Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 05:17:09 PM
Post by: CedarPants on October 27, 2012, 05:56:40 PM
Is your opinion that there is no possible way that someone would have to bust their tail to score a record book buck on private land?
Does sitting for 12 hours in a tree stand and tagging out on public land make you a better hunter than someone that sits for 12 hours in a tree stand on private land?
Post by: PolarBear on October 27, 2012, 05:59:26 PM
Here is a topic i feel that puts hunters who scores great public land bucks and then a hunter beats his out with a private buck in the books . I think they should be catorgized sepratley. The public land bucks should always over rule private bucks,or are they already done that way i have not seen itAgree!
Post by: CedarPants on October 27, 2012, 06:06:02 PM
Here is a topic i feel that puts hunters who scores great public land bucks and then a hunter beats his out with a private buck in the books . I think they should be catorgized sepratley. The public land bucks should always over rule private bucks,or are they already done that way i have not seen itAgree!
So if someone goes out of their way to research land ownership, strikes up a conversation with the land owner and eventually obtains permission after having helped the land owner mend fences over the summer - then they scout countless hours to determine where to hang a stand for an ambush .... you are saying they aren't as good as you because you did it all on public land?
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 06:55:44 PM
Post by: jnevs23 on October 27, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 07:02:13 PM
absolutely unfair advantage to private land . private trophys like, lance armstrong,mark mackquire,.:chuckle: I'm going to assume you are talking about whitetail.
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 07:04:14 PM
Post by: Jingles on October 27, 2012, 07:05:48 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 07:06:07 PM
any tail,black,white,mulieWell if you are including mule deer you would be mistaken. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 07:07:00 PM
When you say private land are you talking high fence private land or just the neighbors cornfield. If you are talking high fence private land then Yes I also feel they should be categorized separately. In MY opinion high fence private land hunting isn't real hunting it is more like shooting fish in a barrelFarming
Post by: bobcat on October 27, 2012, 07:07:10 PM
"Unfair" advantage? So you don't think a person with the option of hunting private land should take advantage of that opportunity? It's still far from a guaranteed hunt. Unless you're talking about a high fence hunt.
Post by: buck man on October 27, 2012, 07:13:41 PM
Here is a topic i feel that puts hunters who scores great public land bucks and then a hunter beats his out with a private buck in the books . I think they should be catorgized sepratley. The public land bucks should always over rule private bucks,or are they already done that way i have not seen itI see your from the wet side. So all the tree farms and timber ground owned by a timber company is all PRIVATE ground. You may have permission to hunt it but nonetheless. So I guess that just leave national forest, blm, and state. Sounds a little stupid to me. Any buck that is not behind a high fence is a wild, hard to kill buck.
That being said a lot of my biggest bucks came from NF ground, even though I have lots of private secured. Get out there and you can secure some awesome private ground for yourself.
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 07:16:09 PM
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 07:21:59 PM
Post by: norsepeak on October 27, 2012, 07:25:11 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on October 27, 2012, 07:30:29 PM
:twocents: In general, private land hunting is more productive than public land.
Post by: jeepguy on October 27, 2012, 07:32:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 07:36:59 PM
Great discussion.Not true either, what do you think the percentage is this year of Washington hunters that tagged animals on private vs public land? Public land is way more "productive".
:twocents: In general, private land hunting is more productive than public land.
Post by: Caseyd on October 27, 2012, 07:37:43 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 07:43:19 PM
Great discussion.And if you are talking about trophy caliber then try telling these people that private land is more productive and gives a unfair advantage. I'd like to see you post a couple private land bucks from this year that top these two.
:twocents: In general, private land hunting is more productive than public land.
Post by: Wea300mag on October 27, 2012, 07:50:24 PM
Those are special cases, private lands produce more consistantly, year after year.
Why do you and a group of your friends pay lots of $$ to lease a ranch in Eastern MT if you think public land is better?
Post by: bobcat on October 27, 2012, 07:55:48 PM
Why do you and a group of your friends pay lots of $$ to lease a ranch in Eastern MT if you think public land is better?
:chuckle: Good point.
