Pandora's Box

Submitted by George on 11/11/04 at 11:51 AM. ( )

A recent posting lambasting US Outfitters ran it's course and everyone had their say pro or con. This week, however, private outfitters from the state of Illinois have sued their own DNR over the issuance of non-resident bow hunter tags. They claim that the state is infringing on their right to make a living and that quotas are established because of political reasons rather than biological reasons.

Just another case of bureaucratic gerrymandering into issues pertaining to hunters and good biological data. All of which could have been avoided completely by a DNR cultivating a closer relationship with hunters. With more and more bunny cops feeling as the hunter is only a crook, this is unlikely to go away soon.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

I can see their point, BUT....

This response submitted by marty on 11/11/04 at 12:12 PM. ( )

The current system/quotas have been in place for decades. If these outfitters did their homework BEFORE they opened for business, they would have known this. Pretty STUPID on their part if they were anticipating a bunch of out-of-state business.

Personally I hate to see more and more "outfitters" and "game preserves" opening in my state. Bottom line is pretty soon only the suits will be able to afford to hunt as places to hunt will only be on a pay-per hunt basis at astronomical rates.

They're spinning their wheels with suing the Illinois DNR. We can post the results of this case on this forum in another ten years or so...

What is wrong with that?

This response submitted by TEXAS Landowner! on 11/11/04 at 3:35 PM. ( )


"Personally I hate to see more and more "outfitters" and "game preserves" opening in my state. Bottom line is pretty soon only the suits will be able to afford to hunt as places to hunt will only be on a pay-per hunt basis at astronomical rates."


What is wrong with a landowner using the wildlife on his land, that by the way, he manages and feeds year round, making a profit on them.

If there is someone who will pay to play, and PAY BIG BUCKS, why not?

If someone offered you twice the going rate to mount a specimen, would you not take it?

I for one think ALL hunting should be on private land, no public land hunting what so ever. Those animals are the states, the ones I feed are mine until they cross the fence.

texas landowner...

This response submitted by marty on 11/11/04 at 3:47 PM. ( )

You don't see the urban sprawl like I do. I use to pheasant hunt 40 minutes from my house just by asking the farmers permission. Now those days are long gone. One by one I lost permission on each of the farms I use to hunt. Some are now licensed game preserves where for a measly $1000-$2000 annual membership fee - (along with a daily fee btw) I can now hunt fat, slow pen raised birds on the land I use to hunt for FREE.

Now I don't have a problem with farmers trying to earn a living and I don't know all the answers. But I do see that in 10,20, 50 years from now (whatever) only the rich will be able to afford to hunt.

"No public land" How assinine is that comment? That philosophy/stance just perpetuates what I'm saying - eventually only the suits will be able to afford to hunt...

Less hunting here too

This response submitted by Raven on 11/11/04 at 4:49 PM. ( )

Im in the same boat... it used to be that there were lots of places for me to hunt. Now huge tracts of farm land in the wrld famous fruit and grape belt of niagara is beign plowed under for more and more hosusing complexes. The Ontario government is putting "green Belt Legislation' into effect to slow down this urban sprawl because it is destroying the landscape of southern Ontario and forever changing its ecosystem. Couple with this wht fact that farmers and landowners are catering to rich Toronto types that will pay in excess of $1000 dollars to reserve that farmland for a season only to hunt it once or twice, and it means a growing number of hunters have no place to hunt. How can we attract new hunters if there is no where for them to go? Gone are the days where the values were held in high esteem - where once could help a farmer mend fences and bail hay in exchange for hunting his land for a couple weekends.

The trend is that only the elite established hunters have places to go. The lower income established hunters can not offer a $1000 bribe, and the new hunters won't pay $1000 as they have no guarantee they are going to even see their game. It's a slippery slope that may not be reversable.

State Lands belong to the tax payers of that state

This response submitted by RJ Simington on 11/11/04 at 5:51 PM. ( )

& that is why we can still hunt public lands.
Here in Oregon we can still hunt Elk, Deer, Antelope, Bears ,Cougars & all sorts of other legal species WITHOUT haveing to kiss somebodies butt & beg & plead to hunt, or to pay thousands of dollars to a hunt club just to be able to take our families hunting.
We still have places with signs that say Hunters on foot or horse back welcome , Just close the gates.
This is because we voted to keep places like this & Many land owners have said no to large Guide operations like USO Outfitters that buy up hunting rights on large ranches just so they can keep public hunters out & they can have a private hunt club.

If you want more hunting open to the public Go to the Fish & Wildlife Meetings & voice your opinion.

Texas landowner

This response submitted by DaveT on 11/12/04 at 7:15 AM. ( )

You better not alienate the working class hunter, it is the millions who hunt public land and open private land that keep hunting legal in this country... a fact YOU had better remember.

By the way, the wildlife on your land (unless you purchased it and then it is not wildlife) does NOT belong to YOU, it belongs to the state. I am surprised no one has taken the high fence folks to court that have captured resident deer on their place.


Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu