Hunting Washington Forum
Other Hunting => Waterfowl => Topic started by: 509er on January 04, 2011, 08:18:38 PM
-
WOW! Seems someone is upset. Found this stapled to a post near the potholes. Cant believe they say to destroy someones property. :dunno:
-
nothing shows up when you click on your link.... :dunno:
-
:dunno: :dunno: nothing there
-
What is it I can't wait!!!!
-
:cue:
-
Cant get the pdf to convert to jpeg and the file is too large. :dunno: I am technically challenged.
-
Does it have anything to do with all the blinds being destroyed because folks are upset with all the outfitters because they have been bogarting them?
-
yep
-
Did it the old fashioned way and just took a pic of the damn thing. :bash:
-
WOW did not see that coming? got to soak that in for a minute......
-
i can understand the frustration(i feel the same way about river fishing guides) but don't agree with their recommendation to destroy other's property.
-
Maybe they should have to buy a permit, and be limited to how many people they can guide a day on public land.
-
Why not just get in the blinds first and keep the guided hunters from using them that way, rather than destrying the blinds. It is first come, first serve. Public land, so they are public blinds, no matter who built them.
-
Why not just get in the blinds first and keep the guided hunters from using them that way, rather than destrying the blinds. It is first come, first serve. Public land, so they are public blinds, no matter who built them.
:yeah:
-
It's first come first served, I used there blinds all the time, usually they would throw fit. I would tell them come and get if you want it but your still not hunting here!!! Then they would leave. I love to hate public land hunting.......
-
Why not just get in the blinds first and keep the guided hunters from using them that way, rather than destrying the blinds. It is first come, first serve. Public land, so they are public blinds, no matter who built them.
I'll second that.
Know your regs, make sure you're 100% in the clear, and if some guide wants to get tough, just have the proper #'s in your cell phone...
-
Sounds like somebody has had some bad encounters with Mardons.. So why is it that they are allowed to set up blinds and leave them out there? isnt it illegal to build blinds on public property. I would think they could go on a documentation mission and take time stamped pictures of the blind to have wdfw remove them or give that individual permission to remove them. Portable or not i would think that its illegal to construct a blind and leave it on public land. Am I wrong???
-
I do agree there should be NO permanent blinds on public land floating or on the dunes! Mardons has been doing it for years they think the potholes are there personal play grounds. Oh and their arrogant as %$## and the game dept. won't touch them.
-
I do agree there should be NO permanent blinds on public land floating or on the dunes! Mardons has been doing it for years they think the potholes are there personal play grounds. Oh and their arrogant as %$## and the game dept. won't touch them.
Ya should be something stating that structures are not to be constructed (even if temporary)and left unattended for a time period greater than 45 minutes or something like that.
-
I dident know the Mesebergs were making folks so mad! I just use the blinds. Never had a confrontation.
-
Sounds like somebody has had some bad encounters with Mardons.. So why is it that they are allowed to set up blinds and leave them out there? isnt it illegal to build blinds on public property. I would think they could go on a documentation mission and take time stamped pictures of the blind to have wdfw remove them or give that individual permission to remove them. Portable or not i would think that its illegal to construct a blind and leave it on public land. Am I wrong???
In the regs it says you are allowed to build blinds but that as soon as you start building one it become's public property and is now on a first come, first serve basis. So now those blinds they have out there are open to the public if the public get to them first.
-
Beat the guides to the blind if there's that much of a problem! that will end any and all problems.
-
Beat the guides to the blind if there's that much of a problem! that will end any and all problems.
exactly! :tup:
-
Sounds like the guy that made that sign has a problem gettin up in the morning. From my experience in the Potholes it helps to have other hunters out there. Keeps the birds moving. The idea of making it illegal for guides to hunt public lands is a bad one. There are many folks out there that do not have the skill, or equipment to do it on there own and they have just as much right to our public lands as we do.
When you hunt public lands you can expect some competition. If you can't compete, maybe you should take up knitting or shooting ducks on the Wii. To ruin a nice duck blind of a fellow hunter is disgracefull and as far as I am concerned anyone that would do that is a dirtbag.
-
In a way, I wish guides were limited to private properties, especially if they profit from it
Keep situations like this from arising
-
They left those papers everywere, I had them on my window when i got back to the truck from hunting out there back in nov. multiple times, but I never did see who was doing it.
-
I second the fact that a few hunters help keep the ducks moving... I think it is bad to destroy the blind but better to use them.... I had A professor From CWU that guided the potholes area for 30 years had a 4-5duck per gun day average and he only guided public land.... NEVER made permanent blinds adn was an all around good guy.... I don't think banning Guides is a good way to go either....
-
The growing guide trend has ruined many great traditional hunting and fishing grounds (private and public) over the last few years. Guides tend to lose respect for other sportsmen that aren't their clients and paying them. I would love to see guides banned but that will never happen. I agree that destroying their blinds isn't right either and people should just try get to the blind early if they choose to play the public land game.
Private land? I'm guessing already about 80% of the prime land is already tied up by the guides. It's getting real hard to find places to hunt and fish anymore unless you do it the pay to play way..
-
I have never ever had a bad run in with Mardon's guides. As a matter of fact they have been downright polite and i've beat them plenty of times to 'their' blinds over the years.
