Freelance Bowhunter's Link
At this point the cat's out of the bag and there are no more secrets and there's no going back. Between OnX, Toprut, Hunting Fool and Game & Fish bombarding everyone constantly with "don't forget to apply" or "here's a list of sleeper units" or whatever, another hunting Youtube blog isn't going to make one bit of difference.
Depends if you want to capitalize on it.
Turkeys and public hunting them has taken a fast turn for the worst and tons of opportunities lost in shorter seasons, later openers, smaller limits etc etc
Depends if you want to capitalize on it.
Of course not. That's why more and more hunting and trapping is being banned in western states and wolves are being introduced into Colorado. You want more examples? There are plenty. Hunters vote for and support hunting in case you haven't noticed. Selfish attitudes like yours have done more to damage hunting than OnX or any social media ever will.
I’ve often thought about starting a channel showcasing how to fail at hunting. I’ve years of expertise.
Depends if you want to capitalize on it.
When it becomes impossible to draw a tag or we are priced out due to supply and demand and it becomes a pursuit only for the rich, then we will see a serious decline in hunters and I can't imagine that will be good for your profit margin. Unfortunately I'm afraid that's the direction we are going.
You call me selfish, well I could throw that back at you and say that maybe you are selfish for taking an activity that should be done for the love of nature, the wild experience and a means of procuring food and you are turning it into a commercialized endeavor to line your own pockets at the expense of everybody else who does not believe in pimping out the experience. You selfishly say "recruit more hunters" because it increases your fan base and improves your bottom line regardless of the impact on anybody else.
I could probably have my own YouTube channel with all the incredible hunting experiences I have in numerous states every year but it's too sacred to me to sell it out and turn it into a job. I also don't think I would feel right about being a part of something that could actually be degrading the future of hunting.
And I highly doubt that an increase in hunters will have any bearing on wolves being released in Colorado. You can argue that your role in increasing hunter recruitment helps fight off the anti hunters and pro wolf people but are you sure you're not just saying these things to help justify your profit driven actions? The liberals have control, just like in Wisconsin where the northern deer herd has been decimated by wolves. Nobody outside the state of Wisconsin gives two shits about the decimation of the northern deer herd or the over population of wolves in northern Wisconsin. More hunters in Wisconsin will not change the wolf situation. Just like recruiting more non resident hunters to hunt in the western states will have little or no impact on the local state politics that determine whether or not wolves will be released. Sorry but I'm afraid that's the way it is.
I could probably have my own YouTube channel with all the incredible hunting experiences I have in numerous states every year but it's too sacred to me to sell it out and turn it into a job. I also don't think I would feel right about being a part of something that could actually be degrading the future of hunting."
you must realize that bowsite is commercialized enterprise that in your words...is profiting off others and pimping out the hunting experience? the owner of this site offers a resource where information is shared...people are entertained...hunting is shown in a good light...and sponsors pay for the opportunity to be seen by other hunters...no different than freelance bowhunters youtube channel. not that there is anything wrong with bowsite but at least the content freelance bowhunter is selling is his own.
you also must realize that if you are having incredible hunting experiences in numerous states every year...you are part of what you consider too many hunters in other areas. doesnt everyone else have that opportunity...or do you think that once you got in...you can shut the door behind you and tell everyone else to stay home? not only that but how many people do you think decided to hunt the states that you hunt based on the incredible stoires, tips and advice youve shared here...i know ive hunted different states and specific locations based entirely on things ive read here on bowsite...again no different that what freelance bowhunter is doing.
IMO, that limit was reached years ago.
Matt
if freelance bowhunter...or anyone else that makes videos...writes articles...owns a hunting forum...or in any way makes a little money off their passion...puts hunting in a good light...they should be commended...not ridiculed.
The genie is probably not going back in the bottle anytime soon:)
how do you think advertisement rates are calculated on a site like this...its based on number of clicks...and what do think threads about successful hunts here do in terms of interest in other areas...i know i have personally gone to new areas based specifically on threads posted here.
Nosler, Hornady, Christensen arms, Winchester, or any of them.
Nobody should be able to make money off the outdoor industry. Because the outdoors are a passion. And nobody should be getting anyone else involved in the sport. We are already overcrowded as is. Can’t draw tags. Too many animals getting killed. Commercializing wildlife and hunting is what’s hurting it the most. Look no further than Africa. Hunting, and money, and travel hasn’t single handedly saved species, helped economies. Helped starving people or anything.
Look, clearly I’m being a wise ass.
Here’s the truth about hunting that I don’t believe a lot of you want to recognize.
Hunter numbers and new recruitment is down. Has been for years.
Wasn’t there a thread here not that long ago about show a pic with you and your bow? Most everyone was older. And this isn’t just indicative of this site. It’s indicative of the sport in general. Fathers and grand fathers Haven’t been getting their kids and grand kids involved. Hell, some of you don’t even have kids.
Is it harder to draw a tag in the west? Yes. Does that mean hunter numbers have increased? No.
It simply means more People from Other areas have started to hunt here.
How many people now come to the west to hunt versus 20-30 years ago?
What’s going to happen is, there’ll be a boom and bust cycle. We aren’t far off from the bust cycle. Some of you won’t live to see it though.
Hunting only survives by strength in numbers and that’s a cold hard fact.
We aren’t nearly as big of a population as some Of you would like to believe.
And as far as Bowsite goes, and somebody being the “new kid on the block”, this site isn’t the real world. The world and hunting world is just a tad bigger than the lives some lead on here.
I agree with you that it goes both ways but I disagree with you about what I can or can't speak out in favor of or not in favor of. There are many perspectives on this issue and not everybody will agree with you or me but that doesn't mean everybody isn't entitled to their opinions or feelings. I believe that people can have opinions on limitations on commercialization of hunting without being hypocritical. Saying I can't have limitations is like saying that if I support compound bows for hunting then I have to support all forms of hunting such as full inclusion of crossbows in archery season, use of drones for hunting, cell cams on public land, baiting on public land, permanent tree stands on public land, etc, etc, etc. I don't agree with that but if I remember correct from reading some of Bernie's past works he supports pretty much everything. Maybe because it increases his fan base and clicks?
The irony here is that I made a simple comment regarding the number of hunters out west and if Bernie would have just let it be or not responded the way he did I would have just kept my mouth shut. Regardless, it gave me the opportunity to play the devil's advocate and point out other possible perspectives...
Regardless of whether people agree with me or not it really doesn't matter. Do I think hunting was better before YouTube and OnX? Yes I do and some who remember the good old days may agree but many who do not will probably think I'm a jerk. That really doesn't matter either though because the ship has sailed...
reminds me of the john denvers lyrics...
"While they try to tear the mountains down to bring in a couple more More people, more scars upon the land..."
...this was after he built his huge home in the mountains of course.
Matt
P.S. (I’ve heard bowsite makes money for the owner of it and the people who post here help him make that money and it promotes bowhunting, hunters share information on things like public land hunting, drawing tags, it sells hunting gear, books hunts for outfitters, etc. Maybe just a rumour?)
Rocky, care to name a few of those spots? I have a young buddy on the east coast that would be grateful.
Come to my neck of the woods in central and eastern Colorado, where there is almost no quality public land to hunt, and try to gain access with just a handshake, or an offer to help out with chores around the property. Let me know how you do.
Around here, there are basically 3 types of landowners. Those who hunt their own property with a few close friends or family, those who lease to an outfitter or a hunting group, and those who don't allow any hunting at all. Handshake access is a thing of the distant past. Kansas is becoming very similar.
Sure, there is plenty of public in the Colorado high country, but *quality* public hunting is another story. When was the last time you hunted on OTC public ground in Colorado? If it's been a while, I think you'd be disappointed, now.
Matt
The stats don’t lie. It’s down.
Are there some New ones? Sure there are. But they aren’t replacing the ones who’re dying.
You lose more hunters than you recruit. Fact.
Hard to draw tags? Yep. Same old same old guys applying. Some new, yes. But not as many as the usual suspects.
“Hard to draw tags? Yep. Same old same old guys applying. Some new, yes. But not as many as the usual suspects.”
Not sure how you can say this after looking at western tag draws over the last 5 years?
Are there some NEW to the sport hunters applying? YES. But the majority of people applying are not NEW hunters.
Are there more people applying? YES. But it isn’t who many of you are blaming.
Additionally, the internet has single handedly given more People access to the how’s and why’s of other states than any other resource.
You have people applying in states they never did before. But they’re people who were already hunters.
Hunter numbers are DOWN. How hard it is to draw a tag isn’t indicative of how many new people there are to the sport.
Again, yea, there’s some newbies applying. Especially during and after Covid. But it isn’t keeping pace with what you’re losing.
Do I hope that the trend is reversed? Yes I do. The salvation of the sport and tradition is more important to me than hard to draw tags.
I never applied in Kansas until 6 years ago. Never in Iowa. Never in Wyoming until 15 years ago.
Applying, and information availability is greater than before. This is why the increase. Not because of new recruitment.
I guess all the unselfish guys must be very happy about increasing point creep and poor elk draw odds that continue to get worse every year. They must also really enjoy things like spending all day online trying to get an Idaho "OTC" elk tag and failing every year.
If being disappointed by the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to draw elk tags and stating my opinion that we currently don't need to recruit any more elk hunters makes me selfish, then so be it.
I can't help but wonder when or if the more generous guys will ever hit a tipping point and feel that there are enough elk hunters and there's enough competition for tags. At what point if ever, is having that opinion no longer considered selfish? Will the more generous guys continue to be happy when it gets to the point that they only get to hunt elk once or twice in their lifetime if ever? If they're not happy about that are they just being selfish?
ive had these great hunting spots to myself for 10...20...30 years and now that other people are finding out about them im pissed...or i used to be able to hunt my neighbors farm for a handshake and a bottle of scotch but now he wants to supplement his income by leasing the farm and im pissed.
hell...when i first started bowhunting there were about 50k bowhunters in my state...now theres about 350k...should i be pissed?
the frustration is understandable but its hard to call it anything else but selfish.
were all the articles in bowhunter magazine...that we all poured over back in the day... whoring out valued resources for personal gain too? the writer made a profit, the magazine made a profit, the advertisers made a profit...all off a valued public resource. after all, thats how many of us learned about hunting opportunities in places other than our home state. youtube...and sites like bowsite... are nothing more than the new bowhunter magazine.
Who said I was pissed? All I said was there's no current need to recruit more hunters out west and for that I'm labeled as selfish.
So it's understandable to be frustrated but if I say anything I'm selfish? Who appointed you the authority on what's acceptable to think or say? Do you even elk hunt or apply for elk tags out west? If not, I don't know what qualifies you to judge others for their opinions on the situation.
I find it hard to believe that the rest of you guys honestly want more competition for elk tags. Seriously, you guys really want less opportunity to hunt elk...?
I'm not disputing that hunter numbers are dropping nationwide but I also find it interesting that wherever I go out of state, the residents complain or talk about too many non resident hunters. I've been harassed a couple times by residents in Kansas who told me to go back Wisconsin and complained about the huge increase in non resident hunters. It's continually getting harder to draw deer tags in Kansas and Iowa and Missouri public land is extremely crowded. You'd think with this drop in hunter numbers you'd see a corresponding drop in demand for tags and fewer hunters in the field but that's simply is not the case. Everywhere I hunt, whether it's out west for elk or in the Midwest for deer, hunter numbers are increasing and there's more and more competition for tags. Why is that if hunter numbers are dropping? If there are already more hunters than there are available tags and the available public land is already crowded, is there really a need to recruit more hunters? At what point have we recruited enough for the available resource? Do we continue to recruit more hunters until the situation is 10X or 100X worse than it currently is? Or am I just being selfish for asking these questions...?
by virtue of the fact that you asked this question it proves that your motives are by definition selfish. thats not necessarily a bad thing but if you personally want less competition for elk tags...thats selfish. if youve hunted elk for 20 years...couldnt it be argued that its someone elses turn who maybe hasnt hunted them at all? do they have to wait until you die or give it up to get a chance? theres about 100 million more people in the country than there was thirty years ago...its a pretty good bet some of them are going to want to hunt elk...maybe even in your favorite spot...thats just the reality of the situation.
Reduction in game populations resulting from habitat loss and degradation due to development, drought, and wild horses (last one primarily impacting NV).
Privatization of public lands and loss of access
Hunting Fool and other types of resources that have continued to evolve for the last 20 years
A generation of aging hunters with disposable income
Loss of opportunity through legislation
Etc….
When a river runs thru private property, the landowner doesn't own the water because it's a public resource. He may have rights to use a portion of the water, but he can't control and capitalize on all of the water that flows thru his property. Wildlife is also a public resource, yet a landowner can exclusively control and capitalize on it. IMO, that's where hunting went wrong.
I'm not suggesting that the public should be able to trespass and hunt on all private land. Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But, why should wildlife be any different than water, or any other public resource, in the way that it is controlled and managed?
At one time in Colorado, there was a limit to what a landowner could charge for a trespassing fee. IIRC, it was something like $200 per hunter. I always felt that was a reasonable regulation, although a very difficult one to enforce. At some point that changed and leases to the highest bidders became commonplace and acceptable.
Matt
Do any of you guys ever consider that the overall drop in hunter numbers nationwide might be partially due to loss of private land hunting opportunities which is partially a result of increased commercialization i.e. leasing and outfitting? And then the hunters who no longer have access to private land attempt to hunt overcrowded public land, have repeated negative experiences and give up.
So you guys who are in favor of increased commercialization and hunter recruitment might actually be supporting the things that are contributing to the decline in hunter numbers.
I'm guessing that the people who weren't very serious hunters have been weeded out and are no longer buying licenses whereas the hunters who remain are more committed and dedicated than ever. Many of those hunters who are disappointed with the loss of opportunity in the east and Midwest are now looking to the vast western public lands to scratch their hunting itch.
Well if nothing else I learned something in this discussion. It turns out I've been doing things wrong all these years... I didn't even realize farmers drank scotch!
now this is getting ridiculous...do you actually think legal hunters and illegal border crossers are comparable? i am ok with anyone coming to this country...as long as they follow the legal immigration process...so no...im not being selfish at all. if the influx of elk hunters you are referring to are not following the legal process they are poachers not hunters...and i would agree with you...but thats an entirely different issue.
no...i don't hunt elk but i dont need to in order to understand where you are coming from. a bear tag in the unit i want in my home state is basically a once every 12 to 15 year deal...and thats for a resident. some units you can basically get a tag every year...it is what it is but i would never dream of complaining that there are too many bear hunters...i just figure everyone else has the same right i do...and i dont have a right to hunt bear every year. i drew a tag about 5 years ago and i may not live long enough to draw again.
"Well if nothing else I learned something in this discussion. It turns out I've been doing things wrong all these years... I didn't even realize farmers drank scotch!"
some do... some drink wine...craft beer...and even starbucks coffee...and believe it or not some are anti hunting vegans and wont allow hunting access at any price. many farmers have realized that selling access to their land is no different than selling what they grow on it...just another needed revenue stream. its not that you did it wrong all these years...but things change.
Absolutely! I've watched it happen where I live and in my lifetime. It affects kids the most, the segment of the population least equipped to make competitive money. They are just sh@# out of luck and end up doing something else. Is there a link between the uptick and media? Certainly. Once our state become known as a trophy destination it became flooded with hunters (hunting shows, youtube, magazines, forums, etc). "There's a booner behind every tree" type of thing, even though it's rare to find something as big as 150 here. No where close to as many locals hunting as there were 20yrs ago.
Matt
Somehow hunters like to go to war with landowners, that seldom works out well for the general public.
Most leases are for big game (deer) with the intent to hunt unpressured deer during optimum times. Big game leases normally preclude other active uses of the land, including other hunting uses - small game, waterfowl, upland birds, etc. In addition even on the big game side, leases normally are pretty limiting on the number of hunters . Most leased property could probably support more hunters with a decline on the "quality" of the game seen.
Basically I see leases as creating a situation where land sits unused for a long periods of time, and when it is used, the use is optimized for very limited purpose and limited individuals.
Words do matter. You should be more careful with yours. Nobody hunts and kills land. They hunt and kill wildlife. Wildlife is a public resource, regardless of where it lives. I don't own the deer, turkeys and antelope that live on my property. That's why I've never felt entitled to profit from them. I am entitled to be very selective about who I allow to hunt them, however.
If you don't think that leasing and outfitting has reduced hunting opportunities overall, then you are part of the problem.
Matt
yes words do matter...and yours dont really make sense outside an emotional level. landowners are selling the opportunity...not the wildlife. if the landowner was shooting them and selling the animal it would be a different story...they arent...thats illegal. no different than a fishing charter on a public body of water. taken one step further...should the taxpayer directly compensate landowners for crop losses caused by that public resource? if you really want to get out in left field, should a landowner be allowed to sell a crop that was grown by other public resources like sun and rain?
