I'm not going to argue semantics with you. He asked for opinions and I gave mine. When you start making the decisions around here, let me know, and then maybe I'll concern myself with your view of my opinion.
Feedback on Potenital Resources
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
B-Fin,
Is it somehow more noble in your eyes of the if a hunter goes and spends 16 hours building fence to secure access to a ranch than if a guy works 2 more Saturday's turning wrenches at the Garage he works to make overtime and be able to have an extra $400 to spend on a Trespass Fee?
Somehow I think there is this false sense of virtue to those who pretend to like ranchers and buy them a ham at Christmas, a bottle of Crown Royal and then stop by in August and pretend to build fence and enjoy the rancher's company.
BuzzH
Well-known member
JoseCuervo,
Absolutely there is a difference, and only a moron wouldnt see and acknowledge that difference.
THE FEES ARE NOT MANDATORY and ANY hunter, regardless of the thickness of their wallets, and whether or not they donate a single penny to access yes, are still allowed to hunt BMA or Access Yes areas in the respective states. Nobody has to butter up a landowner or buck a single bale to gain access either. Its also a voluntary program on the part of the landowners.
Landowners can deal directly with the WYG&F and MTFWP and have wardens on speed-dial to address any issues. There are access coordinators that the landowners can deal with directly as well. Signs, rules, concerns, etc. are all negotiated with the coordinators, really simplifies and streamlines the access process. Landowners dont have to answer phones, or their doors at 5 am either.
I likely donate more money to the WYG&F for access programs FOR ALL hunters than some pay for exclusive use of private lands where only THEY can hunt.
Believe it or not Jose, there are people in this world that contribute money for the benefit of others...maybe a bit tough for you to believe, but its true.
Absolutely there is a difference, and only a moron wouldnt see and acknowledge that difference.
THE FEES ARE NOT MANDATORY and ANY hunter, regardless of the thickness of their wallets, and whether or not they donate a single penny to access yes, are still allowed to hunt BMA or Access Yes areas in the respective states. Nobody has to butter up a landowner or buck a single bale to gain access either. Its also a voluntary program on the part of the landowners.
Landowners can deal directly with the WYG&F and MTFWP and have wardens on speed-dial to address any issues. There are access coordinators that the landowners can deal with directly as well. Signs, rules, concerns, etc. are all negotiated with the coordinators, really simplifies and streamlines the access process. Landowners dont have to answer phones, or their doors at 5 am either.
I likely donate more money to the WYG&F for access programs FOR ALL hunters than some pay for exclusive use of private lands where only THEY can hunt.
Believe it or not Jose, there are people in this world that contribute money for the benefit of others...maybe a bit tough for you to believe, but its true.
Last edited:
It's all irrelevant. The main thing is he is asking if we think he is walking and talking the same line by advertising that his hunts are "public land"
What sums up his show for me is in his Iowa WT hunt he showed and filmed the "public land" sign for the area he was hunting.
I am not totally against anyone doing other, gaining access by bailing hay and making fence (more power to them there would be less leasing if that happened more), but this topic is not about that, it is about his show and the line draws as to what is OYO and public land.
For what it's worth Randy, when I tell guys to tune into your show I tell them it is different because it is non-guided and on PUBLIC land. You would not believe the comments I get that guys are sick of seeing huge animals coming off private outfitted hunting shows. You have a breath of fresh air with your show.
If your show makes it big, you need to ask yourself what made it that way. It certainly isn't your good looks
Last edited:
JoseCuervo
New member
Not my "view of your opinion", just curious as to what line defines "on your own" when it comes to transporters. How can you discuss a transitory "line" without discussing the semantics of the definition?
I have paid Alaska Airlines. I have paid Joe Schmoe Air Tax. I have paid boat transporters in SE Alaska. I have paid Hertz Rent-a-Car. And I have paid In-bred Cowboy Horse Packing company....
I know which ones put me closer to game, and which ones were clueless in what I was trying to accomplish and probably hindered my hunt. I also know, that, depending on research/luck, certain "transporters" will INCREASE your odds for success.
Are all "transporters" generically acceptable?
JoseCuervo
New member
Not sure if the program is still in place, but there used to be a coupon on a Non-Res Wyoming tag that could be given to a landowner, and the coupon was then turned in by land-owner to DFG for $$$$$. That program did not seem "voluntary" in that it seemed like some portion of my tag fee was earmarked for paying ranchers.
To me, that still felt like I was paying an access fee to hunt Private Land in Wyoming, with the only difference being that I didn't hand the rancher any money, just a voucher that was worth money.
And yes, I have heard of those people you refer to, those who contribute money for the benefit of others. Being a good Republican, I just don't cross paths with them very oftern...