I think if the Mardon haters did their homework they'd find that the Mesebergs have put way more back into the community and local economy than they've ever "taken". :twocents:
Guides provide access and a skill set that some people don't have the time , ability or energy to do for themselves. What's wroing with that as long as the guides don't act like they own the place?
-
I admit that I use a guide sometimes and frankly if I ever was with a guide that tried to kick someone out of a blind on public property I would stop them immediately and never use them again. It is kind of easy to blame the guides but some blame should be shared by the clients too.....not very ethical people that allow their guides to do something like that.
-
The growing guide trend has ruined many great traditional hunting and fishing grounds (private and public) over the last few years. Guides tend to lose respect for other sportsmen that aren't their clients and paying them. I would love to see guides banned but that will never happen. I agree that destroying their blinds isn't right either and people should just try get to the blind early if they choose to play the public land game.
Private land? I'm guessing already about 80% of the prime land is already tied up by the guides. It's getting real hard to find places to hunt and fish anymore unless you do it the pay to play way..
Just read an article in Outdoor Life about local guys back east that live in the big buck areas not being able to hunt, even on relatives' land as it is all getting leased up. Kinda sucks when the animals are a public resource. IMHO anyone profiting from a public resource should be held to higher standards than the public.
Maybe it is time to push for a per client guide fee that goes to a dedicated account that looks to increase public access to private land?
-
Would it be out of line to get a bunch of guys togetherand head out just a tad early and occupy all the blind that can be found :dunno:
-
This is the reason I quit waterfowl hunting. There is a lot of competition just amongst the hunters. Plus it is hard to compete with guides who are offereing $50-$100 a gun to the private land owner to bust some geese.
-
The issue of not being able to knock and talk your way into a free private land hunt has just as much to do with abuse of the privilege by previous 'average joe's as it does with guide services bidding up the cost of leases. :twocents:
Why would you let a stranger on to your land for free when the previous time you did that they left all the gates open, littered, and drove where you asked them not to? Or why would you want to open yourself up to the liability of letting strangers on your land when there are people willing to pay you for access? People who are bonded/insured and have business licenses. (of course all guide services are not above the boards, but the big ones have to be).
-
Why not just get in the blinds first and keep the guided hunters from using them that way, rather than destrying the blinds. It is first come, first serve. Public land, so they are public blinds, no matter who built them.
That's exactly what you should do. Public land is public land, to be used by the whole public, even outfitters. It is, however, first come, first serve.
-
Competing for duck blinds at the Potholes has been going on for at least the last forty years. When I was a kid we used to spend the night out there just so that we could get certain blinds. The same goes for the Columbia if one of the blinds is really producing you better be out there early or expect to see a flashlight when you pull in..... Its all part of the game. If you don't like seeing flashlights at your blind all you have to do is get up earlier.
-
Competing for duck blinds at the Potholes has been going on for at least the last forty years. When I was a kid we used to spend the night out there just so that we could get certain blinds. The same goes for the Columbia if one of the blinds is really producing you better be out there early or expect to see a flashlight when you pull in..... Its all part of the game. If you don't like seeing flashlights at your blind all you have to do is get up earlier.
The blinds are not restaurants or starbucks to the ducks! They will not just go to them, There are lots of places to go these blinds are just the easiest to get to and already set up! do a little homework and build a temp and you can do just as good.
-
Beat the guides to the blind if there's that much of a problem! that will end any and all problems.
Problem is the guides pay guys to go sit in the blind all damn night so that no one else can get them in the morning. And have any of you seen half the blinds out there? They are huge, obvious, and flaring birds not only because of there shear sizer and appearance but because they are hunted day in and day out. Has anyone heard of wearing a spot out? Ducks hold on the reserve and when the reserve becomes full of ducks, new ducks start looking for new areas. Wellll when there is so much pressure every where else the ducks leave the area completely equaling crap hunting for the remainder of the season. My thought on the entire thing is limit the hunting on potholes and surrounding area to weekends and Wednesdays only. This will give birds time to rest in a lot more places, they wont be pressured nearly as much and the hunting will be better all around. This benefits hunters and ducks.
-
It's all about the C-Notes these days folks. Sad, but true. Even for the non-guided public land hunters -- having to pay more and more each year to play. :(
-
I love it, that is awesome whoever put that up.
-
I forsee something happening if the trend continues! The game dept will make it to where you can't occupy a blind before 4 am! Just like a decoy spread :twocents: Hard to enforce but they may do it
-
Everyone here seems to think that 'beating the guides' to the blinds is the answer.
What about the simple fact that these guides saturate the area with a lot of 'pay to shoot' folks. These are people that wouldn't be out there sky busting and ruining the day for everyone around them if a 'guide' hadn't put them in a spot for a profit on OUR land? Gun clubs are for shooting. The marsh is for hunting. There is a difference.
How about the problem of the guides motoring around 'on the hour' to retrieve these same clients ducks disturbing YOUR hunting because his route takes him past your spread coming and going each trip every hour or less?
I've hunted Potholes for many years and still do. I do not agree with anyone guiding on public land or building any type of permanent blind. My opinion is that they should have to guide on private property and secure the permissions to do this. I'd even like to see 'licensed' guides have certain ethical criteria to adhere to plus file a end of year report.
Knock on a few doors in the Moses Lk area and you'll most likely find that a guide has already secured the fields you're asking permission to hunt by 'buying' them. One of my hunting partners and I have first hand experience at this. Good for the guide and land owner. Bad for the average Joe.
This situation is getting more prevalent every year. Public land should not be encroached upon by private parties looking to make a profit for whatever reason.
I've had my share of bad experiences hunting Potholes and this is my opinion.
-
WOW and I thought it got crowded over here on the wet side!
My boat is my blind and I can put it just about anywhere I want it to be and if I ever find anyone not invited in it there is going to be one helluva problem!HAHa
That said, if you restrict guided hunters then you would have to restrict guided fisherman and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
My guess is that the resort has more blinds available for their clients and if there is a problem with one of the guides I would complain to the resort. I'll be they don't want to make too many enemies and would bend over to make sure people are happy, you never know when you may need the other guy.
Fishy
-
Everyone here seems to think that 'beating the guides' to the blinds is the answer.
What about the simple fact that these guides saturate the area with a lot of 'pay to shoot' folks. These are people that wouldn't be out there sky busting and ruining the day for everyone around them if a 'guide' hadn't put them in a spot for a profit on OUR land? Gun clubs are for shooting. The marsh is for hunting. There is a difference.
How about the problem of the guides motoring around 'on the hour' to retrieve these same clients ducks disturbing YOUR hunting because his route takes him past your spread coming and going each trip every hour or less?
I've hunted Potholes for many years and still do. I do not agree with anyone guiding on public land or building any type of permanent blind. My opinion is that they should have to guide on private property and secure the permissions to do this. I'd even like to see 'licensed' guides have certain ethical criteria to adhere to plus file a end of year report.
Knock on a few doors in the Moses Lk area and you'll most likely find that a guide has already secured the fields you're asking permission to hunt by 'buying' them. One of my hunting partners and I have first hand experience at this. Good for the guide and land owner. Bad for the average Joe.
This situation is getting more prevalent every year. Public land should not be encroached upon by private parties looking to make a profit for whatever reason.
I've had my share of bad experiences hunting Potholes and this is my opinion.
You say "on OUR land".....and you are correct it is your land and the guides land and the person that is paying the guides land too. From a landowner perspective (and I think this was mentioned earlier) it is much nicer to have a guide pay to hunt your land that has insurance and in general will take much better care of it than the "average joe". Unfotunately a few bad apples (average joes that don't follow the rules) are the problem when it comes to private land access IMHO and not the guides.
-
So, do you want to stop big game guides in the Wilderness and NF areas also :dunno:
-
The growing guide trend has ruined many great traditional hunting and fishing grounds (private and public) over the last few years. Guides tend to lose respect for other sportsmen that aren't their clients and paying them. I would love to see guides banned but that will never happen. I agree that destroying their blinds isn't right either and people should just try get to the blind early if they choose to play the public land game.
Private land? I'm guessing already about 80% of the prime land is already tied up by the guides. It's getting real hard to find places to hunt and fish anymore unless you do it the pay to play way..
Just read an article in Outdoor Life about local guys back east that live in the big buck areas not being able to hunt, even on relatives' land as it is all getting leased up. Kinda sucks when the animals are a public resource. IMHO anyone profiting from a public resource should be held to higher standards than the public.
Maybe it is time to push for a per client guide fee that goes to a dedicated account that looks to increase public access to private land?
You said it lokidog I couldn't agree more..
Times are definitely changing
-
I love it, that is awesome whoever put that up.
Wow. That's a great attitude.... let's destroy someone else's stuff. :bash: :bash:
-
Get up earlier!!!! Their blinds are public property and first come first serve! Welcome to waterfowling in 2011. :cryriver: :stup:
-
Get up earlier!!!! Their blinds are public property and first come first serve! Welcome to waterfowling in 2011. :cryriver: :stup:
And read what I wrote. I promise even if you get up at what you think is an early enough time you will not beat the guides to the blinds that are worth hunting.
-
I love it, that is awesome whoever put that up.
Wow. That's a great attitude.... let's destroy someone else's stuff. :bash: :bash:
It's just as much mine as theirs, Im not saying destroy anything but stick blinds if it is really getting that bad down there with commercial guiding. I dont hunt up there so I dont know. But as far as them bringing their own stuff in for blinds, leave it alone thats just wrong.
-
I saw this and figured I would post up to provide another persective.
First off I am a guide in the Moses Lake area, but I do not guide on the Pot Holes.
Most of the floating blinds out there are not guides blinds. They are average joes who live around here. My buddy Mike for example has one. I think Echternkampt has one that he he bought this year. I don't even know if he is ussing it. I don't know if Mar Don has one. From most of the posts and the original banner most of the "guides" are actually retired guys out with a couple of their buddies. Second there just aren't that many guides out on pot holes. My guess is that it would be less that 5% of the hunters. The overall impact is very low. To add to it there are so many areas to hunt it seems like a non issue to me.
In terms of fields leasing, which I would be a culprit yes it is limiting out guys. One thing to take into consideration is that we have taken farms that 2 people would hunt all year and opened it up to 100 people to hunt. Second it is the farmers land. It is their choice, and the guides are bring money into the farmers, who otherwise were not getting money. This is a country that was founded on capitilism. Leased property is a trend that is not going anywhere. Even if you took the guides out it the land would quickly be absobed into clubs. If for instance I could not guide that would be the first thing I would do would be to set up a club.
-
Sounds alot like some of the guides in the rivers over here....