Nonsense. If there wasn't any wildlife, the opportunity would be worthless.
.should the taxpayer directly compensate landowners for crop losses caused by that public resource?
Colorado taxpayers fund on average almost $755K a year for wildlife damage to private properties. So what's your point?
Sun and rain? Really? Now you're just being silly. A farmer doesn't have exclusive control over either of those resources.
Matt
Hunters are to blame. Hunters are the ones that created the market and are choosing lock land up for inefficient and extremely narrow overall use, not the landowners.
Agreed. If it weren't for hunters and outfitters throwing buckets of money at landowners, I'd still have access to thousands of acres I used to hunt 25 years ago. I know I'm not the only hunter who has experience a similar loss of opportunity.
Matt
If efficiency is about maximizing the largest and least pressured animals for the least number of hunters, then most leases are efficient.
There are exceptions of course, some leases probably do try to maximize the number of people with a larger variety of uses available.
he doesnt have exclusive control over the wildlife either...unless he fences them in. all a farmer has is land that may or may not be attractive to wildlife...which are free to come and go as they please...how many times dont we read about the guy that was targeting a buck that he had on his trail cam...only to hear that it was killed by someone three miles away. lots of hunters pay to lease land and end up not killing anything. youre right the sun and rain statement is ridiculous...that was the point.
i suppose you think are fishing charters are selling fish too?
there you have it in a nutshell...youre pissed because you might have to pay for something you used to get for free. when i was a kid i used to make a fair amount money diving for golf balls at the local golf course and selling them. not any more...used golf balls are part of a golf courses revenue stream...greedy bastards.
That's another silly comparison. How many fishing charters have exclusive control over the water they fish? In about 3 weeks, I'll be fishing the same water that dozens of charters will be fishing. Some of them act like they own the water, but they don't.
I know outfitters whose preferred lease structure is on a per kill basis. If the property produces kills, the landowner gets paid. If not, the outfitter doesn't pay a dime for the "opportunity". If that's not buying and selling wildlife, I don't know what is. Again, if a property doesn't have wildlife, is there any value to the "opportunity" to hunt it? It's an easy question to answer.
Matt
Sometimes it seems like there are more hunters now than ever. That perception is related to many factors, including widespread leasing of what was previously "door knock" permission. Obviously this compresses public land hunters into smaller and smaller spaces.
In the West, that is also true, but the bigger issue out here is that more people are applying for, and hunting, multiple states than ever before. "Hunt the West while you can" is the nationwide motto now. The info is ubiquitous, and what was once a mysterious process can now be deciphered quickly on the internet.
Some of you will continue to complain but I am afraid it will do you no good.
I am grateful there are private landowners who still allow hunting. Not being a demi, I expect nothing for free.
They’re no different than any out west outfitter trying to sell an experience, the harvest of an animal or a fish is a bonus. Fishing guides have been a huge part of the decline in the quality of fishing in our waters on the coast. Water gets just as crowded as the mountains do. 100% believe social media is partly at fault for quality hunting out west(but I still watch)
It's no secret that a lot of private land that was once available for non landowners to hunt is no longer available for various reasons. My comments about loss of access to that private land was simply my ponderings in an attempt to explain the overall reduction in hunter numbers. In no way was I implying that the public should have the right to hunt private land or that the landowner shouldn't have the right to do what he/she chooses with their land provided it's legal.
I swear, some people are just looking for a reason to be upset and criticize other people. Who really gives a rip if it's my opinion that we don't need to recruit any more hunters out west? It's just my opinion and it's not like I'm going to do anything about it. Just like it may be the opinion of others that they want more hunters out west. I have noticed that nobody in the "you're a selfish hypocrite" camp have answered my question and stated that yes, they do in fact want more competition for tags and less elk hunting opportunity.
For what is worth, I've spent countless hours helping other elk hunters and last year I dedicated the better part of two weeks helping a Bowsite friend (Old School) and his son Levi on their elk hunt. Hopefully what they learned on that hunt will help both of them on future hunts.
I don't really feel that strongly about YouTubers who make money off of their exploits. Most of my comments were just me playing the devil's advocate and pointing out other possible perspectives. It's obvious that some people have those perspectives and it's worth understanding that there's more than one way to look at things whether you agree or not. Some of my comments were purposely extreme.
What I don't understand is why some people are so intolerant of other's opinions and why they are so quick to pass judgement and so quick to be offended and throw out insults. But I guess that's just way all forms of social media are these days. Carry on...
Hunters support leasing, outfitting, horn porn, record books, and unlimited technology to name a few. Yet they peace and moan about lost opportunity.
I view things differently and realize we as hunters have created our own problems. I accept it, no turning back.
Fixing it comes down a prisoner's dilemma applied to all hunters. Cooperate for mutual benefit or betray for individual reward.
I guess by some people’s standards I’m selfish as well. I deer hunt private land and I like it that I have exclusive permission. Guess I should be publicly posting my pics along with the landowners phone number and address so I don’t hog all that good hunting for myself and so I can share the woods with 20-30 other hunters.
Don’t know how I live with myself for wanting exclusive hunting rights. Selfish, selfish, selfish…
you say its a silly comparison but is it? fishing charters are selling fish in the same way a farmer is selling deer. that is to say they arent. sure, other people can fish the same water but other people can also hunt the same deer because they are not confined to one piece of property. when you hire a fish charter, they don't control the water but they control the boat and where it goes. you pay for the right to be on someones boat...just like you pay for the right to be on someones land. the deer and the fish may or may not cooperate. plain and simple, its not the deer or the fish that are being sold...its the opportunity that is being sold.
i imagine an outfitter would absolutely love a per kill lease structure...but you can bet your ass that the outfitter isnt offering his service to the client on the same basis...hes going to get paid no matter what. how many outfitters do you know that only charge if the client is successful?
this all boils down to not liking the fact that you might have to pay for what you used to get for free. the easy way around all this is to buy your own land...improve it... maintain it... patrol it...pay the taxes on in...cover the liability on it...and then you can let anyone that asks hunt it for a handshake and a bottle of scotch...or a six pack of bud light.
