Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
One more run on the fence idea, with a twist
After seeing all the post on the hatred of high fence hunting, I was exposed to a legitimate gripe. The idea of fencing in the states animals that do not belong to the person. If a fence operation stocked its property with animals purchased it would not be a problem. Now for the twist. What about the outfitting community. Is it right for an outfitter to charge a trophy fee? Do the animals not belong to the state, and by purchasing a license you have been given the right to harvest a set number of animals, by the sate. Now if they are outfitting land with exotics on it, I could see a trophy fee. I would have no problem, they purchased the animal in advance.
I can see it being legit to charge some one to hunt your land, but to charge them for the animal, is that right?
What are your thoughts?
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Well, if an outfitter charges a trophy fee you would know about it before hand so I don't have a problem with it. Kind of a way to get that extra nickle out of a hunters pocket if the outfitter does better than expected.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: One more run on the fence idea, with a twist
Jorgy
I agree, but would that not equate to some one charging you for something that does not belong to them? Like I said, If the animals were purchased before hand, like exotics, I could see it as no problem. But to charge for a state owned animal, that the state has given you permission to shot up on purchasing a licens, seems wrong. I dont know, seems like getting a double charge. If you pay for the outfitter, you should be paying for his services and the land, with the intention of harvesting an animal.
Then agian I could see this argument on both sides. The outfitter makes you pay for his land and services, if you get an animal, you pay him more for his good work. Maybe the idea of calling it a trophy fee makes it sound bad. It might be more palitable if it were called a tip. I truly dont know how I feel on this one. Im curious as to what everyone else feels.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Well, I can see your point about if they were already there before the outfitter put up the fence but...... does the state really OWN the animals? I think we pay for the privelege of hunting , but I'm not so sure the state owns them. As far as paying a trophy fee, keep in mind to grow a trophy deer, the outfitter has to put a lot of money into getting that animal to trophy status with food plots, protien feed, etc..... As long as you know about it, I don't think it's a really big issue. I'll have to ponder on it a little longer.
As far as paying a trophy fee, keep in mind to grow a trophy deer, the outfitter has to put a lot of money into getting that animal to trophy status with food plots, protien feed, etc
I am not buying that one, wild animals need little help, ie survival of the fittest, to achieve "trophy" status. and as far as fenced animals are concerned, to bad so sad, hope they all go out of business.
i think the trophy fee is nothing more than pure greed. i have never felt right about outfitting anyway. it just doesnt seem the right thing to do. i think the whole thing has evolved from paying someone to guide you on a "dream hunt", to actually purchasing the animal you will kill before you ever step foot into the outdoors. I would say the majority of outfitters are in it for the money and not the love of the outdoors.
An outfitter or landowner can't promise you a specific animal here , it's illegal . Personally , I'll never pay someone to take me to a deer or other animal . If I can't find them on my own I don't need to be hunting .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: One more run on the fence idea, with a twist
Im not speaking of fence opperations. Im speaking of outfitting jobs that simply own large spans of land. We have a few of them around me. They have come in and bought up all the land and take people out to hunt. When they kill a deer, they charge a processing fee and a trophy fee. The trophy fee it the one im not sure about.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: One more run on the fence idea, with a twist
Quote:
I would say the majority of outfitters are in it for the money and not the love of the outdoors.
t roy
That is true, A man that lives near me has gotten rich off of outfitting. He gripes all the time because he doesnt like hunting. Go figure.
iffred
Quote:
"To each his own."
I feel the same way. If some one wants to hunt behind a fence, so be it. My concern is about the trophy fee that outfitters charge that hunt land that is not fenced.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
One more run on the fence idea, with a twist