-
Why not just get in the blinds first and keep the guided hunters from using them that way, rather than destrying the blinds. It is first come, first serve. Public land, so they are public blinds, no matter who built them.
:yeah:
I agree with this approach. Let's not risk any more bad image or press for the general, law abiding hunting public. In todays world we can't afford that as hunters.
Gadwall
-
I do agree there should be NO permanent blinds on public land floating or on the dunes! Mardons has been doing it for years they think the potholes are there personal play grounds. Oh and their arrogant as %$## and the game dept. won't touch them.
There are blinds in some places which are already permanent. It's good to see a disabled person come and hunt (especially veterans) in permanent blinds.
-
I saw this and figured I would post up to provide another persective.
First off I am a guide in the Moses Lake area, but I do not guide on the Pot Holes.
Most of the floating blinds out there are not guides blinds. They are average joes who live around here. My buddy Mike for example has one. I think Echternkampt has one that he he bought this year. I don't even know if he is ussing it. I don't know if Mar Don has one. From most of the posts and the original banner most of the "guides" are actually retired guys out with a couple of their buddies. Second there just aren't that many guides out on pot holes. My guess is that it would be less that 5% of the hunters. The overall impact is very low. To add to it there are so many areas to hunt it seems like a non issue to me.
In terms of fields leasing, which I would be a culprit yes it is limiting out guys. One thing to take into consideration is that we have taken farms that 2 people would hunt all year and opened it up to 100 people to hunt. Second it is the farmers land. It is their choice, and the guides are bring money into the farmers, who otherwise were not getting money. This is a country that was founded on capitilism. Leased property is a trend that is not going anywhere. Even if you took the guides out it the land would quickly be absobed into clubs. If for instance I could not guide that would be the first thing I would do would be to set up a club.
Guzman,
Guides do not 'open' up any land to hunters. Leasing a farm that 2 hunters would hunt and stating you opened it up to 100 hunters is just wrong. Those 100 hunters pay dearly for the priviledge. There's no 'open' to it.
I'd also beg to differ with you on your percentages of guide filled blinds on Potholes.
-
So, do you want to stop big game guides in the Wilderness and NF areas also :dunno:
You're jumping to conclusions now.
I don't have much good to say about the condition some big game guides have left certain areas of the NF and some wilderness areas in after they've moved on. All I'm saying is that it should be policed somehow.
When we allow hunting and fishing to completely turn into a rich man's sport, you and I will be nothing but spectators.
-
Guzman,
Guides do not 'open' up any land to hunters. Leasing a farm that 2 hunters would hunt and stating you opened it up to 100 hunters is just wrong. Those 100 hunters pay dearly for the priviledge. There's no 'open' to it.
I'd also beg to differ with you on your percentages of guide filled blinds on Potholes.
One point that I was trying to make is a lot of the "guides" are not guides. Everyone is saying get to the blind first and take it etc. Most of the perminate blinds are not guides. How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
The point I was trying to make was that previously very few people hunted or had access to hunt the farms that I hunt. Now on those farms many people hunt it. Do they pay yes. Do they pay dearly no.
With all of hunting times are changing and will change. Point in fact there are more people in this state and less waterfowl. Leases now cost more, yet there are less birds. Guiding is and probably will be less profitable in the future. There are less guides now than there were just 5 years ago. I think they same can and will be said about the general public in that there will be less birds and will require more work than 5 years ago. It is a progression that comes with increased population. You have more people vying for the same resourse.
-
How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
Guides get paid.
Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource. That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated. Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate. Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.
Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.
-
I saw this and figured I would post up to provide another persective.
First off I am a guide in the Moses Lake area, but I do not guide on the Pot Holes.
Most of the floating blinds out there are not guides blinds. They are average joes who live around here. My buddy Mike for example has one. I think Echternkampt has one that he he bought this year. I don't even know if he is ussing it. I don't know if Mar Don has one. From most of the posts and the original banner most of the "guides" are actually retired guys out with a couple of their buddies. Second there just aren't that many guides out on pot holes. My guess is that it would be less that 5% of the hunters. The overall impact is very low. To add to it there are so many areas to hunt it seems like a non issue to me.
In terms of fields leasing, which I would be a culprit yes it is limiting out guys. One thing to take into consideration is that we have taken farms that 2 people would hunt all year and opened it up to 100 people to hunt. Second it is the farmers land. It is their choice, and the guides are bring money into the farmers, who otherwise were not getting money. This is a country that was founded on capitilism. Leased property is a trend that is not going anywhere. Even if you took the guides out it the land would quickly be absobed into clubs. If for instance I could not guide that would be the first thing I would do would be to set up a club.
Well put. I agree. I think there are too many average Joes that just think hey can show up and hunt where they want and expect no one else to be there. The guys who have hunted the Potholes for year know they have to get up early to get to the good spots.
-
I saw this and figured I would post up to provide another persective.
First off I am a guide in the Moses Lake area, but I do not guide on the Pot Holes.
Most of the floating blinds out there are not guides blinds. They are average joes who live around here. My buddy Mike for example has one. I think Echternkampt has one that he he bought this year. I don't even know if he is ussing it. I don't know if Mar Don has one. From most of the posts and the original banner most of the "guides" are actually retired guys out with a couple of their buddies. Second there just aren't that many guides out on pot holes. My guess is that it would be less that 5% of the hunters. The overall impact is very low. To add to it there are so many areas to hunt it seems like a non issue to me.
