Isn't it ironic that Florida seems to want to desperately rid the Everglades of Burmese pythons, but the politicians or some fool Parks & Wildlife person down there has decided that they should charge the snake hunters $25 to hunt the snakes.
In my mind, if they were truly interested in killing off those snakes, the prize would remain in tact but there would be no entry fee. Also the kill or capture challenge would be a continuous activity with the prize being renewed on regular, possibly monthly or quarterly intervals.

Sort of reminds me of the feral hog situation in Texas. You hear all about the billions of dollars in damage that they do but the landowners want $100 a head to hunt them.

I do agricultural deer damage control in Wisconsin and the farmers are tickled pink to have me show up and fill the tags.

This also like a Kalifornia tule elk hunt that cost $30,000.00 but yet the rancher complains that elk are eating all of the feed for his cattle but will gladly sell you a tag for $30,000.00. Hypocrite?

Or like Iowa claiming they have too many deer and can't kill enough of them. Then Making it harder and charging more for non resident hunters to get lic.

One can find many of these stupid ideas by wildlife mangers. But when money is involved the more they pop up,

Or ranchers who are willing to spend money poisoning PDs but want you to paid to shoot them

quote:

Sort of reminds me of the feral hog situation in Texas. You hear all about the billions of dollars in damage that they do but the landowners want $100 a head to hunt them.

Well, I can explain that one, more or less. The farmers and ranchers don't know you, don't know whether you will shoot a cow or bull or sheep, and have some liability for allowing you on their place. In addition, hunting income is what keeps many ranches in the black AFA profit is concerned. Finally, they also know that hunting will not control hog populations so the hassle of handling unknown hog hunters for free is simply not worth the costs in time or effort.

Come on guys. It is $25 for god sake. It is nothing.

The state has some costs in this, not to mention that this allows them to gain valuable data that they could not otherwise get.

As I understand this, this is hunt is in certain state land ONLY. Further, as a non-native species, there is no closed season. The state is charging to hunt on public land that is not normally open to hunting.

Finally, past results from what I read were not impressive.

"Well, I can explain that one, more or less. The farmers and ranchers don't know you, don't know whether you will shoot a cow or bull or sheep, and have some liability for allowing you on their place."

How does charging per hog change this situation? A slob hunter is a slob hunter no matter if they pay or not. The money is not necessarily going to stop some idiot from shooting livestock or doing other damage to the property.

I shoot deer year round on ag damage permits and am very careful because I know that livestock, pets and children may be out and about. It wouldn't make any difference if the farmer charged for access (which is illegal for ag damage permits in WI) or not.

As for liability concerns, the landowner could have the hunter sign a waiver. This is standard practice for guided hunts.

I'm not suggesting that the landowner should let every Tom, Dick and Harry wander around. There should be some way to vet prospective hog hunters. What about an access fee, or refundable deposit?

"In addition, hunting income is what keeps many ranches in the black AFA profit is concerned. Finally, they also know that hunting will not control hog populations so the hassle of handling unknown hog hunters for free is simply not worth the costs in time or effort."

That tells me, an outside observer, that the damage caused by hogs must not be as bad as it's made out to be. It also looks like feral hogs are a cash crop, not destructive vermin.

I understand that hunting (alone) cannot completely control the population of feral hogs. If the risk and hassle of allowing access is not worth it how does charging per hog change the situation?

I recall hearing about a father and son hunting mule deer in Montana. The kid had a B tag and they drove past a ranch that had a large herd of does feeding in a field. They father asked the landowner for permission for his son to shoot one of them. The landowner said "Sure, for $300" The father replied, "For that kind of $$ we'll just go back out on the road and take pictures of them eating your crops."

One year I was hunting antelope in Montana. While gassing up, a man noticed my Wisconsin license plates and asked if I was out hunting. I said "Yes, I'm hunting antelope." He asked "Do you have any doe tags?" I answered "Yes, 2 of them." He gets out a piece of paper, writes out a permission to hunt and draws out a map to his place. Then he tells me to bring out a semi truck and not stop shooting until it is full. He didn't ask for any money.

I wonder which of those 2 Montana ranchers was more concerned about crop damage and more serious about doing something about it?

It isn't about the money. I have no problem with landowners charging a fee for recreational access. Rather, it's about wanting things both ways. Either the hogs are a serious problem or they aren't. You pay the Orkin man to kill cockroaches, he doesn't pay you.

