I didn't get a chance to weigh in on the guided hunt threads.

I have never gone on a guided hunt and probably won't in the future because my funds are too limited. Nevertheless, it seems that a guided hunt could be both an ethical hunting experience and a challenging hunt. The fact that in some cases this is not the case is not determinative of the nature of guided hunts.

I took my son deer hunting for the first time last year on hunting ground I have hunted several years in a row. I placed him in picked spots, spots I had good reason to believe -- based on past experience and intimate familiarity with the ground -- were good ambush spots. My son's role was to sit still, be alert, and shoot a deer when it materialized. He was 14 years old then. Is this substantively different from some guided hunts? Should my son's experience be diminished because he didn't get out and learn the ground himself without assistance? I was coached and walked over the ground on my first hunt on this land by my host (guy leases the land for cattle, his son hunts deer on the land and invites me on to hunt deer -- this son showed me around the property). Does this diminish my experience?

The ideal hunting experience is to discover virgin hunting ground and solve its hunting problems entirely yourself. Unfortunately, many of us can't have this experience commonly. For Dall Sheep in Alaska? For Bighorn Sheep in a limited entry unit in Wyoming or Montana? Should we just hang it up if we can't hunt in this purist fashion? I hope the sport provides a bigger umbrella than that.

Some kinds of hunting don't demand a guide. I want to go elk hunting and don't plan to get a guide. I'm going after cow elk on public ground in territory I have reports suggesting elk are relatively common. Maybe I can have a good experience without a guide (I've backpacked in this area and am familiar with the terrain, the weather, and the physical demands) and have a fair chance of getting a cow elk. If my ambition were to bag a bull elk with a big rack -- and I had invested big money in a limited entry permit and maybe many preference points -- I might want to increase my odds by hiring a guide. Maybe I can't take eight weeks off to go scout this area effectively -- because I have a job, because I have a wife, because I have children. Is hiring a guide optimal? No, scouting on your own and doing it yourself is optimal, but some can't do this. Again, I hope the hunting umbrella is big enough to include this guy.

If some people shrug off the hard work of hunting that comes with the territory just because they can hire a guide or really don't have any interest in engaging themselves in the hunt but just want to be placed in shooting position and have a shootable beast run past them, this is not hunting as I know it. This is missing some necessary element of hunting and decays into shooting rather than hunting. But surely every guided hunt does not devolve to this.

I have a fairly clear picture of my hunting objectives and what hunting means to me. It is different from what a lot of other hunters have in mind. I don't push my views on others, however, and I want the sport to be big enough for everyone not just a select few. If only a select few hunt, you can bet the farm that in a fairly short time hunting will disappear as a legal activity. The anti's and the gun control crowd will cut us to pieces. Hunters, engage yourselves in the hunt: it is more than just shooting, as most of you already know. Guides, respect your "sports" because they help keep a noble activity alive, an activity which is putting food on your table for you and your wife and your kids. If need be, guides, try to exercise influence on your "sports." If they can't shoot for sh!t, recommend that next year they find a shooting range and work on their marksmanship. Suggest they read some books on woods lore. Don't assume that since they are 40 years old they can't learn new tricks or grow.