Of course private land is more productive. Less hunters, more game. (if we're talking private land not open to the public)
Post by: mazama on October 27, 2012, 07:59:23 PM
Post by: 50CalJim on October 27, 2012, 08:05:28 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 27, 2012, 08:11:59 PM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on October 27, 2012, 08:18:47 PM
huntphool, you post a good exmaple, however I would hope you would agree that those bucks taken on public ground are "not typical" of what general public land hunters shoot in Washington.
Post by: PolarBear on October 27, 2012, 08:26:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 09:40:41 PM
I think you should be working on Political Ads with that kind of "spin"Not a chance, there are way more deer harvested on public land in this state than private, no spinning those numbers.
Those are special cases, private lands produce more consistantly, year after year.
Why do you and a group of your friends pay lots of $$ to lease a ranch in Eastern MT if you think public land is better?
9 out of the last 10 years in Montana I have killed my deer on public land, not private. I lease the private land to keep the outfitters from locking us out. There are many benefits but the main one is to limit the number of animals killed in the area and assure us a quality place to hunt.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 09:42:00 PM
It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
Post by: bobcat on October 27, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but even if it is, I guess which is more productive would depend on your definition of "productive".
You're talking about overall numbers of animals killed on public versus private. To me, productive means a higher success rate. Which is what you get on private property. As I said before, less hunters, more game = higher success rates.
Post by: deerslyr on October 27, 2012, 09:52:31 PM
It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but even if it is, I guess which is more productive would depend on your definition of "productive".
You're talking about overall numbers of animals killed on public versus private. To me, productive means a higher success rate. Which is what you get on private property. As I said before, less hunters, more game = higher success rates.
Productive to me is trophy quality, I guess it would depend from person to person. I have access to a ranch in Big Timber that just doesnt hold big bucks but the alfalfa fields fill with hundreds of deer a night. With in 20 miles of that ranch Ive seen 5 of the biggest bucks ive laid eyes on 5 miles in the back country on public land.
Needless to say I hunt the back country until the snow shuts me out.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Yes overall harvest numbers are higher on public vs private but I agree success rate is likely higher on private.It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but even if it is, I guess which is more productive would depend on your definition of "productive".
You're talking about overall numbers of animals killed on public versus private. To me, productive means a higher success rate. Which is what you get on private property. As I said before, less hunters, more game = higher success rates.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
Similar on my lease. There are a lot of deer but the bigger bucks migrate to the area from the mountains in Wyoming.It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but even if it is, I guess which is more productive would depend on your definition of "productive".
You're talking about overall numbers of animals killed on public versus private. To me, productive means a higher success rate. Which is what you get on private property. As I said before, less hunters, more game = higher success rates.
Productive to me is trophy quality, I guess it would depend from person to person. I have access to a ranch in Big Timber that just doesnt hold big bucks but the alfalfa fields fill with hundreds of deer a night. With in 20 miles of that ranch Ive seen 5 of the biggest bucks ive laid eyes on 5 miles in the back country on public land.
Needless to say I hunt the back country until the snow shuts me out.
Post by: 50CalJim on October 27, 2012, 10:00:11 PM
I'm not talking about overall kill, What I'm saying is Hunters who hunt on Private have a higher successful harvest rate vs Public Hunters. I'm sure I read where the harvest rate at the Winthrop check station was something like 13%. I'm sure Private is better than that I would think.It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
Post by: bobcat on October 27, 2012, 10:02:30 PM
Whereas the public land GMU's run from around 5% to 20%.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2012, 10:10:37 PM
I would tend to agree with that but public land is way more "productive" than private by sheer numbers in this state.I'm not talking about overall kill, What I'm saying is Hunters who hunt on Private have a higher successful harvest rate vs Public Hunters. I'm sure I read where the harvest rate at the Winthrop check station was something like 13%. I'm sure Private is better than that I would think.It"s pretty much common sense that Private is more productive than Public on a percentage basis.Not in this state, the majority of harvested animals come from public lands.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 27, 2012, 10:48:19 PM
Post by: jnevs23 on October 27, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
Post by: littlemac on October 27, 2012, 11:47:36 PM
Beacause the "typical" Washington "hunter" is too lazy to put in the effort that it takes to shoot bucks of that quality. We all have the same opportunity to harvest those caliber of public land bucks but it can't be done from the front seat of your mini van.
I think this is the real difference. Many private land hunts are successful because scouting is done by the guide/landowner or by a hunter that has been on the property enough times to know where his best chances are.