I didn't mean to confuse snakes in Florida with hogs in Texas but my point is the same either way. The snakes are either a problem that need to be taken care of or they're not. Charging $25.00 for the permit isn't going to stop anybody from participating in the hunt nor is it going to balance the budget, but it does send out the wrong message. I have yet to hear about a state charging for a special permit to shoot coyotes or prairie dogs (after you buy a hunting license.)

quote:

Well, I can explain that one, more or less. The farmers and ranchers don't know you, don't know whether you will shoot a cow or bull or sheep, and have some liability for allowing you on their place. In addition, hunting income is what keeps many ranches in the black AFA profit is concerned. Finally, they also know that hunting will not control hog populations so the hassle of handling unknown hog hunters for free is simply not worth the costs in time or effort.

Excellently stated Sir and quite accurate.

BigasanElk, if you were a landowner in Texas, you would do the same thing. One thing Gato did not mention was that by charging, you weed out the less desirable "Hunter". Would you or anyone else complaining turn down extra income if were available to you? Think before you answer that.

There are really few hunting opportunities available World Wide that are Not a Pay To Play situation. No one is forced to pay for something they don't want too.

Folks, it is what it is. Whether it is a private land owner or a state agency, it is their prerogative to decide on how they want to do business.

I just have a REAL hard time believing that those griping would not do the same thing as those they are complaining about, were it a case where the gripers had control of the property where the resource was located.

If I were a farmer or rancher who is seriously concerned about damage done by invasive animals I would do ANYTHING to try to solve the problem. Even if it meant allowing free access to well-vetted people. If I were wealthy enough to own a large piece of property and really worried about the cost of crop damage I sure as hell wouldn't be worried about getting a few $$ out of somebody who's willing to help.

If I was that same landowner but considered the damage to be only a minor nuisance, then yes, I'd probably try to milk a few bucks out of it if I could.

It's all a matter of how serious I considered the problem to be.

Hunting wild boar is an expensive proposition in Europe but it's a different situation. A game animal is one thing and an invasive pest is another.

Here in Wisconsin the landowners are happy to have me fill their damage permits and they never ask for any form of compensation. Of course they also know who I am and where I live. They also know that I know what I'm doing and will fill all the tags without causing any undue problems.

Maybe Texas is different.

I guess I should start charging people too shoot porcupines they destroy a lot of timber chew on my cabin and generally do damage.

I beg every that one that wants to shoot the bastards. If some asked I well say go right ahead.

Wouldn't take much for me to let some one wander around with a rifle wanting to shoot the bastards.

quote:

The big problem in Florida is that ;literally hundreds of people signed up for this round up over the years

So why isn't open year around with a bounty.

It is open year round is many places. These hunts are taking place on state land that is normally closed.

If for example, I see a python on my property, I can whack it any day. But these lands are normally closed to hunting as I understand it.

Invasive species are not protected here.

quote:

If I were wealthy enough to own a large piece of property and really worried about the cost of crop damage I sure as hell wouldn't be worried about getting a few $$ out of somebody who's willing to help.

Just because a person owns land, that DOES NOT mean they are wealthy, and NO, you would not just let people loose on your land, because if you did, you would not own that land very long.

Pay REAL close attention to your comment:

quote:

Here in Wisconsin the landowners are happy to have me fill their damage permits and they never ask for any form of compensation. Of course they also know who I am and where I live. They also know that I know what I'm doing and will fill all the tags without causing any undue problems.

Things are not that way everywhere.

How many times do you go on a place where the land owner doesn't know you?

How many times do you go on a landowners property and take guests without telling the land owner?

There are aspects/parameters involved that you may not be or are not familiar with. Every invite an acquaintance on one of those properties, and then that person goes back to that property and takes another "Friend", WITHOUT consulting you????

I have seen that happen way too many times. Land owners have to protect themselves from lawsuits and they also don't have the time to be constantly monitoring their properties.

It is not all that uncommon for enterprising individuals in the area I live to drive the county dirt roads and shoot any pig they see and drive off and leave it!

Some have no problem in driving off the county road and pulling up beside the fence and turning their dogs loose on any pig they see. The dogs are just as guilty of trespassing as their owners are.

I am not a land owner, but I do work for one, and just because things are the way they are where you live, that does not mean they are the same way nation wide!

I've hunted a lot of species here in CO. Since the mid 50's. So far, I've never had but one ask for payment. When that guy did, I told him he needed the elk more than I did and drove to the next place and was welcomed at no charge, got my elk too and they were more than happy to help hang and load it up too.