Again, more nonsense, but I'm learning to expect that from you. Equating a fishing charter to leasing a private hunting property is ridiculous. Now, if charter captains could somehow lease the water, and keep other fisherman out, then it would be a reasonable comparison, but that's not how it works, and you know it.
An outfitter gets paid for services he renders. And, yes, some do charge a trophy fee for a successful hunt. I noticed you continue to avoid my question. Is there any hunting "opportunity" value to a property that doesn't hold wildlife? Is there any fishing "opportunity" value to waters that don't hold fish? Simple questions, but you won't answer them because the answers don't fit your argument.
"this all boils down to not liking the fact that you might have to pay for what you used to get for free."
More typical nonsense from you. Where did I ever say I got to hunt properties for free? I always earned my access. Many landowners used to welcomed some free labor in return for hunting permission, especially when the hunter had construction and cowboying skills. Not so much, anymore.
Gee, buy your own land and control the hunting on it. Now there's a brilliant idea. I did exactly that 25 years ago. But, I've never charged a dime to hunt the wildlife that live on my property because I don't own them.
Matt
i didnt answer it because it was stupid. of course theres no hunting or fishing opportunities for land and lakes that hold no game or fish...but then again nobody is wanting to pay for them either. the better the opportunity...the steeper the price. I could offer to lease my land for giraffe hunting too... or start up a marlin charter on my local lake...but i dont think id get many takers. like i said...dumb question.
" Gee, buy your own land and control the hunting on it. Now there's a brilliant idea. I did exactly that 25 years ago. But, I've never charged a dime to hunt the wildlife that live on my property because I don't own them."
"Many landowners used to welcomed some free labor in return for hunting permission"
i might be wrong but it seems to me you on here complaining a while back about a young man that wanted to hunt your land but never had time to help out.
labor is currency and when you offer it for hunting privileges...thats called a lease. in the legal world they call that consideration.
Thanks. So you acknowledge that a hunting lease is buying and selling wildlife, not opportunity. Glad we straightened that out.
The young man lost his hunting privileges when he started to take it for granted. It got to a point where the only time I'd hear from him was when he'd text me a week before the season to ask if he could bring 2-3 of his buddies to hunt with with him. It had nothing to do with him not helping out, although it would have helped his cause if he would have offered, at least.
If you don't see a difference between giving permission in return for a little free labor versus selling the permission to the highest bidder, then you're just being intentionally obtuse.
My place isn't large relative to some of my neighbor's ranches, but I have some of the best wildlife habitat, mostly due to 4 natural springs that bubble out of the ground, which is rare in my neck of the woods. I've been offered big money for hunting leases several times. I will never whore out the wildlife that lives on my property because that would only contribute to what I think ails hunting.
You are obviously OK with hunting becoming an activity that only the wealthy can afford. Just remember, there may come a day when you get priced out too.
Matt
the only thing straightened out is that you are full of shit. a lease is selling the opportunity...at wildlife. if it was selling the wildlife, why do so many tags go unfilled on guided hunts and leased land? speaking of guides...didnt you used to have an outfitting business? were all of your clients successful at buying wildlife? tell us how that worked. when your clients bought an animal...did they just pick the one they wanted out of your current catalog?
Now we're getting somewhere. So, that "opportunity...at wildlife" wouldn't be worth selling or buying if there was no wildlife on the property. I think we agree on that. The entire transaction is predicated on the premise that there is hunt-able wildlife on the property. It doesn't come with a guarantee of success, like buying a chicken at the grocery store, but it is still buying and selling wildlife any way you slice it.
Good chatting with you.
Matt
well then...there you go...a lease is the selling of an opportunity... not an animal...nothing more...nothing less. one particular lease might be a better opportunity than another...but its only an opportunity just the same.
just curious...when you were in the animal selling business...did you refund your clients that didnt get one?
Ask GG what his biggest regret is?
Matt
Matt
Matt
its always been an easy answer...they're paying for an opportunity...not an animal.
Bravo Sierra!!! You've been in the business 40 years. I wouldn't expect and other repsonse.
In the early 2000's My BIL I had access to almost 1000 acres of private ground in central PA. One tract was 500 acres, the other was ~400. Once PA implemented antler restrictions and inches age class and idiot hit list names became prevelant, both tracts were lost to leasing. Same way with properties closer to home. PA has lost upwards of ~300K hunters since roughly 2000. Every one that I have talked too, every one has talked about loss of access and public ground in a 2 hour radius is a nightmare. Some will mention priorities. If you want it bad enough you'll find a way. And that is true to a certain extent. By and large hunting has been a average man's, blue collar, activity. The North American Game model is based on it. It's is slowly (not sure if it's slowly) becoming a rich man's game. There WILL come a point and time where our voices no longer matter and what happened in CO will happen in other states. Ballot box biology. Brought on in large part by a FYIGM mentality.
