The responsibility should be on the hunter. When on a guided hunt, you are not buying success, but rather the skills and knowledge of the guide/outfitter. To rely on that person solely would be wrong in my opinion. You, as a hunter, need to know: the rules; laws; know where you are; know where you should be; and everything else that goes along with being a hunter.
Why would anyone rely completely on another person to do everything for them is beyond me. More people in life need to get back in touch with the word "accountability", and quit blaming others for their own actions.
Yes, I understand you are paying good money to be on that hunt, just like you pay good money for a house. And the same, when your house has failures, you had better be able to fix the problem yourself, or be prepared to pay a boatload of money to have someone else do it.
Maybe that wasn't the best analogy, but you might get what I'm saying. It all comes back to accountability for ones own actions. It seems as though the country is getting away from that and is going to he!! In a handbasket because of it.
As soon as I hear someone say "Not my fault", conversation is then over because no matter what was done, they have already removed themselves from it.
In any violation involving multiple parties or people, the charges will be discretionary to a degree. As soon as you put ALL the onus on one side or the other, you give the other side an out...an excuse...plausible deniability. If all hunters understood clearly that ANY violation committed during the hunt could lead to charges against them, they might be a lot more careful to check things out and know how to stay clear of trouble.
This will never be a black/white situation. Never.
Sawtooth why would I know anymore about the lay of the land or for that matter some small obscure law when I am AK than when I am in Africa?
I especially am concerned about it when I am forced by law to hire someone. What actually am I paying for if not for someone to be proficient in the where and why of the hunt. I only need to hire someone to hunt there not to hike, bike,ski or do any other recreational activity. So what is the purpose of a individual to accompany me on a hunting trip?
By the way I do understand that if I have intent to circumvent the law that I should be responsible but there again should it not be the guide/outfitter to immediately stop the hunt and report me?
Now if someone shoots an animal that is not legal or is hunting with equipment that is not legal then I can see that it should be on the hunter. But personally I think that trespassing should fall on the outfitter.
Hire an unlicensed deal and then you are on your own.
IMHO
I agree with part and totaly disagree wit hthe other.
"When on a guided hunt, you are not buying success, but rather the skills and knowledge of the guide/outfitter."
Absolutley right 100%. You pay for their knowledge of the law, property borders, etc.
"The responsibility should be on the hunter."
I disagree 100% on this. When you hire a guide is just like when you hire lawyer, doctor or a limo driver. You pay them for their knowledge and abilities. You pay somebody for exchange of a service you can't or don't want to do. They should be 100% responsible. If you get in a taxi and the driver crashes, should people be able to sue you as well? If the driver was on drugs, should you do time and charge with the same charges the driver is?
But think of how many folks pay accountants to do their taxes, which sometimes involves very complicated laws. If that accountant messes up and the IRS catches wind, they are still ultimately coming after you.
Based on your comments I would think that if you drive out of state, you read all the traffic laws of the states you dive to or through. Do you?
Before going to ANY state, do you read all the state laws?
TMA1010 said this and I have to agree....."How is a hunter on a guided hunt supposed to confirm that the outfitter has legal access to the land that you're hunting? Should you insist on speaking to all of the landowners whose ground you may end up hunting on during your hunt? Seems a little ridiculous to me."
Now as far as having proper tags and other required licenses and just being ethical is certainly equally on the hunter and the guide.
I think this falls into two areas: - Violation of a hunting law (shooting an illegal animal). The only one you can get is the hunter, the guide didn't "hunt" and didn't shoot. The hunter did, he should be accountable for the action. You KNOW what your tag covers, or you should. The guide is NOT looking over your shoulder all the time, you could be in a stand, in a drive, even elk calling the guide could be 100 yards behind you. You pulled the trigger.
- Trespass I see as different. I am paying the outfitter for knowledge of the area, this includes boundaries, private property, where he's allowed to take hunters etc.
edit: By the way I am not like some I do not think the sky is falling but I do certainly see a potential for it and would rather try to constructively stay ahead of the curve rather than sit back and talk trash.
Years ago, you and I spoke about that very Grizzly outfitter BEFORE you booked the hunt with him. I shared some potential concerns that I had observed, yet you booked the hunt with that outfitter anyways.
You observed something that you weren't comfortable following, and your personal ethics prevented you from doing something that was wrong.....nonetheless, you still booked with the outfitter. Why would you even consider such a course of action? I am not condemning or condoneing.....just trying to understand...."seek first to understand, then to be understood".
Things are not always black and white.....perception can trump reality in this fast changing world. I submit that it is possible that you trusted your personal ethics to keep you out of trouble, and since the area was known for bears, you still decided to go.....further validating my comment about things not being strictly black or white.
