Feedback on Potenital Resources

[Big Fin]

OK guys, even though I own the site and the show, and I could make any decision I want, I am really interested in your thoughts on a couple possibilities I am considering.

I am good friends with an outfitter, who specializes in helping non-residents plan their self-guided hunts on public lands, or private lands if that is what they are looking for. He charges a modest fee (currently $100 per hunter, and an additional $150, if you draw your tag) for his assistance in doing so. He really likes the OYOA concept, and would like to be part of our team.

He helps with the application process and selecting units to apply for. Other than that, you are On Your Own. You do your own scouting, get your own maps, set up your own camp, and hunt On Your Own. No assistance from him, once you draw the tag and he helps you with general ideas of where to go and what to look for. He does improve your drawing odds significantly.

I like his concept, and am inclined to ask him to be an additional resource for our members to work with, when trying to plan their out-of-state hunts. Yes, he will do the fully guided gig, but his specialty is helping non-residents go "On Your Own."

Just interested in how many of you would be willing to work with a person who can help with a lot of the hassle and headache associated with the coordination and application of an out-of-state hunt, and improve your drawing odds. Many of us do all of our own research, and treat it like a second job, but not every traveling hunter is as nuts about draw odds, application quirks, and researching areas, as we are.

The other option is a very large Montana landowner, who is not wanting to go the outfitted route. He wants to provide self-guided hunts to non-residents, or residents for that matter, at prices far below what outfitters charge. In some instances, he has a cabin you can stay in, and in other instances, your lodging is On Your Own. All aspects of the hunt are up to you. You do your own scouting, cooking, research, packing, and processing of your animal. Prices will vary by species, season (archery or rifle), lodging options, and whether you want to combine multiple species.

Again, our goal is to help hunters find other ways to go On Your Own, and not feel that they must pay large fees for the fully outfitted deal. I am interested if guys would find these type of services valuable to the traveling non-resident hunter.

Thoughts?

 

[schmalts]

double edge swords, if you know what I mean. I think I may have an idea of who you are talking about on the first one, maybe not, but if I do, you mentioned better draw odds. Will they really be better if more people use his service or just end up costing more? And If i am right, will that loophole be closed up if everyone starts doing it?

 

[csutton7]

I guess each person needs to ask themselves what does "on your own" mean?? I'm on the bubble concerning the tag help, but have no problem with the landowner access. the reason on the tag help is really he's a tag "outfitter" and if you're doing it "on your own" have I violated the "on your own" code of ethics, because I "paid" for help, which is what hiring an outfitter is about vs doing it "on your own". again to me it's a bubble issue concerning the "tag outfitter". I can see both sides of this and I'm thinking you do to and that's the reason you're asking us. I guess if I had to make a decision right now I'd say "NO" to the tag help and "YES" to the landowner. The landowner is granting you access and nothing more and is it much different than paying for a wilderness permit or something along that line, except for the price difference.

good luck with this as it's not an easy decision in my eyes---but hey that's what this site is for to bounce stuff off of as guys can bring up points that you don't think of to help with the decision process----chris

 

[jabber]

Personally, I don't see a problem with either one. The first one doesn't sound that much different than the huntin fool, you have to do the hunt on your own. The only thing that might change my mind would be his company name, if it includes "outfitter" or "guide" or something along those lines where the perception in just seeing the name would go against the OYO vision.

Same thing with the second one, just getting access to private land.

 

[sturge]

I am on the bubble too. But in reverse. Getting help with the draw process is a big difference from hiring a guide or hunting private land. As far as #2, definately not. Lets take episode 1 for example. Elk hunt in WY. You did map research to determine where you were going to hunt based on what you found to be private/public. Unfortunately, the map shows BLM, private, NF etc etc. However it does not show private that allows hunting. If I am the "average hunter" from Ocala, Florida, how am I to know this guy will let me hunt his land. Which more than likey is posted. Besides the fact the point that all your hunting is done on "public land" would now be opened to the validity of that. And god knows we have read all the Eastman posts about that. IMO, use neither and never leave the integrity issue open for debate. JMHO.

 

[Tom]

I think the idea of the everyday hunter or the hunt that many have access too makes more sense than the on your own hunt. Your first show you got the weather warning from someone else, you got the BLM maps from the government, you and your uncle did it together, helping each other. It seems to me the idea of a hunt that most hunters have access too, makes more sense. Maybe just give the price range for each hunt, the number of years to get the tag, things like that. You can do it "on your own", if you spend this much money and get this kind of help, that's how this hunt was done.