As far as the influencers...Sorry they are NOT the Bowhunter Magazine of the 80's or Drury videos in the 90's. These guys have ZERO compunction about sharing trailheads, fishing locations, etc... I've been fly fishing PA for 45 years. Some of our streams provide excellent late winter fishing. Up until 3-4 years ago, I never saw a soul on about 2 dozen different streams. Now, sometimes it's hard to find a spot to park. In conversations with some of the latest crop of flyfisherman I ask how they came about this stream, this location. "Oh, I follow so and so on IG or YT and they mentioned it." Occasionally a Fly Fishing group pops up on my FB feed. One asshat was asking group members to share 5 streams as he would like to showcase them on his YT channel. The private farm I used to hunt (was turned into a state park this past fall) was inundated with the Sitka/First Lite groupies. On several occasions there different groups gearing up, go-pros and video equipment included. They hoped to get some great footage for their followers. And they descended on that property like cockroaches. Had two set up about 60 yards away during late season flintlock. Would have been hard to miss my flo-orange vest. Just yacking away, setting up cameras....
No, the influencers ARE whores, selling out hunting for likes, shares, and follows. What their impact is, they couldn't give two shits.
Except you'd be wrong. Very. Wrong. Wouldn't be the first time...
Two part question:
1. Is access significantly more difficult, especially since big $$'s came into play?
2. Has hunting, the NAGM, benefitted from the increasing lack of access?
And I fully beleive in landowner rights. 100%. WE are our own worse enemy. And if you want to claim survival of the fittest, FYIGM,.... well when hunters drop to 1 or 2% of the population and hunting, specifically bowhunting (cuz the animals die a slow death) is on the ballot box, we'll see how it plays out. May not happen in this graybeards lifetime. My sons? Possibly. My grandsons? Most definitely.
Hunters were one of the early supporters of ballot box game management, as long as it benefited them.
Agreed.
"In that sense it doesn’t matter that it goes to the highest bidder because you and are not willing to pay for access so you make the outfitter out to be the bad guy."
Guess you missed the part where I said WE are our own worse enemy.
"To think that private prime hunting lands were going to remain a freebie is a whimsical thought."
Wrong. Again. On the very same point.
Once again, for the galactically obtuse:
Has the loss of access been an overall benefit or detriment to hunting and the NAGM?
Now, you can continue to do a two-step around the question because as you put it, they are not points of contention. Except they are. It's the entire driving force behind what this thread morphed into.
I've been hunting ever since I left my diapers and to share hunting with others is just your own lost just like your fishing hole.
There has always been a fight over hunting grounds in history but what change there isn't dead bodies left on the ground from it.
We do not need more hunters just better hunters and all else is BS., I'll stand to this to my dying day which is just vanity anyway.
do you feel the same way about sites like this and the people who post on them? do you consider pat a whore for selling out hunting for clicks...ads...and sponsor revenue? as far as no compunction for sharing specific locations...ive had people on bowsite tell me right down to exact gps coodinates...where to go...what to look for...places to avoid and even which landowners are likely to grant permission for non resident hunters. my first bear hunt was with a specific outfitter that i read about in bowhunter magazine.
I too have been the beneficiary of such info. From here. And I will take that info to the grave unless the kind folks that gave it to me are OK with me sharing it. There's a difference. If you can't see the difference between the Bowsite and influencers that openly broadcast trailheads, streams, locations on streams, etc for the SOLE purpose of garnering followers, that's a you problem.
BTW, ask Pat how much revenue this place generates.
so do you have a problem with a writer for bowhunter...or any other magazine...writing a story about a specific outfitter or guide...and getting free hunts for giving them the exposure?
i think you might be surprised by bowsites reach.
i have no doubt tags are getting harder to get...they are for a lot of species in a lot of states...i get it...i just dont see it as the problem others do. we have the same issues here...for different species. unless western states have drastically increased the numbers of nr tags in recent years, the number of people on the mountain should be about the same...unless of course some of the tags used to go unsold.
Personally, I bet technology since the advent of the compound has a lot to do with changes in opportunity.
Now, I was always under the impression that the United States was owned by the people, as in " We The People" and not cry baby hunters who say that their west coast hunting is being overcrowded. Unless you own property out their then you have no right whatsoever saying public land is being overcrowded and tags harder to draw. That's the point of public land so that the public can use it. Go buy a ranch, if you can't on your own then get a group of like minded folk and buy some property. I get so tired of guys who think their right trumps others because they were there first, so of like the idiots I deal with on public land here in Illinois telling guys not to shoot a certain 10 pt becuase they saw it first lol.
Elk hunting becoming popular is do not only to some videos but I think people have figured out that it's a good way to load their freezer without paying and that attitude is going to continue for awhile, so get use to it. The guys complaining about overcrowding are some of the same guys out on bowsite talking about elk hunting and giving tips out, why? If your so worried about other hunters then stop going on web sites and spewing your ideas, strategies etc... About huntng. A line I read a few times is, " we do not need more hunters" wow, that's a f-"'Ed up statement. If that's the case then I would submit the ones who say that and think that lead by example and stop hunting and let others enjoy huntng. Somehow I don't think any of them will do that, they just want others to stop or never start, sound like liberals to me lol.
The NAGM requires active hunting participation for it to continue to be successful. As continue to drop out with access being one of the major issues it’s not a shallow argument. You can continue to be cute with the smartest guy in the wrong room comments or answer the question. You can’t or won’t because you would see your own complicity in an issue that is not going away and will continue to grow.
I know others have mentioned new or fairly new hunters have given up because of this very reason. So, you can bury your head in the food plot and pretend it doesn’t exist, or have the balls to admit there is a problem, albeit one with that doesn’t have a decent solution.
BTW, I’ve been married for almost 40 years. I stopped worrying about being right a long time ago.
It does no good to complain without offering tangible solutions.
The NAGM requires active hunting participation for it to continue to be successful. As continue to drop out with access being one of the major issues it’s not a shallow argument. You can continue to be cute with the smartest guy in the wrong room comments or answer the question. You can’t or won’t because you would see your own complicity in an issue that is not going away and will continue to grow.