I was bowhunting for Barren Ground Caribou in the Yukon. I was at the extreme northern edge of the outfitters boundary, which bordered property owned by the Inuit nation. How do I know this?....because the outfitters told me so....not GPS....because apparently GPS doesn't even HAVE data posted for that region....at least, not available to John Q Public. Despite relatively modern technology, remote areas still have considerable room for dispute when it comes to property lines....which could cause an incident.
One possible solution?.....don't crowd the line....perhaps....especially when it is a 10,000 square mile concession. However, if you have been in the area for 10-12 days, and the only caribou that you see are within 500 feet of the supposed border (it was almost as if they knew...LOL!).....even law abiding hunters will invariably trust their guide/outfitter to keep them out of trouble....why? Because technology isn't that precise in some of the more remote areas....I believe that there is a "balancing act" that occurs in these types of situations.....the drive to be successful, versus the risk of not knowing EXACTLY where you are, and the consequences that come with assuming that risk.
Much of this can be resolved by asking good questions....but ultimately, like Pat types, sometimes it can be a crapshoot. Let's face it, if some bowhunters are willing to bowhunt for Polar bear or Grizzly bear, are we necessarily going to backdown from a property line dispute that isn't even easily reconcilable by either side?
Again, in a similar tenor to a comment that I shared with Cityhunter, I am not disagreeing with some of what you post.....just trying to understand, before delving into more details and thoughts.
There is no way to involve someone else in your hunting and not rely on them to a certain extent.
If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.
Some hunts you legally cannot do yourself. I've decided these hunts aren't for me. If you decide to go out of the country, you inherently accept risk.
Which would be fine, if the buck stopped right there.
First day, he drives me to his land and shows me my treestand for the night. How would I know if he really has permission for that particular ranch/tree?? IMHO, that is nearly 100% on him.
On the other hand, let's say that I shoot a mule deer when I only have a whitetail tag. How is the outfitter supposed to prevent that? IMHO, that is 100% on me.
When you use a guide either domestic or international, sometimes you can't check. It has nothing to do with being lazy nor GPS. The GPS will tell you where you are but not who owns the property (at least the cheap ass GPS I have).
Of course hunters can pursue a civil action against an outfitter who puts them in trouble, but that isn't happening if the hunter is half-a-world away and unable to afford the process. Small comfort.
In the end, the only way to keep yourself on the right side of the law is to know as much of it as possible. The parts you don't know can hurt you, and it pays to be careful. Claiming you didn't know you were illegally hunting in zone 2 might be right, but enforcement will look at the actual infraction just as much as they do the cause of it. You may still get the ticket and be left to fight about it with an outfitter.
How do you know the outfitter has a valid outfitter/guide license? Do you ask to see it in advance of every hunt?
How do you know the outfitter has permission to be on the property you are hunting? Do you demand written proof? How do you know it is not a forgery?
What if the hunt is on public land? Do you know all the requirements that must be met for an outfitter to legally run a hunt on public land?
Have you checked the outfitter's insurance? If they provide you with an insurance certificate to prove they are insured, do you verify it with the insurance carrier prior to booking? Do you re-check it the day before the hunt to ensure that it is still valid?
The point here is that there are a lot of things that a hunter must leave to chance and trust his/her outfitter/guide on. And I would almost bet not a one of us - myself included - know all the things that must be checked in order to make sure we do not accidentally end up in a questionable situation.....like the bison hunters I am aware of who had their animals confiscated because the outfitter did not have the correct forest service permits to conduct a hunt in the location where the animals were killed.
The next day I called my friendly Nationwide insurance agent to get up on the details of this process. The conversation was going well right up to the point where she told me I could file the accident claim from her office. I said, "OK. What is the accident claim?" Imagine my disbelief and irritation when she told me it was the report that needed to be sent to the other insurance company, along with a copy of the police report.
I was even more confused because my interpretation of the "contract" I had entered into with Nationwide a decade before, led me to believe that it was their responsibility to file any and all claims in my defense as a Nationwide client. She informed me that was not the way Nationwide handled it. They saw it as the clients responsibility but, would guide them along the way.
I bit my tongue and, followed orders to file the claim. When the last fax was sent, I informed her that as soon as this was over, I would no longer be a Nationwide customer.
My point to this long winded rambling was that there are reasons to pay for the guidance and assistance of individuals. And, after doing so, they are obligated to hold up their end of the deal. In any hunting situation the outfitter is required in the most simple form of responsibility, to put the hunter in a legal area, ensuring the hunter has all the tags required before actually taking the person to the field, and having knowledge of the game laws surrounding the hunter's hunt.
If that isn't their responsibility, I'll go somewhere else where the outfitter understands it is and, acts accordingly. Unfortunately, as with the insurance thing, one most likely isn't apt to find these kind of things out until they are on the bad side of things.
