chase to guide someone to that exact location that the guide had previously scouted?

Or in the lion scenario. Everyone knows it doesn't matter if someone tells you were they saw a lion. Your chances of killing it are slim to none. But that is considered not fair chase according to the article. But shooting a cat out of a tree that you paid someone to run a cat up with the use of dogs is fair chase? Give me a brake.

 

[MtGomer]

I watched a band of rams in the unlimiteds for 6 weeks in 2016 live on or within a 1/4 mile of the same finger ridge.
The biggest was killed in that exact spot by a fellow rockslider who figured this ram out and worked his butt off and found and killed him on opener on his own. He posted the story on this forum.
I wonder what I could have got to hand that information over to somebody?
Nothing about that sounds right to me.

 

[weaver]

I watched a band of rams in the unlimiteds for 6 weeks in 2016 live on or within a 1/4 mile of the same finger ridge.
The biggest was killed in that exact spot by a fellow rockslider who figured this ram out and worked his butt off and found and killed him on opener on his own. He posted the story on this forum.
I wonder what I could have got to hand that information over to somebody?
Nothing about that sounds right to me.

But if you're an outfitter it's perfectly ok to lead a hunter back there and kill that same sheep?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

I watched a band of rams in the unlimiteds for 6 weeks in 2016 live on or within a 1/4 mile of the same finger ridge.
The biggest was killed in that exact spot by a fellow rockslider who figured this ram out and worked his butt off and found and killed him on opener on his own. He posted the story on this forum.
I wonder what I could have got to hand that information over to somebody?
Nothing about that sounds right to me.

Yet paying a guide to do the exact same thing is ok??

The only difference I see is the guy paying the guide has a far better chance of killing the ram than a guy that shows up at the trailhead with a map and good coordinates.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Yet paying a guide to do the exact same thing is ok??

The only difference I see is the guy paying the guide has a far better chance of killing the ram than a guy that shows up at the trailhead with a map and good coordinates.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

And I certainly hope that's a paper map. GPS would obviously be unfair chase, T.R. never had a gps.......

This is just the tip of the iceberg, Pandora's box..

 

[Phaseolus]

Plus, BHA at odds and fighting with the Colorado Bowhunters organization......Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Who are these hipsters anyway? Aren't they supposed to be supporting hunters?

I know there are a lot of supporters on BHA here, you might want to give that outfit a piece of your mind.

I have been giving CBA a piece of my mind. There are too many bowhunters in the woods in Colorado, a modest reduction in tags makes a great deal of sense.

 

[MtGomer]

But if you're an outfitter it's perfectly ok to lead a hunter back there and kill that same sheep?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

I totally get what you’re saying and see your point of view. I suppose the difference is that outfitters are licensed, permitted and regulated, especially on federal land. They are commercializing our wildlife, but they are paying fees to do it, maintaining trails and are following plans they’ve written up and gotten approved by the USFS about how they’ll operate. At the end of the day, none of that matters to the person that spent 20 days scouting to have a ram shot out from under him by somebody that stepped off the plane yesterday morning, so again, I do see your point of view.

I suppose, mine is that we have gone far enough with the amount of outfitting there is, without piling on and doubling down on it.

 

[mntnguide]

This isn't a diy vs outfitter arguement... outfitters will always be around as they provide a service that is needed for plenty of people, obviously if your wife wanted to harvest a lion, sounds like she would need the assistance of one.

Outfitters and guides are regulated, taxed and abide by laws and rules by both the state they operate in along with federal if under forest service permit. Outfitters have specific areas they are allowed to operate their business in as is told to them in their permitting.