I know others have mentioned new or fairly new hunters have given up because of this very reason. So, you can bury your head in the food plot and pretend it doesn’t exist, or have the balls to admit there is a problem, albeit one with that doesn’t have a decent solution.
BTW, I’ve been married for almost 40 years. I stopped worrying about being right a long time ago.
Here is your answer, they will hunt (compete) for the same land that's available to you. That's the answer, and you may not like it but that is it. You don't own the public land and it's open to all, if your parade is getting pissed on by other hunters well it's time for you to find a new area or stop hunting.
We truly live in a bizarro world now.
i understand what youre saying...all states have their plusses and their minuses...all states have their game rich areas and areas that virtually void of any game...michigan is no different. sounds to me like your beef is more about the overall number of tags issued than the name on them and how they got interested in hunting elk...isnt it just the age old conflict between what a hunters goals are and what a state game dept goals are?
This seems odd coming from a guy who just told the world where he went fly fishing, and posted the link to a guide-finding website.
Matt
What's even more odd is you asking me what section we'll be floating.... :>}
Matt
Next?
Matt
I also wanted to point out the hypocrisy of saying "There ain’t no way I’m going to give any details about where I hunt. Go find the spots yourselves. Money be damned" after posting details about a fishing spot that he didn't find himself and used a guide.
Matt
Furthermore, Ricky, how do you balance this comment with your earlier argument that exclusive leases don't take ownership of resources that belong to everyone?
Matt
Get over yourself
Matt
Seen loose lips that ruined another's hunting area, it has been a hunt to get away from hunters and then time to hunt. Selfish, heck yes.
youre on quite a run with stupid questions...theres nothing to reconcile...there is actual ownership when it comes to the land, and that is what is being leased...there is no ownership when it comes to the wildlife...and that is not what is being sold...ive been very consistent on that. its only when people start thinking they have an exclusive right to something they don't own that there is a problem.
when a person starts to think that any piece of public land is 'their spot' and get upset when other people find out about it...or when someone else gets a tag for a certain area that they think they are entitled to...thats a problem.
Matt
How many subs does the OP have and what’s the monthly gross coming in from the social media? I want those two answers
youre a joke. i never said anything of the sort...i said when you lease land you are paying for an opportunity...thats all. unlike you...i have never waivered from that. It was you that said leasing was like buying an animal...right up until you were questioned about your own outfitting business...then you switched to saying it was just an opportunity. thats beyond circular reasoning...that just plain old hypocrisy.
I never said our outfitter leases were just an opportunity for our clients. I admitted that not all of our clients filled tags. I think we were typically about 90%. Almost every time a client didn't fill a tag, it was because he chose to pass on lesser animals and hold out for something bigger. A few of our unsuccessful hunters simply blew their shots. Its hunting, so there are no guarantees. But make no mistake, when we signed a lease with a landowner, it was because we knew his land held wildlife and that's what we paid for, then sold to our clients.
Matt
"Not all of my clients were successful, but most were willing to pay again for the opportunity..."
Matt
But.... I have yet to see people offering up days upon days of "unpaid" labor to the farm I hunt on, for the same opportunities I've been afforded. I get a kick out of the jealous comments made by friends of my friend, who's family owns the land I hunt on, to the effect of "why does he get to hunt and we don't?" etc. ...Yup, I'm selfish.
When it comes to public, I'm sure it's all relative. Some parcels get hammered and others don't, tough shit. Perspective of the issue changes with how near and dear the place that is being "overcrowded" is to you. I know I've enjoyed traveling to other states to hunt public land. My favorite is PA public; running around on 10s of thousands of acres of public during the rut, and not another bowhunter to be found. It's like having a 10,20, 30k acre playground all to myself.... hard not to feel selfish!
Whoops....guess I'm also part of the overcrowding problem, too :)
yep...the perspective really changes when a person has hunted a specific area for a number of years and they start to think its 'their spot.' you see the same type of mentality when it comes to targeting certain animals on private or leased land. some people seem to think that if they have a particular animal on their cam throughout the year...it theirs...then they get all butt hurt when it gets killed on some other property. they really get bent when they have hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars sunk into habitat improvements and some damn youth hunter kills 'their deer' over a corn pile on their first hunt. they may own or lease the land...but they dont own the animals... and they can go wherever they damn well please.
in my state...people are actually trying to get rid of the youth hunt because they think the kids are killing all 'their deer' before they get a chance to kill them.
I would like to hear it.
sure...why not...bowsite is like public hunting land...pretty much everyone is welcome...and youre even allowed to disagree with the folks that have been here for 20 years and think they own it...lol
i dont know if id say nothing...it might seem like a dumpster fire on the surface but you can actually learn a quite a bit about others motivations in threads like this.
even if the elk population cant support that?
The statistics show the overwhelming numbers of people putting in for western hunts is taking off like crazy. Thousands putting in for elk tags. ID, MT are just an example of tags that used to be left over and now are hard to get. I’m not sure where the cap will stop. I agree it sure is frustrating not to be able to chase elk basically every year like we used to. I’m gonna keep putting in for tags until I get lucky or too old to get around.
I guess when I don’t draw that’s gonna give me 2 more weeks of vacation to chase big Whitetail in my home state.
Just something about those Rocky Mountains that fuels my addiction for elk. That’s the hardest part for me is not getting that fix for my addiction.
My opinion is that overall the number of hunters is up and not going away anytime soon. The statistics prove it.
Shane
I make those to protect the species, nothing to do with killing the species
Interesting perspective
Or.......sell your video devices and quit trying to make money hunting. If you're going to bitch about the "work" involved in moving cameras around while biking to your stand, go find another line of "work".