 

[Big Fin]

Great comments. I think Csutton7 asked the relevant question - What does "On Your Own" mean?

I think it will mean a different idea to everyone here. All I can do is give the context in what it means to me.

To me, it means hunting out in the field without the aid of guides or outfitters leading you to the animal, or in effect, doing the hunting for you. Whether that is on public land, private land, your own land, it really doesn't matter to me. It also means that it is hunting, not shooting, as is the case in some types of hunts.

The reason we have done the TV show to say "Non-guided hunting, on accessible lands" is for transparency. On a TV show, we think it is important that we tell everyone exactly what we are doing, and do all we can to demonstrate that we are doing something that anyone else can do. Even if this means we give up some great opportunities, when the cameras are rolling, we are telling you exactly what we are doing.

Some have taken this to mean that we need to hunt exclusively public land. I understand that notion, yet most On Your Own hunting in this country occurs on private land. When we hunt public land, it leaves no doubt that this is a hunt anyone can do, if they acquire a tag. Even though On Your Own hunting on private land is often as challenging as public land.

I certainly don't expect other people to feel that the level of transparency we are trying to bring on the TV show, is the standard by which On Your Own hunting is defined. It is just our way of trying to make sure people can trust that what we say is happening on TV, is what really is happening on TV. If you read the threads here, or the episode summaries over on the TV page, we are telling everything we possibly can, about what we are doing.

Personally, I use a pretty broad brush to define On Your Own hunting. My definition is probably not the same as yours. And, I want to be as inclusive as possible, while keeping true to the notion of non-guided hunting.

I hunt private land of friends and clients. I enjoy it very much. I still consider it On Your Own hunting. But, if you see us hunting on such lands, we will be telling everyone how/where we are doing it.

There will be times I hunt private land, without the cameras running. Will those be accessible lands? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes these places allow limited public hunting, and sometimes they only allow friends. Most of us will hunt land at times, with family and friends, that is not accessible to the general public. I say, "Go for it, and have a blast."

Thanks for the comments. I am sure more guys will give great comments and express what they think is On Your Own hunting. There really is a lot of area for personal interpretation, and whatever each person decides, is fine with me.

The bigger notion is that we are trying to provide a voice to the average guy, most of whom are On Your Own hunters, regardless of how you define it. To demonstrate that the real hunters in this country, paying for the conservation via their excise taxes, license fees, and donated money/labor, are the average On Your Own guys, not those of us in front of the cameras.

We close our show by saying, "You, the real American hunter." What we are referring to, are the people watching, not those of us producing TV. Those of us producing TV are not the ones keeping this hunting train moving down the tracks, but rather you, the On Your Own hunter. How ever that On Your Own experience is defined, is up to you, not me, or any other guy on TV.

And, in doing so, we are trying to help guys find other hunting opportunities, regardless of whether or not such opportunity meets the the transparency threshold we have established for the TV show.

Keep 'em coming. Great stuff so far.

 

[JoseCuervo]

BFin,

I have gladly dropped quite a bit of money to Transporters in Alaska who took me in via plane or boat to somewhere to hunt. I know once the plane took off and left me on the edge of a lake in the wilderness, I was definitely "on my own".

Those hunts have been quite satisfying and definitely met my personal criteria as "on my own".

I also have drawn non-res tags in Wyoming, found the ranches that would give me permission, killed animals "on my own" and left the rancher with a coupon from WyDFG. Even with the fact the ranch was private land, and the rancher got compensated (via the coupon), it still met my personal criteria for "on my own".

I don't think paying somebody to fill out forms "violates" your "on your own" concept any more than paying FedEx or the USPS to deliver your application to the Dept of Fish and Game.

Each person can draw the line where they want, but, most of us have hired somebody else to build our gun or construct our bow, to pour/machine our bullets and produce our powder. We rely on Schnees to make our boots, and Sitka Gear to keep us dry. But still we are "on our own".