The people this law is aimed at have zero permitting, no operating plans or restrictions, and are selling locations to animals within a state yet not operating as business in that state though they are making compensation from it. They are illegal outfitting, taking compensation while assisting in a hunt by providing specific details. So yes, this practice needs to be regulated and laws need to be passed in order to do that



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Bramk]

I feel like this is already going on in a much larger scale.. There is likely a large majority of us on this forum with memberships to "tools" like Gohunt, that give you very specific information for a fee. I know in several units that I hunt it gives pointers on which mountain face, or drainage, or elevation in particular seasons to be hunting. It even gives you access points, feed, camp locations, etc. All of this could be had for 150/yr. IMO, this is a good way to get everyone to hunt the same places, based on knowledge of an area. I'm not sure if this is okay or not, but I do know this isn't much different then buying info off an individual online. If passed, what happens to these big money services?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

I feel like this is already going on in a much larger scale.. There is likely a large majority of us on this forum with memberships to "tools" like Gohunt, that give you very specific information for a fee. I know in several units that I hunt it gives pointers on which mountain face, or drainage, or elevation in particular seasons to be hunting. It even gives you access points, feed, camp locations, etc. All of this could be had for 150/yr. IMO, this is a good way to get everyone to hunt the same places, based on knowledge of an area. I'm not sure if this is okay or not, but I do know this isn't much different then buying info off an individual online. If passed, what happens to these big money services?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whoa broseph, that's totes different brah...

Or maybe it should be illegal as well. Hopefully the more virtuous will let us know what's acceptable. After all Teddy didn't have gohunt.

 

[Netherman]

I have read the BHA mission statement as well as their position on fair chase. I did reach out to BHA and received a response. The representative who contacted me stated that this is a practice that they wish to curtail before it becomes established and that BHA views it as a commercialization of wildlife, ethical, and fair chase issue.

What I can't seem to understand is why the selling of scouting information is somehow different from guided hunting in terms of commercialization of wildlife, ethics, or fair chase.

From a commercialization of wildlife standpoint I think you look at it thru the lens of the North American Model of Conservation in the same way that the guiding industry is viewed. This tenant was adopted to curb commercial meat hunting and the disregard for species well being. When viewed as a means to regulated take I think it is compatible as the hunter is hunting on their own tag.

Ethics are something that I believe should be kept out of law making as they are largely "feeling" based and often in defiance of logic and reason. There are plenty of people who think rifles are unethical/unsporting and that archery is the only ethical method of hunting. Equally, there are those that see archery as archaic, imprecise/unethical, and something that leads to higher wounding loss. I think the best way to address this angle is to recognize that this is American and that our freedom of choice is something to be celebrated.

The term fair chase, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, "is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. " I have a hard time seeing how a scouting report could be seen as a greater advantage than a guided hunt.

 

[dirtytough]

This isn't a diy vs outfitter arguement... outfitters will always be around as they provide a service that is needed for plenty of people, obviously if your wife wanted to harvest a lion, sounds like she would need the assistance of one.

Outfitters and guides are regulated, taxed and abide by laws and rules by both the state they operate in along with federal if under forest service permit. Outfitters have specific areas they are allowed to operate their business in as is told to them in their permitting.

The people this law is aimed at have zero permitting, no operating plans or restrictions, and are selling locations to animals within a state yet not operating as business in that state though they are making compensation from it. They are illegal outfitting, taking compensation while assisting in a hunt by providing specific details. So yes, this practice needs to be regulated and laws need to be passed in order to do that



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Again BHA is saying its not "fair chase" and isn't "fair" to other hunters.

If it was illegal then everyone that advertises a scouting service online would be in trouble no? Again how is using a guide fair chase but using a scouting service not? I'm not saying it shouldn't be regulated or should be. I'm asking how its not fair chase like BHA states?

And if someone isn't paying taxes then they are breaking the law that is already there. We all know some guides don't pay taxes on tips. So should we make it illegal to guide then? Again breaking the law has nothing to do with whats going on.

 

[ODB]

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.

There are some oddities in the proposal for sure. For this very reason it’s strange BHA would support it. Laws should be as narrow as possible, this one is vague as hell.

 

[dirtytough]

I have read the BHA mission statement as well as their position on fair chase. I did reach out to BHA and received a response. The representative who contacted me stated that this is a practice that they wish to curtail before it becomes established and that BHA views it as a commercialization of wildlife, ethical, and fair chase issue.

