Pay to Play
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
katqanna
Well-known member
Last June, after the FWP Commission meeting introducing shoulder seasons, I was venting, drawing some rough layouts for this cartoon. When I went to look up some redcoats for the kings men for visual perspective, there was a cartoon almost identical to what I roughed out, but about party politics. I thought, hell, someone has already done my base cartoon, so I copied the base, no point reinventing the wheel, cartoonists borrow or blatantly copy other editorial cartoonists work to make a point at times, sometimes getting into editorial cartoon flame wars, and went to work fixing to make it work the way I needed it, then got so busy with research I forgot it. So I cant take all the drawing credit on this one. After all the pixel hours, I think it might have been faster if I did just draw it all from scratch myself.
After yesterday, listening to PERC, I decided to get it done, add PERC to the robber barons hat. Just as I got in bed, I remembered I forgot the crown, so that got added this morning - the King's Deer. Some days I would love to do nothing but spend time on editorial cartoons for all the concepts I see in my head that need to be addressed visually.
Glad y'all enjoyed it.
Antlerradar, yes, same Terry Anderson.
Off to enjoy jacking up my suburban and finally get to replacing my rear brakes. Nothing like impending frigid temps in Montana to remind you to get things fixed on your vehicle before the freezing temps make it more painful on your hands.
After yesterday, listening to PERC, I decided to get it done, add PERC to the robber barons hat. Just as I got in bed, I remembered I forgot the crown, so that got added this morning - the King's Deer. Some days I would love to do nothing but spend time on editorial cartoons for all the concepts I see in my head that need to be addressed visually.
Glad y'all enjoyed it.
Antlerradar, yes, same Terry Anderson.
Off to enjoy jacking up my suburban and finally get to replacing my rear brakes. Nothing like impending frigid temps in Montana to remind you to get things fixed on your vehicle before the freezing temps make it more painful on your hands.
Chucknduck
Member
That cartoon pretty much sums up the issue in Montana right now!
Josh Kuntz
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 184
I happen to know Mr. Anderson and another of PERC's key players and thought I would offer a few bits of info. First let me start by making it crystal clear that I do NOT agree with their views on public land transfers and their belief that private land will automatically provide better habitat.
There are a few things we (the hunting community) should be aware of in my opinion when it comes to PERC.
1. These are very well educated and intelligent people. Just because we may not agree with their views, does not mean they are dumb. If we plan to dispute or debate the PERC folks, we will want to be well armed with accurate and information and persuasive arguments. They are pros.
2. PERC is not going away. They are well funded, they have a paid staff and they have been around long enough to know how to get their opinions spread via the media.
3. In my limited experience, the PERC folks are willing to have civil conversations. They are not crazy ranters. They approach audiences in an educational way, showing what they believe to be sound logic.
4. Their views are deeply rooted in economic "science" and they will be able to make some compelling arguments to audiences that are focused only on the financial parameters.
I see a few big flaws in their reasoning. First, it assumes that a landowner will do what is best for wildlife and habitat if enough money is given to him/her. Landowners are just like all other groups of people, some will do a great job and have high ethical standards but others will cut corners, be open to corrupt practices and only focus on short-term gains. Secondly, PERC undervalues the significance of the North American Hunting Model and the importance most sportsman put on having beautiful public lands for FUTURE generations to hunt, fish, hike, camp. I am sure there are more flaws that others of you can point out better than I.
Thanks for sharing katqanna.
There are a few things we (the hunting community) should be aware of in my opinion when it comes to PERC.
1. These are very well educated and intelligent people. Just because we may not agree with their views, does not mean they are dumb. If we plan to dispute or debate the PERC folks, we will want to be well armed with accurate and information and persuasive arguments. They are pros.
2. PERC is not going away. They are well funded, they have a paid staff and they have been around long enough to know how to get their opinions spread via the media.
3. In my limited experience, the PERC folks are willing to have civil conversations. They are not crazy ranters. They approach audiences in an educational way, showing what they believe to be sound logic.
4. Their views are deeply rooted in economic "science" and they will be able to make some compelling arguments to audiences that are focused only on the financial parameters.
I see a few big flaws in their reasoning. First, it assumes that a landowner will do what is best for wildlife and habitat if enough money is given to him/her. Landowners are just like all other groups of people, some will do a great job and have high ethical standards but others will cut corners, be open to corrupt practices and only focus on short-term gains. Secondly, PERC undervalues the significance of the North American Hunting Model and the importance most sportsman put on having beautiful public lands for FUTURE generations to hunt, fish, hike, camp. I am sure there are more flaws that others of you can point out better than I.