In terms of fields leasing, which I would be a culprit yes it is limiting out guys. One thing to take into consideration is that we have taken farms that 2 people would hunt all year and opened it up to 100 people to hunt. Second it is the farmers land. It is their choice, and the guides are bring money into the farmers, who otherwise were not getting money. This is a country that was founded on capitilism. Leased property is a trend that is not going anywhere. Even if you took the guides out it the land would quickly be absobed into clubs. If for instance I could not guide that would be the first thing I would do would be to set up a club.
Guzman,
Guides do not 'open' up any land to hunters. Leasing a farm that 2 hunters would hunt and stating you opened it up to 100 hunters is just wrong. Those 100 hunters pay dearly for the priviledge. There's no 'open' to it.
I'd also beg to differ with you on your percentages of guide filled blinds on Potholes.
I have a few relavent points to add to this discussion that I hope will put some things in perspective for some of the folks who have an open mind.
1. People who dislike guides insist that hunting guides cater to the rich. This a false statement from people who don't know what they are talking about. Nearly all of our hunters are just average people who are carpenters, firemen, policemen, salesmen, factory workers, mill workers, loggers, taxidermists, boeing workers, microsoft employees, plumbers, accountants, people with other common jobs, parents taking their kids on a good hunt for a graduation or birthday present, and a lot of retired seniors from all professions who do not want to be alone in the mountains for personal safety reasons or for help getting their game out.
2. I have leased property that was previously closed to hunting because a few bad apples had left gates open, littered, etc. After we leased, the landowner was happy that we were actually policing the place for trespassers. This has been a win/win, the property is again being hunted and the hunters who are hunting there are no longer hunting the areas they used to hunt so hunting pressure was lessened in other areas. The hunters are getting a higher quality hunt because they are hunting ground that was previously unhunted, not because they are hunting property that all kinds of other people were already hunting. In many cases the landowner was against deer as they eat his crops, now they are happy to feed the deer since they are a part of the ranch income.
3. Guiding is extremely restrictive on the National Forest. A special use permit is required and fees are collected based on the amount of use. Permittees are given about 10 pages of rules to follow. Camp sites are registered and if any guide is destructive, they will have to answer for it with likely loss of permit for repeat offenses. Guides are held to a much higher standard than any other hunters. If the persons you observed were actually guides, then they would have to answer for any mess they created to the supervising forest officer. I would suspect your story about misuse use involved public hunters or illegal guides.
4. Potholes may not be an area where a guide must be permitted. So I can not comment about that, but I can tell you for a fact, guides are extremely regulated on any National Forest.
5. Guide Licensing - Many states have a licensing program where all guides must be licensed. Washington does not have licensing for hunting guides. But I can tell you from experience of being in business in Washington for many years. The good guides are all still in business and the bad guides all eventually quit because customers do not return to hunt with poor guides. Just watch the threads on this forum, bad guides will be chastised by unhappy hunters just as taxidermists are chastised for a low quality mount. I do not beleive that guide licensing is always the best answer, the extra regulation has a cost, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer (hunters). That is a major reason why my hunts in other states cost more than my hunts in Washington. I have to recover all the licensing fees in what I charge for hunts in those states.
6. Fees - Remember as with any other profession, the higher of fees you want the guide to pay, the higher the cost will be to the consumer. This is the exact mentality that has put us into more taxes in Washington and across the US and has led to a higher cost to consumers for goods and services. Is this really the best answer?
7. Insurance - To be permitted on the forest, any guide must have liability insurance to protect his hunters against injury. My landowners are also covered by this insurance so that is one big reason landowners allow guides, it lessens their legal risk.
8. First Aid - Myself and all my guides are trained in first aid and CPR as are any other permitted or licensed guides. This is a requirement which lessens the risk to hunters we serve and reduces the legal risk to landowners.
9. I agree with Guzman, people know that leasing ground allows them better hunting opportunities so leasing is not going to go away even if guiding was outlawed. Many hunters only want to hunt once or twice a year, so a lease of their own or a club and all the scouting is often more cost than they want, it's cheaper for a hunter to use the services of a good guide a couple times a year than to try and lease a place for themself or do all the scouting. The same is true with fishing guides, it's way cheaper to hire a good guide a few times a year than to try and own a boat, all the fishing gear, and keep up with fishing trends. No different than using a travel agent to set up your vacation.
10. I see the argument all the time that a hunter doesn't deserve his animal if he goes with a guide. Please let me ask these questions: Do you deserve the fish if you fish from a boat you didn't build yourself or if you use a fish finder? Do you deserve to bowhunt if you didn't build your own bow and arrows? Do you deserve to have a knife if you didn't learn the art of knife building and build it yourself? Do you deserve a vacation if you use a travel agent or go with a group on a cruise boat or fly on a commercial airline or use a rental car or taxi? Do you deserve to eat in a restaurant when you don't cook your own food? Do you deserve to simply buy any groceries you want if you didn't till the soil and water the crops every day? Do you think you should have to do your own taxes? Do you think that computer owners should have to design all their own software for their own computer? I didn't think so, and that is exactly how ridiculous this mentality is!
There are other points but perhaps this is enough to answer a few questions in many peoples minds about guides and to refute some of the misinformation and opiniated attitudes.
-
How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
Guides get paid.
Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource. That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated. Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate. Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.
Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.