However, unless you mean high fence the odds of a trophy are not that different either way in my opinion. There isn't any law of nature that I am aware of that tells a big buck to hang on a private piece. Especially during the rut, they can be anywhere.
We are a unique state in that we have so much accessible public land, we all need to work to keep it that way.
Post by: Houndhunter on October 28, 2012, 01:15:36 AM
I really dont care how you kill a trophy, is their a difference between a buck killed in pubic back country wilderness and one killed on private property that you've been watching the past few years that eats off your Apple trees? To me, yes. But at the same time all private land isn't the same. Maybe you hunt 2 acres of private land, maybe you hunt 10,000 acres where a deer could spend his whole life on. Can you really separate private and public ground in the record books when their is so much variance? Imo no, to each his own. Im not going to bash a guy for shooting a trophy that has been feeding in his yard for the last five years nor the guy that shoots a pig on farm land. Me, I love wilderness so thats what I hunt because thats what I get fulfillment from. Doesn't mean my public land buck should be in a separate book, should it be a BC animal.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2012, 03:11:35 AM
Great discussion.Not true either, what do you think the percentage is this year of Washington hunters that tagged animals on private vs public land? Public land is way more "productive".
:twocents: In general, private land hunting is more productive than public land.
I'd have to disagree with that. I'd be willing to bet most deer in Washington are taken on private property. Maybe not in the area you hunt, but think about it, on the west side, most hunting is on private tree farms. Then there's the farms and ranches owned in rural areas. East of the Mts, most hunting is on ranch or farmland, especially in SE Washington and Central Washington. But even NE Washington has a lot of private land that is hunted.
And then there are the drawing hunts, many of them designed to protect crops. How many of the hunt descriptions do you see this warning on? It's a lot. " C Private lands; access is extremely limited. If you cannot secure access to private lands, do not apply for these hunts".
PS I don't agree with the OP's premise either. As long as it's not a high fenced hunt and the animals can come and go at will, it's all the same. Sometimes those private land deer are harder to hunt because they are more used to dealing with humans. Some of the easiest deer I've ever hunted were remote Sitka blacktails that have never seen a human before. They'll just stand and look at you. But go to an area close to town that everybody and their brother hunts and they can be as sneaky as any whitetail.
Post by: Wea300mag on October 28, 2012, 06:12:32 AM
I think you should be working on Political Ads with that kind of "spin"Not a chance, there are way more deer harvested on public land in this state than private, no spinning those numbers.
Those are special cases, private lands produce more consistantly, year after year.
Why do you and a group of your friends pay lots of $$ to lease a ranch in Eastern MT if you think public land is better?
9 out of the last 10 years in Montana I have killed my deer on public land, not private. I lease the private land to keep the outfitters from locking us out. There are many benefits but the main one is to limit the number of animals killed in the area and assure us a quality place to hunt.
You and I are looking at this from different angles. But your last line kind of sums it up:
Quote
There are many benefits but the main one is to limit the number of animals killed in the area and assure us a quality place to hunt.
Post by: grousetracker on October 28, 2012, 06:35:05 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on October 28, 2012, 06:52:05 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 28, 2012, 06:55:20 AM
He stated: I think they should be catorgized sepratley. The public land bucks should always over rule private bucks
I have several problems with this suggestion;
1. The suggestion causes a divide to be formed in the hunting community.
2. There is no clear agreement as to what "Private" land will be defined as. IE: Private land open to the public, the transient nature of wild game (the "what if's" of where a deer came from or ended up laying), etc...
3. Unrealistic and divisive proposal. Image the difficulty of verifying which type of land any game animal was "officially" killed on. Are hunters to now log the GPS location of every kill as an entry requirement for the record book? You gonna just trust where someone claimed their deer was killed, or are we going to open a whole new spectrum of arguing and distrust between hunters?
There are already enough reasons for guys to gripe, argue and feel jealous about anyones achievement. The last thing I want is a whole new plethora of reasons for guys to doubt, blame and distrust each other.
Post by: Atroxus on October 28, 2012, 07:06:37 AM
With that said though I think B&C records already exclude high fence type hunts and fair chase is required to be eligible for entry. Someone correct me if I am wrong though.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Post by: CedarPants on October 28, 2012, 07:15:07 AM
Let's revisit his original post;
He stated: I think they should be catorgized sepratley. The public land bucks should always over rule private bucks
I have several problems with this suggestion;
1. The suggestion causes a divide to be formed in the hunting community.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
We have a hard enough time uniting on issues as it is, why would we throw yet another elitist attitude in the mix to further divide us?