Thanks for sharing katqanna.
katqanna
Well-known member
Josh, a good assessment, I have seen them around and read through some of their papers, so I gathered they are not like some of the ignorant, vociferous people, holding up protest signs, with incorrect facts and major misspellings, that open them up to ridicule. And yes, they are well funded and media connected.
One of the 4 ArcGIS manuals that I requested with the grant of the software was - GIS For Decision Support and Public Policy Making, for just such a reason. As sportsmen, we need the tools and methods that others are playing with, to advocate for the hard sciences in conservation to battle the soft sciences that are increasingly being used. Visual tools that help to break down complex data, into easier to assimilate, bite sized portions, will help to facilitate that. At least, in my opinion.
Aldo Leopold wrote, The Ecological Conscience, "I have no illusions about the speed or accuracy with which an ecological conscience can become functional. It has required 19 centuries to define decent man-to-man conduct and the process is only half done; it may take as long to evolve a code of decency for man-to-land conduct. In such matters we should not worry too much about anything except the direction in which we travel. The direction is clear, and the first step is to throw your weight around on matters of right and wrong in land-use. Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be accepted because it pays. That philosophy is dead in human relations, and its funeral in land-relations is overdue."
One of the 4 ArcGIS manuals that I requested with the grant of the software was - GIS For Decision Support and Public Policy Making, for just such a reason. As sportsmen, we need the tools and methods that others are playing with, to advocate for the hard sciences in conservation to battle the soft sciences that are increasingly being used. Visual tools that help to break down complex data, into easier to assimilate, bite sized portions, will help to facilitate that. At least, in my opinion.
Aldo Leopold wrote, The Ecological Conscience, "I have no illusions about the speed or accuracy with which an ecological conscience can become functional. It has required 19 centuries to define decent man-to-man conduct and the process is only half done; it may take as long to evolve a code of decency for man-to-land conduct. In such matters we should not worry too much about anything except the direction in which we travel. The direction is clear, and the first step is to throw your weight around on matters of right and wrong in land-use. Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be accepted because it pays. That philosophy is dead in human relations, and its funeral in land-relations is overdue."
Josh Kuntz
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 184
katqanna, fantastic quote. It hits the nail right on the head.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I also agree with Josh. I took a class or two and sat in on a few seminars that Anderson taught in the 90's. I found him intelligent but a bit opinionated. I disagree with some of his conclusions.
Pay to play does not increase quality. All of the ranches I am familiar with that gone to pay to play have experienced a decrease in quality. Even the Diamond Cross has seen a decrease in quality. There is more value in taking a lot of nice bucks than taking a few large bucks.
Many of those ranches had more hunters before leasing but those hunters hunted less (weekend warriors) and often took small bucks. This allowed some top end bucks to survive. Now those ranches are hunted every day of the season and if a top end buck is found he is hunted every day until he is taken. Almost none survive the season. I don't find any top end muledeer antlers on pay to play ranches.
I do agree that lack of quality on public land is helping to increasing demand for private leases. This is just simple economics. It is unlikely that hunters from Bozeman and Billings would be calling me up wanting to lease if there was a reasonable chance of taking a big deer in the mountains or the Missouri Breaks. Sportsman that argue that FWP should not manage for quality need to understand that one of the trade offs of this position is less access.
Pay to play does not increase quality. All of the ranches I am familiar with that gone to pay to play have experienced a decrease in quality. Even the Diamond Cross has seen a decrease in quality. There is more value in taking a lot of nice bucks than taking a few large bucks.
Many of those ranches had more hunters before leasing but those hunters hunted less (weekend warriors) and often took small bucks. This allowed some top end bucks to survive. Now those ranches are hunted every day of the season and if a top end buck is found he is hunted every day until he is taken. Almost none survive the season. I don't find any top end muledeer antlers on pay to play ranches.
I do agree that lack of quality on public land is helping to increasing demand for private leases. This is just simple economics. It is unlikely that hunters from Bozeman and Billings would be calling me up wanting to lease if there was a reasonable chance of taking a big deer in the mountains or the Missouri Breaks. Sportsman that argue that FWP should not manage for quality need to understand that one of the trade offs of this position is less access.
katqanna
Well-known member
Economics is never simple, it is complicated by the world views or agenda of the groups that want something.