It might be easier to define what is NOT "on your own". That list is easier, as I know it when I see it.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Using another man's service to increase my odds of drawing as a non-res only makes sense. Units are real big once you get on the ground, but first you must obtain the paper and at my age a little money makes more sense that buying preference points. If you pay for a Drop Hunt and take a great animal, are you gonna say I did it myself or yeah it was a guided hunt? John

 

[Oak]

The other option is a very large Montana landowner, who is not wanting to go the outfitted route. He wants to provide self-guided hunts to non-residents, or residents for that matter, at prices far below what outfitters charge. In some instances, he has a cabin you can stay in, and in other instances, your lodging is On Your Own. All aspects of the hunt are up to you. You do your own scouting, cooking, research, packing, and processing of your animal. Prices will vary by species, season (archery or rifle), lodging options, and whether you want to combine multiple species.

Really, really surprised to see this. Paying a landowner for access is paying for access, whether it's $10 or $10,000.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Really, really surprised to see this. Paying a landowner for access is paying for access, whether it's $10 or $10,000.

Is paying a Transporter considered to be "paying for access"?

 

[sturge]

Is paying a Transporter considered to be "paying for access"?

No, its paying for a transporter. Just like if I take a plane to Idaho to hunt mule deer. Unless of course the pilot owns the property and thats included in my air fare.

 

[Oak]

Paying a transporter is no different than paying Alaska Airlines.

 

[schmalts]

Paying a transporter is no different than paying Alaska Airlines.

I agree with Oak. The key work in Fin's statement was that you were paying a landowner for access, i presume to his private land as well. While this is still on your own, it is not public land, and not free to get on, and not something anyone can do. Where do you draw the line with your show is your business but paying a landowner, and drawing a state tag in NM that is good to a ranch assignment is 2 different things. The MT Block Management is another good example of private land that could be considered "public hunting" in many ways because you do not pay to get on that private land. FCL is also private land considered public hunting because anyone can do it.
Food for thought, your TV show is supposed to be different in that you want to show that your hunts can be done on lands open to the public, and you show pictures of signs in your video saying that. IMHO, the further you can stay to the opposite end of the other TV shows the more appeal your show will have even if it means smaller bucks and bulls are killed. Complicating it with leases and access fees will no doubt push further what has become a problem with the outfitters leasing everything up as well.
When Lee and Tiffany go hunting out west on thier show, many times it is on a private ranch. That is the opposite of the appeal of your show.

 

[BuzzH]

Have to agree with Oaks first post. I dont like the idea of having to pay for access to private land and calling it "on your own". I have never paid for access to hunt private, other than with voluntary contributions to programs like the BMP in Montana or Access yes in Wyoming. I contribute yearly and usually hunt on one or two access yes areas a year.

My personal brush as to what qualifies as "on your own" isnt broad enough to include paying trespass fees to hunt private.

When money changes hands for access...its not "on your own" anymore...IMO. Its on your own with the help of your wallet.

 

[Spitz]

I'm sure we'll continue to see a broad array of opinions regarding what "on your own" entails for each person. For me, it is the term in it's simplest of definitons . . . on your own, meaning without a guide.

I enjoy the whole hunt equally from physical preparation, research, scouting and finally getting to go on the hunt, so, going guided would take a large portion of the fun away. However, I believe there are times, circumstances and hunts where having a guide is necessary and worthwhile.

I don't think paying for access detracts from what the TV show stands for as I find it to fit my definition of OYOA. However, if the access fees were exorbitant, or as high as if one had gone on an outfitted hunt, then I would disagree with them. Regardless, I like that Randy puts everything out in the open, be it a public or private land hunt and if access was paid for or not, then, the viewer is able to determine whether such a hunt would be considered accessible on an individual basis.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, what if I got a great deal on a guided hunt?

If the fee isnt TOO exorbitant on a guided hunt...is that OK too?

How about if on the guided hunt I planned my own stalk, caped the critter myself, boned most of the meat, and packed my fair share?

Because I could use that logic really easily on the dall hunt I did...which was guided.

I planned the stalk, caped the critter myself, boned a good portion of the meat, and packed an equal share of the meat back. I shot a B&C sheep and got the hunt for less than 5k, which is far from "exorbitant".

But, experience wise, that B&C ram doesnt mean as much to me as the goat I shot in Montana a couple years later on a tag I drew for $50. I hunted 15 days, a good portion of that solo.

I dont have to make excuses or stretch anything to make my goat hunt an OYOA...but I have to justify and stretch a whole bunch of crap to make my dall sheep hunt one.

Anyone that pays for access to hunt private is going to have a real tough time convincing me its an OYOA.

 

[Big Fin]

More good comments.

Like some have said, they feel paying for access taints the On Your Own idea. I understand that.