What you state is exactly the fuzzy lines that I struggle with. I am not making a judgment of one being more "noble" than the other. In fact, I think my post exemplifies that I completely understand that in many instances, working some OT or whatever it takes, is the only option remaining for some guys to hunt in their local area. And many of these guys have that local hunting as their only option. They are not able to do as some of us can, by traveling to out of state areas to hunt.
Where the rub comes for me is not when the guy in question is the "Charlie Daniels of the Torque Wrench" working OT to make a few extra bucks for a lease and in many instances helps other local people have a place to hunt because he joins a lease, but rather the guy who lays down his cash for the purposes of excluding everyone else.
Do I have the answer? Nope. Do I have my own opinions? Yup.
Do I feel differently about the guy who labors for a farmer or works OT to earn credit/money for some sort of access, knowing it allows them to hunt their local area, than I feel about the jet setter who has a lease on every prime stretch of river bottom in the Great Plains, and hires his posse to keep other hunters out? Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows how I will feel about that.
Probably didn't answer your question. A year ago, I would have given you a definitive answer. Now, I would say, "It is only my opinion, and it depends on the circumstances." Other guys in those situations will have their opinions, and quite possibly have a much better answer/opinion than me, as they are walking in those shoes, and I am not.
BuzzH
Well-known member
JC,
No portion of your tag is earmarked for crap. If you hunt an access yes area and kill an animal on a piece of public within the boundary of the area...you dont give the coupon to the landowner. However, you are ASKED to drop the $13 coupon into a box if your animal was taken on deeded land ONLY. So, if you have a major problem with your $13 (out of $300) being sent to a landowner, you could always say you shot it on public within the HMA.
Or if you CHOOSE not to hunt an access yes area and hunt on public you can avoid the whole issue altogether...VOLUNTARY...remember?
Not all landowners ask for the landowner coupons either.
If you felt that way about giving the coupon up, and you have major heartburn with it...dont hunt an access yes area or private. Plenty of "free" public land out there to hunt.
No portion of your tag is earmarked for crap. If you hunt an access yes area and kill an animal on a piece of public within the boundary of the area...you dont give the coupon to the landowner. However, you are ASKED to drop the $13 coupon into a box if your animal was taken on deeded land ONLY. So, if you have a major problem with your $13 (out of $300) being sent to a landowner, you could always say you shot it on public within the HMA.
Or if you CHOOSE not to hunt an access yes area and hunt on public you can avoid the whole issue altogether...VOLUNTARY...remember?
Not all landowners ask for the landowner coupons either.
If you felt that way about giving the coupon up, and you have major heartburn with it...dont hunt an access yes area or private. Plenty of "free" public land out there to hunt.
Jose, you're argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so I don't know why you're pursuing it. I'll play your frickin' game, though.
I've paid Alaska Air, I've paid an air taxi, and I've been on two fully guided hunts. I have no problem with someone using those services. For that matter, I have no problem with the ranchers who want to charge outrageous access fees, or the hunters who are willing to pay them for that access.
I have considered using the exact outfitter service Big Fin mentioned in his first post. I have no problem with the service or those who use it, and I would most definitely use it in the future.
Big Fin asked us what we thought about OYOA partnering with an outfitter to offer a hunting service to members of OYOA. He also asked us what we thought about OYOA partnering with a landowner to offer pay-for-access hunts on private property. I have no problem with either one of those services as stand-alone operations, but for OYOA to enter into a business relationship with them seems to fly in the face of how OYOA has been advertised from the beginning. However, I trust that Big Fin will do what is best for OYOA, which is what any smart businessman would hopefully do.
I hope I've answered all of your questions, Jose.
I've paid Alaska Air, I've paid an air taxi, and I've been on two fully guided hunts. I have no problem with someone using those services. For that matter, I have no problem with the ranchers who want to charge outrageous access fees, or the hunters who are willing to pay them for that access.
I have considered using the exact outfitter service Big Fin mentioned in his first post. I have no problem with the service or those who use it, and I would most definitely use it in the future.
Big Fin asked us what we thought about OYOA partnering with an outfitter to offer a hunting service to members of OYOA. He also asked us what we thought about OYOA partnering with a landowner to offer pay-for-access hunts on private property. I have no problem with either one of those services as stand-alone operations, but for OYOA to enter into a business relationship with them seems to fly in the face of how OYOA has been advertised from the beginning. However, I trust that Big Fin will do what is best for OYOA, which is what any smart businessman would hopefully do.
I hope I've answered all of your questions, Jose.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Interesting opinions. I certainly hope you wouldn't judge me if I had an opportunity to hunt a ranch by invitation. I have that option on occasion and jump on the chance to do it. It's like a treat after you have fought hard on public land. I fully understand all the benefits of it and know that I still have to hunt hard a be savy about it. I do work for them in return and realize it is no where near the value they could recieve from a paying client.