One of my favorite quotes is from Marshall Sahlins, an anthropologist, who wrote, among many other things, The Original Affluent Society, first presented at a symposium on "Man the hunter," in 1972, about hunter-gatherer cultures. Towards the end he states, "The world's most primitive people have few possessions. but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilization."
My previous decades of research, prior to Montana conservation, is in ancient archaeology, anthropology, comparative religious systems and linguistics - mostly of hunter-gatherer cultures and the following Indo-European caste/class system cultures that are very market, resource control driven. So this subject is not unfamiliar to me. In fact, it was part of what drove me to all that research, because hunter-gatherer mentalities are typically community oriented, sharing what they have, which I have participated in and have been a recipient of. Something I have repeatedly seen so many on this forum exhibit: a good example would be when Richard came to Montana for a hunt from England and had airline issues with his gun and ammo. I did not see a single person that offered help, list a price to charge him for any services.
John Gowdy wrote in Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market, "Assumptions about human behavior that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples. The dominant school of economic theory in the industrialized world, neoclassical economics, holds these attributes to be essential for economic advancement and affluence... Neoclassical economic theory contains more than a set of beliefs about human nature. It is also an ideology justifying the existing economic organization, resource use, and distribution of wealth. This belief system sees class divisions as inevitable and sees nature as a collection of 'natural resources' to be used to fuel the engine of economic growth and technological progress. The inequality of the distribution of goods among individuals in a capitalist economy is justified according to the 'marginal productivity theory of distribution.' "
Gowdy further writes concerning the environment of hunter-gatherers, "Because immediate-return hunter-gatherers lived, for the most part, off the direct flows from nature, it was immediately apparent when the flow of nature's services was disturbed. sustainability meant sustaining the ability of nature to provide the necessities of life. Hunter-gatherers have displayed the ability to substitute certain natural resources for many others, but care was taken to maintain the flow of nature's bounty.
Substitution is also one of the basic driving forces behind market economies, but it takes a much different, and virulent, form. In economic markets, no matter what the resource, a substitute for it will always appear if the price is right. However, since the ultimate measure of market value is monetary, all things are reduced to a single common denominator, money. Substitution is based on monetary values which may ignore essential characteristics not related to immediate market functions. According to economic criteria, an economy is sustainable, then, if its ability to generate income is maintained, that is, if the monetary value of its means of production is non-decreasing (Pearce and Atkinson 1993)... This way of looking at the world masks the fact that we are sacrificing for ephemeral economic gains the viability of resources upon which our ultimate existence as a species depends...
Market decisions reflect the interests of individual humans, not necessarily the community, and certainly not the well-being of the rest of the natural world. We make very different choices as individuals than we do as members of families, communities, or nations, or even as world citizens."
This is why public lands and wildlife are so important to us, versus those that advocate for turning these resources over to be privatized - we view the "community", whether it is the community of conservation hunter/anglers or the whole biotic community of natural resources as the priority, for the greater good, rather than the shortsighted wealth of privatization they want to impose.
One of my favorite quotes is from Marshall Sahlins, an anthropologist, who wrote, among many other things, The Original Affluent Society, first presented at a symposium on "Man the hunter," in 1972, about hunter-gatherer cultures. Towards the end he states, "The world's most primitive people have few possessions. but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilization."
My previous decades of research, prior to Montana conservation, is in ancient archaeology, anthropology, comparative religious systems and linguistics - mostly of hunter-gatherer cultures and the following Indo-European caste/class system cultures that are very market, resource control driven. So this subject is not unfamiliar to me. In fact, it was part of what drove me to all that research, because hunter-gatherer mentalities are typically community oriented, sharing what they have, which I have participated in and have been a recipient of. Something I have repeatedly seen so many on this forum exhibit: a good example would be when Richard came to Montana for a hunt from England and had airline issues with his gun and ammo. I did not see a single person that offered help, list a price to charge him for any services.