OF course I'm an old bastard now and not a wild assed kid shooting everything that moves or don't. Rancher had some pasture with cattle in it and didn't want hunters in there. I told him: "John, I'm not too good to kill one of your cows, but, if I do, I will gut it out and come talk a deal to pay for it. There's antelope among your cows, I'd like to try for one" "George, that's all a cowman could ask for, go get you a goat and be safe".

George

quote:

How does charging per hog change this situation?

Bigasanelk:

You may know all there is to know about controlling deer populations but it is perfectly obvious that you don't know shit about hogs in Texas or most Texas ranchers or farmers. "Charging per hog" is a way of increasing income on property AND offsetting any damages that the unknown hunters may cause. It is also why many landowners won't let "day hunters" loose on their place and instead, a la CHC, want them to be at least semi-guided. In addition, a factor that has not been mentioned is that MANY ranches and farms are leased year around for hunting, typically for fairly good money, a helluva lot more than hogs at $100 a piece. Usually, the leasees expect that the rancher will not let the general public hunt on their leased hunting grounds.

"Sign a waiver": Waivers are broken everyday in civil court. A good waiver usually has to be written by a lawyer and many ranchers don't want to fool with it for a few hog dollars. Even then another good lawyer can often break it....they go where the money is.

Finally, the deer or pronghorns you attempt to control have, normally, at most 2 young per year, so control is relatively easy. Each sow will have anywhere between 8 and 24 piglets per year (cycle about every 5 months and have at least 3 and as many as 12 pigs per cycle) and are damn smart at avoiding being shot. If you shoot a few pigs in one area, they become nocturnal. That's why hunting accomplishes very little on open range land, it is nearly impossible to shoot enough to make a dent. I've read various estimates but the most common one is that to control hog populations you have to remove 60 to 70% of total population per year. Nearly impossible in this age.

What "pest control" do you think you can accomplish for free that a rancher can't or doesn't do everyday checking his place and herd? What is his upside to allowing you on his place for free? Answer: basically none.

MacsB wrote:

quote:

Texas pig problems are nothing more than a PR campaign. The ranchers who do have issues pay to have them caught and removed. The others are just cashing in on the hype, and oh yeah any potential for a hand out from the state for damages.

Stick to a topic you know something about, which may or may not be pythons in Florida. "Pay to have them caught and removed"....Right........

My best hay meadow was destroyed by hogs, becoming completely unusable last year. Replacing that hay cost me many thousands of dollars. That meadow is behind my house, and backed up to a heavily wooded creek bottom area that probably encompasses perhaps 20,000 acres, with many different land owners, some residents, many not. Why don't you figure out how to "catch and remove" all those hogs? Seems like everyone is an expert until they're in the swamp up to their asses in alligators.

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:
Texas pig problems are nothing more than a PR campaign. The ranchers who do have issues pay to have them caught and removed. The others are just cashing in on the hype, and oh yeah any potential for a hand out from the state for damages.

No offense intended sir but I doubt you have been to TX lately.

No matter what anyone of us say or how we individually feel/believe, it is the face of hunting/fishing/outdoor recreation TODAY, be damned what any of us can remember from when we were in our teens/20's and 30's. In most of our cases, that was 20/30/40 years ago.

Times were different when most of us were young, many of the landowners we knew are dead and gone and their land may have been sold out of the family.

I grew up in rural north Texas during the 50's and 60's, early 70's. There were few if any deer in the areas, no feral hogs, everyone pretty much knew everyone else and getting permission to go dove/duck or quail hunting was easy and damn few people had any objections concerning fishing their ponds.

Folks, your complaining about the wrong people in all your comments.

What changed/caused the change, was city people that did not have access to such properties, that started going out to the rural areas and OFFERED to pay for the access to the resource.

Blaming a land owner for simply taking advantage of basically free money is wrong. Blame the folks that came out and offered to pay to play.

Sport Hunters are the damnedest group of humans on this planet. They set and blame land owners for simply taking advantage of a situation, That Hunters created!

People need to place blame where blame belongs, because for each complainer, there are dozens if not hundreds that are more than happy to pay to play without griping, even to the point of out bidding other hunters to gain access to a property.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Things are not that way everywhere.

How many times do you go on a place where the land owner doesn't know you?

How many times do you go on a landowners property and take guests without telling the land owner?

I have done just this many times in this past hunting season. Many of the large Ag. farmers around me open up their land to hunting. Not only do they get a tax break, they also get a fair amount of deer removed from their property. Works well for both parties.