God Bless
The largest booking agency in North America sold me one of these hunts, and another outfitter came so highly recommended by many acquaintances and on line references I was shocked by the level of dishonesty I encountered. Of course the vast majority of hunts were conducted professionally and as far as I could ascertain, fully compliant with all laws. When hunting DIY I pride myself on knowing and complying with the laws. But, for example, when thinking about the highly publicized case in MT about the hunters who didn't tag their elk "immediately", I must say I have been equally guilty on a few occasions. It simply isn't so black and white.
Until you have hunted in many states and countries, you can't really appreciate the trust you must put in the professionals you deal with. I would much rather rely on myself to check and double check every detail, but it truly is impossible in many of these situations. It is precisely why many locations require you to have a guide. You can be totally risk adverse and stay in your cocoon at home, but this hardly seems like a solution.
If you hunt in distant places long enough, you will encounter questionable practices or individual. Being willing to forfeit a hunt that doesn't meet your own personal ethical standards (which hopefully includes following all game laws) isn't easy, and can possibly be quite expensive. This is part of the risk you take for an adventure.
Those who seem ready to condemn all for failure to know the most obscure detail or reliance on professional guidance do not understand the reality of the situation.
Bill
Hunting has so many inputs it tends to be a bit messy at times. Most of us visualize the outcome of our outdoor adventures. They seldom play out the way we visualize them unfortunately. It can be due to someone's fault or sometimes it is just chance. It is just the nature of the life we live.
If you can not accept that you have either not been around long enough, or you are in for a big wake up call someday.
I would just like to clarify a few facts. Firstly, yes, the lion was collared but that does not mean protected the hunting concession we are on borders the park-- no fences, no gates, no wires. These animals are free to roam and cross into the areas surrounding the park at will. It is a given that when any animal is out of the designated boundaries of the park and in a hunting concession, it is fair game. Collared animals are shot by hunters once in a while and the law states that nothing has been done illegally, just that the collar is to be returned to the National Parks office.
Secondly, this lion was not lured out of the park by guts being dragged or calls being made. There was an elephant carcass, that died of natural causes, 2 1/2 km out of the parks boundary. The Professional Hunter (PH) and his hunter had seen a lion on the carcass so set up a blind to hunt that evening. The collared lion was the one that came in. No one realized the animal was collared until after it was harvested. The collar was returned to Parks, as is the procedure. It is unfortunate that this lion is a frequently photographed one in the parks as I believe that is why it has made national news. That, and the fact that it has a name..... Cecil.
Theo Bronkhorst has been threatened and dragged over the coals on this one. His family is being harassed and the Facebook comments have been horrendous. Our own fb page has had a few. One in particular. "let me guess...this fed a village".
Here's where I'd like to explain something. Feeding the village is a phrase that is always taken in the literal sense. Yes, the meat of any animal is shared with the people but it's more than that. Here's how it works.
Every hunting concession has a native game scout appointed. This scout must accompany the PH and his hunters to be sure that nothing is shot that is not on quota.....quota meaning that only so many of one species can be taken during the year. This is recorded very officially in a ledger. Every animal has a trophy fee. This is divided up to the outfitter, the village and the government. The village gets their share of the meat. Now this is where Theo makes a difference. With the money, he has helped the people dig wells, pipe water and supplied tanks to their houses so they don't have to walk long distances to carry it. They have larger gardens now because of it, not to mention running water. He has built schools. He's helped put in solar panels so they have power. I have seen satellite dishes on some homes so I know they have tv. It is all this that is included in the phrase ' feed the village'.
I believe so many people do not understand hunting. They only see killing. Without hunting there is no conservation. Theo and his family are conservationists. They are not poachers. Everything done in the taking of this lion was done with professionalism. The hunter was legally licensed, the outfitter/PH, Theo, was licensed to legally hunt in that area. The lion had a GPS collar and if anyone is to blame, it should be the authorities who's job was to track him.
It is disgusting to me how there is so much to-do about this one lion but nothing is said about the man who was killed just 2 nights ago by an elephant in the village of the scout who rides in the truck with us everyday. A human life was taken and it is not mentioned. We should be more concerned about Masugo and his family than Cecil. It is unfair that no one feels sorry for Masugo....nor for the hunter and PH that have been falsely accused of a crime they did not commit.
Please share this with as many people as you can so the real story also gets revealed. It surprises us that organizations like Dallas Club and Safari Club International (SCI), who's slogan is 'first for hunters', have not become involved to investigate and stand behind a fellow hunter. Let us all, as hunters, stand together.
~Debby & the Ndn
Jake i also got screwed on the tuttulik scam all greatest reports
My point is one guy can have a perfect hunt and not so the next guy