Well by your standards then we should have the logging companies quit logging on dnr land since they make a profit. You see how good that's been in the NF. I have never used a guide but I have nothing against them either and the public land is for the public. They are part of the public just as much as you and me.
-
Well by your standards then we should have the logging companies quit logging on dnr land since they make a profit. You see how good that's been in the NF. I have never used a guide but I have nothing against them either and the public land is for the public. They are part of the public just as much as you and me.
Logging companies should (and do) pay for the logs.
-
The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.
-
The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.
As they should. Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:
Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
-
they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
This sounds like the typical ambiguous goal that a government is good at setting yet not achieving with any semblence of measurable success.
If the guide is not actually harvesting the animal then are they really exploiting something in such a way that they are damaging a resource? If they are not harvesting an animal then what resource are they potentially going to damage?
-
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue Ray.
I’ve long believed guides need to pay their way; probably been conditioned to this belief by encounters with aggressive guides over the years:
blocking boat launches, trails and forest roads, trying to intimate people off public lands and waters, overfishing and overhunting the public areas then moving off to private
-
I'd rather hunt next to the guides that are out there in the shotholes than most of the average joes
-
they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
This sounds like the typical ambiguous goal that a government is good at setting yet not achieving with any semblence of measurable success.
If the guide is not actually harvesting the animal then are they really exploiting something in such a way that they are damaging a resource? If they are not harvesting an animal then what resource are they potentially going to damage?
Right on Ray, and guess what, friends of ours like Bearpaw employee people, pay business taxes (and many other fees), contribute to the local economy and provide a valuable service to individuals that are willing to pay for it. If I want to pay for a guide and I want to go hunting on public ground (which I am paying taxes for) then I will ask the guide to take me there. Don't get me wrong, anyone that is against guides and would be willing to take me out with them using their equipment for free, so that I don't pay a guide, I will be happy to take them up on an offer.
-
The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.
As they should. Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:
Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
3. Guiding is extremely restrictive on the National Forest. A special use permit is required and fees are collected based on the amount of use. Permittees are given about 10 pages of rules to follow. Camp sites are registered and if any guide is destructive, they will have to answer for it with likely loss of permit for repeat offenses. Guides are held to a much higher standard than any other hunters. If the persons you observed were actually guides, then they would have to answer for any mess they created to the supervising forest officer. I would suspect your story about misuse use involved public hunters or illegal guides.
To further elaborate, in addition to use fees for each day of use by each hunter, I also have to pay a fee for each camp site used. Now if you want to raise those fees dramatically, it will make hunting with a guide more costly. Because contrary to your way of thinking, it is not the guide who necessarily pays, it's the user that gets stuck, because to stay in business the cost has to be passed on to consumers. :bash:
-
How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
Guides get paid.
Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource. That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated. Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate. Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.
Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.
Well said CP.
-
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue Ray.
I’ve long believed guides need to pay their way; probably been conditioned to this belief by encounters with aggressive guides over the years:
blocking boat launches, trails and forest roads, trying to intimate people off public lands and waters, overfishing and overhunting the public areas then moving off to private
CP,
First, I respect your opinion and believe you have reached it based upon the experiences you described. I have heard countless reports like those before and believe those examples are a black stain on guides who do such things. At the same time I am always aware that there are two sides to every story and that is not just guide behavior. That doesn't mean I am discounting any specific reports of such behavior. It just means I know that in some cases tempers flare and there are some situations which could be avoided. I'll not dive any further on that detail other than to say that there are guides who would avoid any such behavior. People who are overfishing and overhunting as well as blocking launches, roads etc. - those are things which may be enforceable (depending on meaning of overfish and overhunt - does that mean poaching?). Unfortunately we know that the enforcement officers are not going to be available most of the time. If someone is overfishing and overhunting or otherwise doing anything illegal I intend to report them right away. Especially if they are poaching. Regulating overhunting and overfishing, as in taking more than their bag limit then it is not really a guide issue as much as it is a people issue. The guides go where the critters are, and so do other people. If we want to limit what their customers take then maybe we should be limiting harvest instead of guides.
-Ray
-
The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.
As they should. Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:
Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
I understand how business works Bearpaw, pass your costs on to your customers, no one is saying that you shouldn’t.
3. Guiding is extremely restrictive on the National Forest. A special use permit is required and fees are collected based on the amount of use. Permittees are given about 10 pages of rules to follow. Camp sites are registered and if any guide is destructive, they will have to answer for it with likely loss of permit for repeat offenses. Guides are held to a much higher standard than any other hunters. If the persons you observed were actually guides, then they would have to answer for any mess they created to the supervising forest officer. I would suspect your story about misuse use involved public hunters or illegal guides.
To further elaborate, in addition to use fees for each day of use by each hunter, I also have to pay a fee for each camp site used. Now if you want to raise those fees dramatically, it will make hunting with a guide more costly. Because contrary to your way of thinking, it is not the guide who necessarily pays, it's the user that gets stuck, because to stay in business the cost has to be passed on to consumers. :bash:
I understand how business works Bearpaw, pass your costs on to your customers, no one is saying that you shouldn’t.
-
I think when we lash out against fellow hunters (and guides are fellow hunters), we are lashing out at the wrong people!