What I can't seem to understand is why the selling of scouting information is somehow different from guided hunting in terms of commercialization of wildlife, ethics, or fair chase.

From a commercialization of wildlife standpoint I think you look at it thru the lens of the North American Model of Conservation in the same way that the guiding industry is viewed. This tenant was adopted to curb commercial meat hunting and the disregard for species well being. When viewed as a means to regulated take I think it is compatible as the hunter is hunting on their own tag.

Ethics are something that I believe should be kept out of law making as they are largely "feeling" based and often in defiance of logic and reason. There are plenty of people who think rifles are unethical/unsporting and that archery is the only ethical method of hunting. Equally, there are those that see archery as archaic, imprecise/unethical, and something that leads to higher wounding loss. I think the best way to address this angle is to recognize that this is American and that our freedom of choice is something to be celebrated.

The term fair chase, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, "is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. " I have a hard time seeing how a scouting report could be seen as a greater advantage than a guided hunt.

Very well written. That is my exact feeling on this entire thing.

 

[Bramk]

Whoa broseph, that's totes different brah...

Or maybe it should be illegal as well. Hopefully the more virtuous will let us know what's acceptable. After all Teddy didn't have gohunt.

Oh they will let us know haha. I can see where some of this is getting excessive, its certainly muddying the water.. it's easy to point the finger without looking at your own shenanigans.

I wonder how many of the bha shot callers use go hunt.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

The legislation exempts outfitters and guides or landowners guiding hunters on their own or leased land. “We do not want people to buy an unfair advantage,” she told the committee.

Sucks when your spot .

No such thing as "your spot" on public land.

 

[Billinsd]

So selling an animals specific location to who knows how many people on the internet is ok.

Mention a unit number on a forum and everyone loses their minds.

Makes sense.

Everyone loses their minds on both occasions.

 

[jmez]

Who here would rather share a spot with a hunter being guided by a guy that has been in there scouting and knows where the animals are located as apposed to some random guy that bought some pictures and GPS coordinates off the internet. A guy that has never set foot in the hunting area.

I'll take random dude.

 

[cnelk]

I gotta ask..... [because I really dont know]


Is this really a problem or potential problem?

So much so it takes legislative action?

 

[lak2004]

This isn't a diy vs outfitter arguement... outfitters will always be around as they provide a service that is needed for plenty of people, obviously if your wife wanted to harvest a lion, sounds like she would need the assistance of one.

Outfitters and guides are regulated, taxed and abide by laws and rules by both the state they operate in along with federal if under forest service permit. Outfitters have specific areas they are allowed to operate their business in as is told to them in their permitting.

The people this law is aimed at have zero permitting, no operating plans or restrictions, and are selling locations to animals within a state yet not operating as business in that state though they are making compensation from it. They are illegal outfitting, taking compensation while assisting in a hunt by providing specific details. So yes, this practice needs to be regulated and laws need to be passed in order to do that



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This is spot on. It is a matter of regulating a commercial activity. Outfitters have a ton of hoops to jump through to maintain their business, some Joe Schmo with an iPhone selling waypoints does not. Also, how many of you that would pay for this service and come home empty handed are going to bitch and what a refund? If there is no regulation, then your argument is a moot point. How are there any guarantees these folks aren't just sending you on a wild goose chase and taking your money?

The ethics side of it seems to me like using radios to guide someone into an animal. You are using technology to get you to a specific location where an animal was known to be (unlike GoHunt, OnX or any similar companies who are giving general information and mapping technology, nothing to do with animal location). This is against the tenant of fair chase that was posted above from Boone & Crocket, " the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals".

If you want to provide this sort of intel to a buddy, that is also different. Just like sharing game meat is legal, while selling it is not. Essentially you are claiming "ownership" of that animal (whether or not you find it). This is a bad road to go down, just like drones and other advantageous technology. Hell, trail cameras should either be banned or have a season, its ridiculous that people think they can photograph the woods and everything in it, definitely ruins my time when I see a damn camera pointed at a spot.