I truely hope that the show can continue to hunt these public/accesable lands and still harvest animals. It truely is a feat to do this in 4-5 days of hunting with 2 "stinky" cameramen following you around. I can see now why the other shows say it is impossible.
Here's a question for you guys. How would you feel if on the shows we weren't able to harvest an animal. What if on 4 or 5 of the 13 episodes we were skunked. Would you still be excited about the show or would it begin to get old? I had a guy tell me that he hopes we never have an episode without a kill. He said it would ruin the show. How realistic is it to harvest everytime you go out for 4-5 days in areas you've generally never hunted?
We all know that isn't reality on public land. Amazingly though last year Randy and the hunters were able to pull it off. I still can't believe it, but that alone should set this show apart. I hope that the luck continues this season but I'll be one who understands when a show comes up without a kill, because that is how it really happens for most of us.
I truely hope that the show can continue to hunt these public/accesable lands and still harvest animals. It truely is a feat to do this in 4-5 days of hunting with 2 "stinky"
cameramen following you around. I can see now why the other shows say it is impossible.Here's a question for you guys. How would you feel if on the shows we weren't able to harvest an animal. What if on 4 or 5 of the 13 episodes we were skunked. Would you still be excited about the show or would it begin to get old? I had a guy tell me that he hopes we never have an episode without a kill. He said it would ruin the show. How realistic is it to harvest everytime you go out for 4-5 days in areas you've generally never hunted?
We all know that isn't reality on public land. Amazingly though last year Randy and the hunters were able to pull it off. I still can't believe it, but that alone should set this show apart. I hope that the luck continues this season but I'll be one who understands when a show comes up without a kill, because that is how it really happens for most of us.
So here is another way to put the question. You have all given your opinions on what you believe "On Your Own" means, but how would adding the potential sponsors change your view of what OYOA is all about? There is no doubt a difference between how the show has presented the "On Your Own" concept and how you personally define it. Would adding either of these sponsors change your perception of what the OYOA concept is all about?
JoseCuervo
New member
That is a good question.
B-Fin has a business to run, he has expenses of maintaining servers, paying for cameramen, video production, college tuition for offspring, and leaving a large estate to said offspring, etc..... He can sell advertising/sponsor to whoever can pay the bills without it compromising his OYOA hunts. Every sponsor potentially has drawbacks/pitfalls. Putting Federal up as a sponsor could alienate Remington employees.... etc.. etc...
It doesn't change the actual hunt being "on your own" just because the camera guy is funded by Leupold or Joe's Hardware Shack.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bigfin,
Not to bust your chops, but I see a slight contradiction here...
"What you state is exactly the fuzzy lines that I struggle with. I am not making a judgment of one being more "noble" than the other. In fact, I think my post exemplifies that I completely understand that in many instances, working some OT or whatever it takes, is the only option remaining for some guys to hunt in their local area. And many of these guys have that local hunting as their only option. They are not able to do as some of us can, by traveling to out of state areas to hunt.
People that live and hunt in Montana dont have an option but to pay a trespass fee in Montana?
Obviously if someone comes from out of state and pays to access private land in Montana then they are likley out of their "home area"?
No?
Not to bust your chops, but I see a slight contradiction here...
"What you state is exactly the fuzzy lines that I struggle with. I am not making a judgment of one being more "noble" than the other. In fact, I think my post exemplifies that I completely understand that in many instances, working some OT or whatever it takes, is the only option remaining for some guys to hunt in their local area. And many of these guys have that local hunting as their only option. They are not able to do as some of us can, by traveling to out of state areas to hunt.
People that live and hunt in Montana dont have an option but to pay a trespass fee in Montana?
Obviously if someone comes from out of state and pays to access private land in Montana then they are likley out of their "home area"?
No?
Muley Crazy
Member
LawnBoy you bring up a good point about not harvesting an animal. As all of us public land hunters know it's not normal but the exception to be able to harvest an animal on public land when we go hunting. BUT when dealing with D.I.Y/O.Y.O hard core hunters success tends to follow. 10% of the hunters harvest 90%of the game. Successful public land hunters didn't become successful over night they spent plenty of time in the 90% hunters pool, killing 10% of the game.