John Gowdy wrote in Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market, "Assumptions about human behavior that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples. The dominant school of economic theory in the industrialized world, neoclassical economics, holds these attributes to be essential for economic advancement and affluence... Neoclassical economic theory contains more than a set of beliefs about human nature. It is also an ideology justifying the existing economic organization, resource use, and distribution of wealth. This belief system sees class divisions as inevitable and sees nature as a collection of 'natural resources' to be used to fuel the engine of economic growth and technological progress. The inequality of the distribution of goods among individuals in a capitalist economy is justified according to the 'marginal productivity theory of distribution.' "
Gowdy further writes concerning the environment of hunter-gatherers, "Because immediate-return hunter-gatherers lived, for the most part, off the direct flows from nature, it was immediately apparent when the flow of nature's services was disturbed. sustainability meant sustaining the ability of nature to provide the necessities of life. Hunter-gatherers have displayed the ability to substitute certain natural resources for many others, but care was taken to maintain the flow of nature's bounty.
Substitution is also one of the basic driving forces behind market economies, but it takes a much different, and virulent, form. In economic markets, no matter what the resource, a substitute for it will always appear if the price is right. However, since the ultimate measure of market value is monetary, all things are reduced to a single common denominator, money. Substitution is based on monetary values which may ignore essential characteristics not related to immediate market functions. According to economic criteria, an economy is sustainable, then, if its ability to generate income is maintained, that is, if the monetary value of its means of production is non-decreasing (Pearce and Atkinson 1993)... This way of looking at the world masks the fact that we are sacrificing for ephemeral economic gains the viability of resources upon which our ultimate existence as a species depends...
Market decisions reflect the interests of individual humans, not necessarily the community, and certainly not the well-being of the rest of the natural world. We make very different choices as individuals than we do as members of families, communities, or nations, or even as world citizens."
This is why public lands and wildlife are so important to us, versus those that advocate for turning these resources over to be privatized - we view the "community", whether it is the community of conservation hunter/anglers or the whole biotic community of natural resources as the priority, for the greater good, rather than the shortsighted wealth of privatization they want to impose.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I think what the pay to play crowd is really capitalizing on is the need for instant gratification and exclusivity. There is a lot of social cachet in spending money. Why tromp the hills with the masses if you can pay for exclusive access?
Kat's post articulated the difference in these value systems really well. I know I view our wildlife as an important part of natural landscapes and functioning ecosystems on which we all depend. But they are now being viewed by some as a commodity, with an increasing emphasis on status as the basis for access to that commodity.
Kat's post articulated the difference in these value systems really well. I know I view our wildlife as an important part of natural landscapes and functioning ecosystems on which we all depend. But they are now being viewed by some as a commodity, with an increasing emphasis on status as the basis for access to that commodity.
barracudamuscle
Member
We didn't inherit these lands from our ancestors, we borrow it from our future children. Hopefully there's a way to get some traction with this.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,561
Very true Art. However, if you manage more for quality (okay let's just call it higher B&C score because that's what a lot of folks equate to quality), then you decrease opportunity. Decreased opportunity creates a higher demand for access in the areas that are not managed for quality. There's certainly no easy answer to it.
katqanna
Well-known member
Growing up in Texas, one of the marketing points for the private, exclusive access was safety. I constantly heard that there was safety on the private land hunts, you certainly didnt want to risk unknown and masses of hunters on public lands. Then when I married into an ag/ranching family that also leased hunting, this was a very dominant point. Never having hunted on public lands, nor knowing any public land hunters, I believed the fear mongering.
Shortly before I moved up here, I remember the news of the Cheney hunting accident (edit: thanks to Topgun not a fatality) on a private ranch in Texas. After moving here and learning of public lands access and hinting issues, I remembered that a number of hunting accidents I had knowledge of in Texas were also on private lands, not public.
I wonder if someone has done statistical analysis of hunting accidents to see where the bulk of them occur? This was from a Wisconsin 2015 state report of hunting accidents so far. 5 of the 9 were on private property. Almost reads like a Darwin awards runner ups.
Shortly before I moved up here, I remember the news of the Cheney hunting accident (edit: thanks to Topgun not a fatality) on a private ranch in Texas. After moving here and learning of public lands access and hinting issues, I remembered that a number of hunting accidents I had knowledge of in Texas were also on private lands, not public.
I wonder if someone has done statistical analysis of hunting accidents to see where the bulk of them occur? This was from a Wisconsin 2015 state report of hunting accidents so far. 5 of the 9 were on private property. Almost reads like a Darwin awards runner ups.
Last edited:
mtlion
Well-known member
Wow that's crazy. The first one right off the bat.
antlerradar
Well-known member
JLS. Most will acknowledge that there is a trade off between opportunity and quality. I am just pointing out that there are other costs to providing maximum opportunity.