I have been a duck hunter in this state since the 80's. As a kid, I can remember hunting the public walk in areas like the farmed island unit at Skagit and Leque Islands. More hunting licenses were sold back in the 70's -80's than now by over 40%! There were more hunters back then and you know what? We never had to get there at 1 am to hunt a good spot. Why? because there were so many spots in W. WA that people were not forced together in such small remaining areas by WDFW policies and urbanization.
Now fast forward 35yrs: The Skagit wildlife area has been, for all intents and purposes, DESTROYED by WDFW's 'salmon restoration' programs. Blow up the dikes and walk away...provide a "natural balance". There are no more dairy farms to hunt on over here. Regulated and taxed out of the westside. Shoreline hunting on the Sound is severely restricted by "no shooting" ord's. Where does the average guy have left where he can have a free roam hunt? Potholes.
-
How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
Guides get paid.
Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource. That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated. Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.
But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate. Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.
Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.
CP you are right on man and I don't care what anybody else says. The way things are heading all hunting and fishing will be guided or leased land hunts. Some of us don't ever want to hunt that way even if we could afford it.
-
So, do you want to stop big game guides in the Wilderness and NF areas also :dunno:
You're jumping to conclusions now.
I don't have much good to say about the condition some big game guides have left certain areas of the NF and some wilderness areas in after they've moved on. All I'm saying ist that it should be policed somehow.
When we allow hunting and fishing to completely turn into a rich man's sport, you and I will be nothing but spectators.
I don't think so.
Where does it stop. Take one right (or privelage) away, then another, then another. Where does it end.
Now we have devision of waterfowler hunters :bash:
We need to ban together and fight for each others right wether you support there views or not. We are hunter....
-
You are right gasman we should stick together as hunters but to some of us we believe commercial hunting and fishing is a threat to all hunting and fishing in the future.
-
I don't view guided hunting as a threat but as a resource.
-
I don't view guided hunting as a threat but as a resource.
True, and guides and their clients are (obviously) held to the same laws and standards as the rest of us. They can't take more game, use special equipment, etc.......
-
In terms of how are you differentiating from the guides and the average Joes. The point that I was making was that most of the floating blinds are not guides, but just your average guy who is not guiding. They are not taking money. So if you are destroying their blind you are not discouraging guiding, but just your everyday hunter.
On the Pot Holes a guide must get a permit the the WDFW in Ephrata and must have $1,000,000 in insurance. They do not pay for anything, but they are insured.
Although there is no fee for guiding on public land, which I do not guide on so I am not arguing to protect myself, they do bring in a lot of cash flow in the form of community sales and taxes.
Seperatly I do not buy into the idea that guides should not profit from public property. For one there is not a large profit margin. Two think of all the other entities that benifit from public resources. Not knowing where you work I would be suprised if it didn't or there wasn't a link. What about a company like Boeing that gets tax breaks, or truckers who use public highways? Heck even your super market uses public power and water.
Too add to it I just don't think that guides make up that large of a percentage of the hunting being done to have much effect. And the cost to set a permit/fee system would outweight all income being brought in. Seems like a large bureacracy to me. But if you want to pay taxes to set it up than contact your representative.
-
I don't view guided hunting as a threat but as a resource.
True, and guides and their clients are (obviously) held to the same laws and standards as the rest of us. They can't take more game, use special equipment, etc.......
I agree, and would hope to belive, guides would put more effort in to keeping our areas clean and do all they can to keep the resources available to all.
-
Get up earlier!!!! Their blinds are public property and first come first serve! Welcome to waterfowling in 2011. :cryriver: :stup:
And read what I wrote. I promise even if you get up at what you think is an early enough time you will not beat the guides to the blinds that are worth hunting.
So what makes you think that your average Joe hunter isn't going to show up as early as a guide. I have driven two hours on opener to find a parking lot full of hunters with every blind taken two days before legal shoot!!!! You will find this at any spot that is shooting well.
-
This whole agruement could be avoided if all sportsmen would treat each other with common courtesy and respect.
-
This whole agruement could be avoided if all sportsmen would treat each other with common courtesy and respect.
AMEN Brother..........
:brew:
-
This whole agruement could be avoided if all sportsmen would treat each other with common courtesy and respect.
+1 The antis WIN when they're able to get US to drive a wedge 'tween us and become divided. In Montana, the antis are getting deer tags and not usin' 'em to make our chances more difficult. They oppose US from every front. Ammunition, attempts to ban our tools, and any number acts of pure stupidity in the name of "eco-friendly" causes. And, we have nothing better to do with our time than to squabble amongst one another. Shame on us for it.
-
This whole agruement could be avoided if all sportsmen would treat each other with common courtesy and respect.
agree 100% well put
-
Guzman,
Guides do not 'open' up any land to hunters. Leasing a farm that 2 hunters would hunt and stating you opened it up to 100 hunters is just wrong. Those 100 hunters pay dearly for the priviledge. There's no 'open' to it.
I'd also beg to differ with you on your percentages of guide filled blinds on Potholes.
One point that I was trying to make is a lot of the "guides" are not guides. Everyone is saying get to the blind first and take it etc. Most of the perminate blinds are not guides. How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?
The point I was trying to make was that previously very few people hunted or had access to hunt the farms that I hunt. Now on those farms many people hunt it. Do they pay yes. Do they pay dearly no.