As for the show, I would hope that not harvesting the intended animal doesn't prevent it from airing. Leupold's Big game profiles air's shows where they don't harvest and they are still just as good if not better because they don't give false pretenses of what hunting is. Its just that HUNTING not getting JMO
As for the show, I would hope that not harvesting the intended animal doesn't prevent it from airing. Leupold's Big game profiles air's shows where they don't harvest and they are still just as good if not better because they don't give false pretenses of what hunting is. Its just that HUNTING not getting JMO
Last edited:
csutton7
Active member
Lawnboy--I wish there were more shows showing guys going home empty handed---I'd also like to see shows where guys say they are trophy hunting not succumbing at the end and taking a lesser animal--and there's more things I don't like, but that's not the question here--
concerning the original matter--I guess the show shouldn't use or advertise these options, but I think the website could, as there's guys who have used these services, hired outfitters, etc...but you need to keep it separate if you can---of course you need to review all of your leading statements concerning the show and if you haven't painted yourself into a corner then maybe you could use it on the show----you could also at the end of a show put a poll up for everyone to vote on and see what they say---that way could go with the majority and be somewhat safe if you wanted to use them on the show----
good luck----chris
concerning the original matter--I guess the show shouldn't use or advertise these options, but I think the website could, as there's guys who have used these services, hired outfitters, etc...but you need to keep it separate if you can---of course you need to review all of your leading statements concerning the show and if you haven't painted yourself into a corner then maybe you could use it on the show----you could also at the end of a show put a poll up for everyone to vote on and see what they say---that way could go with the majority and be somewhat safe if you wanted to use them on the show----
good luck----chris
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Didn't mean to hijak the thread. I've just had that thought on my mind since the filming started. Keep the opinions coming they are interesting.
Buzz:
Not a problem.
Jose asked some questions that were divergent from the original post, and yeah, I rose to the bait. He asked about specific examples, different from the context of what I had originally asked input for. The point I was making in that post was to illustrate to JC that there are times I think it is not cut and dried.
Thus the examples I cited in my discussion with Jose, are not in the context of someone coming to Montana, as may be the case with the landowner option I had asked for input on. That example would be as you state, obviously not someone hunting in their local area.
No, I was not implying that Montana hunters had no other options.
Given my answer to one question asked by Jose is a completely different circumstance than the original post asking for input, I don't see any contradiction.
Correct, and not what I was referring to when I answered Jose.
Do I feel differently about the guy who leases at the exclusion of others, when there are tons of other options, or the guy traveling out of state and paying for access, when compared to the local guys with few other options, as I referred to in my posts with Jose? Yes.
I ask for these opinions, as I don't feel that my opinions are always correct, or necessarily the best basis for making decisions, even if I have some pretty strong opinions one way or the other. I will always seek outside thoughts, in terms of this discussion, and in terms of what decision will be made with the type of organizations we allow to provide resources to the On Your Own website users.
Like most people, I am probably biased toward those who feel the way I do about a topic, but I still find value in hearing the point of others. Thus the reason for asking input and having these really cool discussions.
Csutton7:
Your point about web only makes me think I was not clear enough in my original post. I was seeking input of these two idea for web purposes only. None of them would be options for the TV show. But, some are more interested with the web site than the show, so I would be interested in opinions on both media avenues.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bigfin,
I see the point that in some states that are largely private land, paying for access either monitarily or by working for a rancher, knowing a rancher, etc. is the only option to hunt locally. I understand that, it is what it is. You either "pay" for access or you stay home.
I'm just pointing out that your example was directed at potential fee hunting in Montana, if I read it correctly. Thats the point, not really a context thing.
I see the point that in some states that are largely private land, paying for access either monitarily or by working for a rancher, knowing a rancher, etc. is the only option to hunt locally. I understand that, it is what it is. You either "pay" for access or you stay home.
I'm just pointing out that your example was directed at potential fee hunting in Montana, if I read it correctly. Thats the point, not really a context thing.
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,562
I don't see paying a guy to research tag draw odds for you to as tainting the "OYOA" idea. In fact I bet you will find yourself paying somebody to do it since you won't have much time to figure out what draws to put in for now that you have this thing up and going...other shows probably get flooded with calls from outfitters to come film on their properties for in hopes that their phones start ringing off the hook.
My idea of an "OYOA" episode is you hunting a hunt that I could do myself without paying someone for access to hunt on their private land. I just hope you never air an episode of you hunting on someone's private ground that would require me to open my wallet or one that wouldn't allow me to hunt on their property because the don't know of me.
I'm not saying you should never hunt on private ground (access yes types not included) or hire a guide...you should!! Most of us here have and would do it again....just don't air it as an "OYOA" episode.
I think it is cool you are asking the general public for input rather than just doing whatever.
By the way...I expect to see an episode of of a hunt that is unsuccessful...show you are human!
My idea of an "OYOA" episode is you hunting a hunt that I could do myself without paying someone for access to hunt on their private land. I just hope you never air an episode of you hunting on someone's private ground that would require me to open my wallet or one that wouldn't allow me to hunt on their property because the don't know of me.
I'm not saying you should never hunt on private ground (access yes types not included) or hire a guide...you should!! Most of us here have and would do it again....just don't air it as an "OYOA" episode.
I think it is cool you are asking the general public for input rather than just doing whatever.
By the way...I expect to see an episode of of a hunt that is unsuccessful...show you are human!
Similar threads