Montana has one of the best opportunity seasons in the west. The Montana season also could not be better for a landowner like me to make money off of deer.
This is why. first it is long so I can take more hunters. On our place if I took more than three paying hunters at a time I would start to have issues with crowding. That means in Montana (assuming a five day hunt) I could take a maximum of 21 paying clients and not run into crowding. If the ranch was south of the border in Wyo. with its fifteen day season I could only take 9 hunters a year. The value of the hunting on my property would be cut in half if the ranch was 75 miles south.
The timing could not be better. Every year we have at least 5 to 10 nice bucks come out of the hills to rut with the does in our alfalfa fields. These bucks are mostly coming out of the public. I have located some of the mule deer as far as five miles in to the Custer during the summer. The first week of November they are standing in the hay fields. Some of the whitetails are coming from as far as 15 miles. In the old days the cattle barons knew that if they controlled the water they could also control the grazing on the nearby public land. With the current Montana season if the landowner controls the land were a large number of the does live he can also control the bucks that spend most of there lives on the near by public. Many of the ranches that have a hunting operation will not shoot any does for this reason. Yet FWP issues lots of doe tags and the doe herd on the public gets hammered. This is not helping. The migration of the bucks to the doe herds in the alfalfa fields is a direct transfer of wealth from the public to the landowner.
There was a time when I thought that the Montana season was the best in the west. In the 70's and 80's it was. Although the season is still a great deal for me there are nasty trade offs for the public land hunting Montana resident.
The Montana season is very similar in length and timing to the Texas season. We should not expect that we will not suffer the same fate.
Montana has one of the best opportunity seasons in the west. The Montana season also could not be better for a landowner like me to make money off of deer.
This is why. first it is long so I can take more hunters. On our place if I took more than three paying hunters at a time I would start to have issues with crowding. That means in Montana (assuming a five day hunt) I could take a maximum of 21 paying clients and not run into crowding. If the ranch was south of the border in Wyo. with its fifteen day season I could only take 9 hunters a year. The value of the hunting on my property would be cut in half if the ranch was 75 miles south.
The timing could not be better. Every year we have at least 5 to 10 nice bucks come out of the hills to rut with the does in our alfalfa fields. These bucks are mostly coming out of the public. I have located some of the mule deer as far as five miles in to the Custer during the summer. The first week of November they are standing in the hay fields. Some of the whitetails are coming from as far as 15 miles. In the old days the cattle barons knew that if they controlled the water they could also control the grazing on the nearby public land. With the current Montana season if the landowner controls the land were a large number of the does live he can also control the bucks that spend most of there lives on the near by public. Many of the ranches that have a hunting operation will not shoot any does for this reason. Yet FWP issues lots of doe tags and the doe herd on the public gets hammered. This is not helping. The migration of the bucks to the doe herds in the alfalfa fields is a direct transfer of wealth from the public to the landowner.
There was a time when I thought that the Montana season was the best in the west. In the 70's and 80's it was. Although the season is still a great deal for me there are nasty trade offs for the public land hunting Montana resident.
The Montana season is very similar in length and timing to the Texas season. We should not expect that we will not suffer the same fate.
Last edited:
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Kat---The Cheney incident didn't result in a fatality. He was dove hunting and put some bird shot into one of the guys he was hunting with when he fired in an area he shouldn't have.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Agree with this post 100%....nailed it.
katqanna
Well-known member
Topgun, thank you, corrected to accident, not fatality. I was remembering the young boy accidentally shot by his brother in the blind (south of San Antonio), also shot in the face, which was a fatality.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,561
Thanks Art. Completely agree with the points you made. The Texification of Montana doesn't just involve the N Bar.
Zach
Well-known member
No statistical analysis, but just from memory it seems that I recall more accidents/fatalities occurring on public land in my years between California and Colorado. Just this year a 14 y/o boy was shot and killed in CO near Grand Mesa.
Stupidity/Accidents(if you can really classify them that way)happen regardless of property dividers. I would say if you take a state that has a higher percentage of private land, then that is where a higher percentage of accidents will happen, vice versa with a state that has larger public hunting grounds.
.02
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
Most guys driving those 30K pick-ups don't own them, they make payments. Most guys I know can't afford to pay a "rancher" $1,000 to hunt elk. Elk are owned by the citizens, not by a handful of greedy ranchers. JMO
Similar threads