I get the feeling you've probably never done a hard day of real work in your entire life.
I unfortunately got to where I could travel and hunt out west just before the “influencing” started. I had a good 2-3 years before it became a cluster to get decent tags
no different than any bow hunting magazine or television show.
fred bear started filming and monetizing his hunts long before many of us were born...all to bring more interest to bow hunting and his products.
Go on YouTube and search “Elk Hunt” and start scrolling and counting view totals. Let me know once you get done how many total views there are on “elk hunting” videos on YouTube.
or how many people...including me...are introduced to bow hunting new species...or new areas...or using new tactics by visiting this site...and many more like them?
the only thing thats different is the medium.
He has done this very thing and seems like one heck of a good guy! Definitely promotes hunters and bowhunters in a great light! I would hunt with him any day of the week, and think he has a very positive influence on people!
For any YouTube channel, editing is crucial. I use an mp4 editor to polish my videos, which makes a big difference in quality and viewer engagement. This tool helps me cut out unnecessary parts, add effects, and ensure the video flows well. Good editing can turn a decent video into a great one, attracting more viewers and subscribers.
You can check my channel here - https://www.youtube.com/@PhucGirlintheVillage.
: )
Since back when this thread was most active, the state of Colorado has pretty much made it official that after the 2024 hunting season there will be no more OTC archery elk hunting. Regardless of how you feel about that decision, the result is that the single largest OTC elk archery option will no longer be available. I think it's probably safe to say that the pool of non residents who hunted Colorado OTC is probably one of the largest pools, if not the largest pool of non resident elk hunters in any state. These hunters will now be displaced and many of them will most likely start burning Colorado preference points as well as start looking and applying elsewhere if they hadn't already started.
By eliminating OTC archery elk hunting, Colorado apparently is saying that the resource can no longer support the demand and there is no need to recruit any additional elk hunters; the selfish bastards...
During my 40+ year professional working career it was my responsibility to analyze extensive mathematical data and evidence, analyze numerous other types of evidence, understand and apply legal principals and precedence, etc, arrive at a conclusion and develop an objective, non biased professional opinion that would stand up to all legal challenges. I use a similar process no matter what issue or data I'm analyzing and I attempt to arrive at the most objective answer possible regardless of whether or not I like the answer.
I've been tracking and analyzing archery elk draw statistics in several states and units for 25 years or so. I use that analysis to make long range projections and estimates on when I'll draw various tags in various states and units. For the most part, my projections have been pretty accurate, although increased demand in recent years has resulted in some significant adjustments.
It's common knowledge that Colorado currently has a few premier draw units, a handful of mid tier draw units and multiple lower tier units. In the past I've hunted a couple lower tier draw units and a couple mid tier draw units. Between 2007 and 2020 I drew those mid tier units 4 times, 3 of those times with 2 points and once with 6 points.
My analysis of those 2 mid tier units based on current point creep trends indicates that I would catch those units sometime around 2039-2041 when I'm 78-80 years old with 18-20 points.
But let's forget about selfish me and look at the prospects of the new elk hunter recruits. Let's say one of these new non resident elk hunters buys their first Colorado preference point in 2024 with their eyes on one of those mid tier units which currently take 5-8 points to draw. By my calculations they would catch one of those units around 2048-2050 with 23-25 points. They would catch the other unit sometime around 2060 with 36 points. A 23-36 year wait to hunt units that I hunted 3 times with 2 points and once with 6 points sounds completely ridiculous and hopefully I'm wrong.
Other factors that have to be considered are the impact of OTC elk hunting going away as well as the large numbers of applicants who have accumulated preference points in the last 7 years or so since elk hunting popularity exploded. I can envision the large pool of applicants with 0-7 preference points dumping their points in low tier units so they will be able to hunt (since OTC is no longer an option) and those 0-2 point units could quickly become 5-7 point units. This could have an upward domino effect increasing point creep in all units except the top tier units since the pool of applicants with 20+ points is relatively small.
Hopefully, Colorado going to all draw for archery elk will lead to people burning their points and leveling out of point creep after a period of increased point creep. If leveling out does happen I think it will be too late for older elk hunters to experience it.
Utah is another state that I've done research and projections in. Utah has very few options for low point holders. My point creep and draw projections for Utah are even more dismal than Colorado. There are a couple units in Utah that are about the only options for people who don't want to hold out for years/decades for the premier tags. In one of those units the points required to draw it increased by 6 points in one year and another unit increased by 0.8 point in one year. That means that an applicant with say 11-12 points who has been in the game for awhile with significant money invested and believed they were getting close to drawing one of these units, will never draw one of the units and still most likely will not have enough points to draw the other unit for another 10-15 years. And that's for somebody who currently has 11-12 points. The prognosis is much worse for "new recruits" just getting started. They could be buying into an expensive ponzi scheme that will never pay off in their lifetime.
In the past, Colorado OTC was able to absorb much of the elk hunting tag demand. That will no longer be an option and many of those hunters will be looking elsewhere to scratch their elk hunting Itch. I predict that the loss of Colorado OTC will increase demand for tags in most if not all other elk states. Point creep is a direct result of tag demand exceeding tag availability. If point creep does not somehow level out, I don't see how the system will continue to be sustainable and I don't see how the point creep situation will ever be conducive to recruiting new elk hunters. Nor do I see why (if demand continues to out pace tag availability) recruiting new elk hunters is necessary. I think at some point, if it hasn't happened already the preference point system/process could reach the point of saturation where the sheer number of applicants reduces the odds of drawing so significantly that it could become a deterrent to recruiting and retaining elk hunters. Like it or not, that's my unbiased objective conclusion based on analysis of the current facts. I hope my projections are way off...