Go hunting. Have fun. If you shoot a book buck, I'll shake your hand and tell you congrats no matter where you shot it
Post by: bearpaw on October 28, 2012, 08:01:49 AM
In my business and when hunting for myself I hunt both types of land, private and public. We lease numerous ranches in the states we hunt and we have permits to hunt many different public lands. In most cases we see far more animals on private land so the hunting is easier, but many of our favorite hunts are public land hunts and most of our biggest trophies have come from public land.
To illustrate my point, go through the B&C and the P&Y and consider where each world record came from. I have not done this, but I have a ben franklin that says the majority of world records came from public land.
The animals can go freely between property types and high fenced ranches are not allowed in B&C or P&Y, plus SCI has seperate categories for estate hunts. This seems like a mute topic to me.
Post by: 300rum on October 28, 2012, 08:06:26 AM
I have gotten into much better hunting on public ground v. private. It is just harder to do. I just got back from Idaho and I swear I was hunting in a ZOO, big bulls and bucks everywhere! Then you hear the story of the guy driving up a road and shooting a masher, which is fine too.
If I could be hunting commissioner for the day I think i would just get rid of Boone and Crockett/Pope and Young and just go to some liquid displacement method of scoring that gave true total credit to the animal and what they were able to grow.
Post by: hogsniper on October 28, 2012, 08:14:04 AM
Ok that was me putting humor into a completely worthless thread! LMAO
Post by: bearpaw on October 28, 2012, 08:25:27 AM
Quote
If I could be hunting commissioner for the day I think i would just get rid of Boone and Crockett/Pope and Young and just go to some liquid displacement method of scoring that gave true total credit to the animal and what they were able to grow.
:yeah: Agreed, there is a system, I think it was called the burkett system that does exactly that, but it never really caught on.
Post by: bobcat on October 28, 2012, 08:35:50 AM
I think folks put far too much importance on a good damn record book.
:yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Im not sure what your point is huntnphool, of course the numbers would say public land has more bucks killed off it as 90% of the people hunt PUBLIC ground.And thsat was the point I was getting at, the OP said private land was more "productive" than public and therefor gave a unfair advantage, I simply disagreed. ;)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 28, 2012, 09:25:58 AM
Post by: Todd_ID on October 28, 2012, 09:37:23 AM
Post by: runamuk on October 28, 2012, 10:12:44 AM
I agree DB! I think the record books should not have the hunter's name listed at all. That would solve much of what is wrong with hunting today.but if you don't appeal to the humans need to be recognized and applauded and told how cool they are your record books would sit empty :dunno: Its a nice idealistic concept that record books are for the record of animals but lets face it record books are for making people feel cool for killing the biggest baddest bestest beast and then being acknowledged for it...
as I have read and watched more and more it seems Washington in general is a more trophy minded state rather than a hunter minded state its promotion of successful harvest is limited by split seasons, special permits, raffles and draws and and making it harder to harvest rather than easier they use the nature of competition to continue this hunting promotion of non harvest hunting. I don't think they care if anyone ever kills anything in this state to be honest, if they did then hunter success would be far higher in the priority list across the board.
Post by: WonkyWapiti on October 28, 2012, 12:00:43 PM
I think folks put far too much importance on a good damn record book.
I don't give a hoot about a darn record book. For me it's about celebrating the animal, the story behind the hunt, and the total experience. But for the sake of argument let's say you've got someone hunting private land that busts their butt vs someone who steps out of their truck on public land and drops a toad. This is why records mean nothing to me. Let's celebrate the hunt, not the numbers.
Post by: PolarBear on October 28, 2012, 01:01:59 PM
The purpose of the record books is to honor the animal...not the hunter. The OP is more hunter focused.That is what S.C.I. is about, they don't give a crap how or where you killed it, just that it is a good sized critter.
Post by: Selkirk on October 28, 2012, 01:15:17 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on October 28, 2012, 02:08:37 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on October 28, 2012, 02:13:04 PM
Post by: deerslyr on October 28, 2012, 09:00:13 PM