With all of hunting times are changing and will change. Point in fact there are more people in this state and less waterfowl. Leases now cost more, yet there are less birds. Guiding is and probably will be less profitable in the future. There are less guides now than there were just 5 years ago. I think they same can and will be said about the general public in that there will be less birds and will require more work than 5 years ago. It is a progression that comes with increased population. You have more people vying for the same resourse.
The way I differentiate the guides from the regular hunters is by their actions in the field.
Example 1: A couple years ago, three of us made a DIY duck/goose hunt to Potholes for a long weekend. After spending Friday scouting and moving around, we had a spot for Sat morn. Arriving darn early found us set up in two or our own portable blinds before anyone else was in the area. Soon after setting up, we heard a boat motoring very fast all around us. Figuring it was duck hunters looking for a spot or a way to get thru some dunes. Wrong. It was a guide dropping off hunters all around us. When it got daylight, we had a group directly across from us, two groups on the same dune as us, one just down from us and another directly behind us and a couple groups close by on other dunes. The guide's route to 'tend' these hunters took him right past our decoys about every 45 minutes not to mention all the other running around close by tending the other groups. This constant running around and the fact that this guide placed hunters right next to us even after we shined lights their way ruined our day. We moved to a new spot the next day only to have a similar performance but to a lesser extent.
Example 2: A couple years ago at the Nisqually delta, a guide(according to the huge logo on his boat)motored out to a salt grass flat 75yds directly in front of me and my partner 20 minutes after shooting light. We'd been there for over 2 hours. I hollered at him with no response. He and a little guy in the front of the boat started shooting at EVERY duck that flew over. Approximately 1 hour and 50 shells later, they crippled a Bufflehead. They proceeded to chase it down with the outboard with the little guy shooting wildly while the 'guide' drove the boat. 10 shots later they had it in their boat. I called WDFW enforcement. Then I paddled my canoe out and confronted him about his great ethical hunting practices informing him that I'd called the law. He stated that he was a guide and just wanted to get his nephew some shooting. After putting him down as best I could and reminding him that I'd called the law, he picked up and left.
Both of these instances happened on public water at everyone else's expense. This is what my opinion is based on.
Now I'm sure there are many great guides out there but these are examples of why there needs to be some form of policing. If we can't police our own, who's going to do it? I would think that guides would want to police their own as a bad guide would ruin it for the good guides.
-
You made a good point there. I don't think it's legal for the guy to shoot from a boat under propulsion so you probably did the right thing by reporting him. He certainly did not do any guides any favors with his actions and I can now see why you have a bad attitude about guides. Like every other group of people there are good and bad, and those type of actions are bad for everyone. :twocents:
-
why make it illegal to guide on public land, especially in a waterfowl situation?
in this case, you beat the guide to "their" blind, they are going to have a harder time getting birds. Their clients aren't going to want to pay money for a marginal hunt anymore. The situation will work itself out - they will either no longer have customers or they will learn another spot. They won't continue to compete for that space - Unless they can make 200+ a day for limits of coots :chuckle:
I live on the west side and have a 3 hour disadvantage to get any spot in eastern Washington that I want to hunt. that leaves me two options: get up earlier or walk further.
-
Most agencies consider guiding a positive resource for the public and it is in most cases. As someone else said, these things have a way of working themselves out. The one thing you need to remember, guides do provide services to the general public. Guided trips are preferred by many hunters who have busy job schedules, hunters who are not as experienced as more fortunate hunters, or simply by hunters who want to let someone else deal with all the prep. But the bottom line is, the guide isn't hunting, the public is still doing the hunting, if you banned guiding, you are actually taking away opportunities that many public hunters prefer to have.
My guess is that the guides you mention are not pleasing many hunters if they are acting as you say and in the end they will pay the price for their actions with the success of their business.
The one guy wasn't even guiding hunters, you said he had a family member with him, perhaps he isn't even a real guide. :dunno:
I agree with Iceman, we all just need to treat each other with respect. :twocents:
-
Get up earlier!!!! Their blinds are public property and first come first serve! Welcome to waterfowling in 2011. :cryriver: :stup:
And read what I wrote. I promise even if you get up at what you think is an early enough time you will not beat the guides to the blinds that are worth hunting.
So what makes you think that your average Joe hunter isn't going to show up as early as a guide. I have driven two hours on opener to find a parking lot full of hunters with every blind taken two days before legal shoot!!!! You will find this at any spot that is shooting well.
Its not going to be a good shoot with a parking lot full of hunters and driving two hours for a duck... damn man you gotta find some other spots!
-
We have learned that when hunting out in the potholes it does no good to get there early, they will set up right on top of no matter who or were or what. So now we get there an hour or so before shooting light and set up were we want away from people, no matter if we are in a good spot or not. Its more enjoyable to hunt when you are not getting peppered from other hunters shot! No more ethics hunting out in the potholes. Screw your neighbor game is getting old out there. The glow sticks dont even work anymore, they just set up under you lights anyways
-
Sounds like Welts to me. :mgun: :iamwithstupid: :mgun2: :bfg: :hunt2: :hunt2: :mor: :hunter: Unfortunately, there is easily eight or nine times + + the area to hunt on potholes. If not more. (very conservative estimate off the top of my head). Guides are a private enterprise hired by the public. If a guide business is a private enterprise, they can do they're business on private land. JMHOP. By the way folks, last I checked,...blinds on public lands in Washington state are not only first come first serve, but have to be taken down after the season is over. In other words no permanent blinds! Private business is just that. Private. Not public.