Yet, given the wide array of non-guided hunting that occurs, I do not rule out the fact that many guys have to lease or pay trespass fees, as there is no public land where they live. Their alternative is to stay at home, or hope that they draw a tag to come out west where we have tons of public land. I wish it were no the case, but that is the case for many guys.

All that being said, I don't want to leave the impression that we are going to do that in the TV show. We are not.

I want to emphasize that what I have to do for the "Average Joe" message of this TV show will continue the way it has. But I don't want people to think that the higher level of transparency we have built into the TV show, should be the only definition of On Your Own hunting.

As with the Midwest whitetail hunts last year, I could have very easily accepted some great offers to hunt private ground, at no charge to me. But, that private ground was not "accessible to the average guy," so I took the additional challenge of trying to do it on accessible ground. And, I am glad I did it that way, even if it meant I didn't shoot one of those big Midwest whitetails.

Same this year in Montana. I have the opportunity to go to some private ground that has huge elk, with the special tag I drew. As appealing as those offers are, the cameras will be rolling, as we hunt National Forest, BLM, and Block Management elk.

Even though I will probably shoot a much smaller bull on public ground, the last few days have given me time to think about this private ground temptation, and I have decided that regardless of the big bulls I know live on that private ground, I will hunt public ground. Even though the private ground would be without a fee.

And I will do so for two reasons. 1) It will be a greater challenge, and I am in it more for the challenge than the size of the animal. 2) Even though I don't expect the rest of the world to live in the fish bowl I do, as the host of a TV show, I have to walk the walk.

Is that stupid? Maybe, as I bet most guys with my tag, who were invited to go hunt private ground without a fee, would jump on the opportunity, and not give a care whether the 350" bull they shot was on accessible or inaccessible ground.

Do I think any less of a guy who works hard to gain permission to hunt private land, when I have to hunt "accessible lands" in order to keep with the mission of the TV show? NO! Hell, no. Those guys have worked hard to gain that permission, either through their labor, doing special favors for the landowner, or cultivating a relationship over many years. Good for them. I hope they shoot lunkers on every hunt.

I say the same for the guy who has saved his money and bought his own land, rather than using that same money to lease land. Good for him. I hope he shoots whoppers on every hunt.

In spite of my feelings similar to most of you about paying for access, my trip to the Midwest last year, and getting to talk to many guys, has given me a different perspective on the access issue. Some of these guys are being overrun with leasing, due to TV show and outfitters making their lifelong hunting places, highly desirable to non-residents. As they watch these places get leased up, farm by farm, ranch by ranch, they feel they are left with very few options. So, many of them have joined together to lease places, in competition with the commercial interests.

I view their hunting as clearly On Your Own hunting, though I understand others may not. And, having talked to many of them in my three weeks of travel, they all felt they were being forced into the decision. Not what they wanted to do, but was a reality of what they had to do, to maintain a place to hunt.

I hope it never gets that way where I live, and I spend a lot of time and money trying to fight the tide of that. But, I do have a different perspective of what those other hunters are faced with, compared to what I understood a couple years ago.

As far as the landowner access option discussed in my first post, being part of the show. Not gonna happen. I was interested in what other guys thought of it as an optional resource for guys wanting to come to Montana. I asked, knowing I don't have all the answers.

The feedback here is pretty close to what I feel, and I figured these would be the responses. But, until I ask, I don't know.

Thanks again for the comments, and I look forward to more of them.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paying a transporter is no different than paying Alaska Airlines.

What if the Transporter is driving a string of 8 mules and transporting you into some high mountain lake in the Wilderness Area of Wyoming/Montana/Idaho?

Does a transporter driving a Boeing 737 = a transporter driving a DeHaviland Beaver = a transporter driving 8 mules and a couple of quarter horses?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Have to agree with Oaks first post. I dont like the idea of having to pay for access to private land and calling it "on your own". I have never paid for access to hunt private, other than with voluntary contributions to programs like the BMP in Montana or Access yes in Wyoming. I contribute yearly and usually hunt on one or two access yes areas a year.

My personal brush as to what qualifies as "on your own" isnt broad enough to include paying trespass fees to hunt private.

When money changes hands for access...its not "on your own" anymore...IMO. Its on your own with the help of your wallet.

Is there a difference between access secured by an indirect "hunter to government to rancher" chain of payment as one that is more direct "hunter to rancher"?

Why does the government as an intermediary somehow cleanse the transaction?