I actually read all of the above posts and my conclusion is that:

1. Florida is stupid but the people that pay to hunt pythons are just as much so.

2. That Texas pig problems are largely a PR campaign.

3. That there is justifiably a reluctance of a land owner to let any Tom, Dick or Harry that he doesn't know come on his property. I as a land owner have had problems with slob hunters and wouldn't let anyone on my property to hunt pigs or anything else that was bothering me unless I had some confidence in their good character.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
I actually read all of the above posts and my conclusion is that:

1. Florida is stupid but the people that pay to hunt pythons are just as much so.

2. That Texas pig problems are largely a PR campaign.

3. That there is justifiably a reluctance of a land owner to let any Tom, Dick or Harry that he doesn't know come on his property. I as a land owner have had problems with slob hunters and wouldn't let anyone on my property to hunt pigs or anything else that was bothering me unless I had some confidence in their good character.

Well, one out of three (the last one) may be passing in Ohio, but you won't get far in Texas with that score.

It looks like in Texas pay to play is the only game around. I guess if you can afford it that is just fine. Myself I look for quality hunting opportunities that are either on public lands or a very good value on the rare occasion I pay for access. I understand that Texas has almost no public lands and that vastly changes things. Personally I do not want to see more of the country move towards the Texas model. It is my main reason for opposing the "sage brush revolution" guys like the Bundy's. Taking away the public lands which I actually can and do hunt on to give the over to private industry is NOT my idea of the way things should be moving. All that said, if it is your land you can charge whatever you want for access, it sure does not mean I'm going to pay it.

quote:

I have done just this many times in this past hunting season.

Wisconsin ain't Texas, and Texas land owners have been burned too many times by allowing someone they were acquainted with on to their property, only to go out there and find folks they weren't acquainted with on their property as "Guests" of the original invitee.

Again I have grown up here, seen the change, been affected by the change, have several acquaintances that have been affected by the changes, none of us really like what has happened, but most of us don't fault the land owners for, A, exercising control over their property, the land, and B, it isn't the land owners fault in most cases that there are hunters willing to offer more money for a piece of property than the existing leasing party is paying.

Gator let me ask you this, would you have charged people to kill the hogs off of the hay field?

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:
Gator let me ask you this, would you have charged people to kill the hogs off of the hay field?

Actually, I distinctly recall at least one time when Gato offered hog hunting opportunities to members of this forum free of charge if certain conditions/requirements were met and adhered to. That may not be the norm, but the opportunity was presented.

I don't charge people to hunt, unless it is a lease situation, but I let VERY few people hunt on my place, free or otherwise. No, I wouldn't and won't let someone I don't know who drives up and asks hunt on my place, ESPECIALLY on the hay field behind my house.

So, Mr. Know-it-all, the answer is "No, I wouldn't charge them to hunt, but No, I wouldn't let them hunt for free." I'd rather have the hogs than unknown yahoos running around my ranch and house. So, tell me again how "Texas hog problems are a PR campaign" and how you know all about it.

I kind of view it this way............ landowners can do whatever the hell they want, it's their land. They own it and they pay the taxes. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, they do not have to justify how they manage things or what they charge or who they decide to let on it, if anybody.

Don't like it.......... go buy your own land. Then you can do whatever the hell you want.

As for the snakes, while it may seem silly, in the great scheme of things I imagine it just doesn't rate too high on the list of shit that the government bureaucracies impose upon us all on a daily basis. Probably their way of keeping track of who is out there so they know when they need to send out the search parties......... not that any of the snake hunters would get lost, drown or otherwise get into any sort of predicament.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

If I were wealthy enough to own a large piece of property and really worried about the cost of crop damage I sure as hell wouldn't be worried about getting a few $$ out of somebody who's willing to help.

Just because a person owns land, that DOES NOT mean they are wealthy, and NO, you would not just let people loose on your land, because if you did, you would not own that land very long.

Anyone who has the means to buy and/or hold a large piece of property IS wealthy. Wealth can be measured in a number of ways and owning land is one of the best because they aren't adding any more land to planet Earth. I have a dairy farmer friend who CONSTANTLY complains about how 'poor' he is but an online look at the county records shows that his land is worth over $2 million. Nobody who can hold an asset like that can be considered "poor" by any standard outside of Dubai. Even if the property isn't paid off free and clear, just being able to hold on to it is proof that he's a man of means. "Wealthy" is not an insult. I respect my dairy farmer friend for being able to do it, even if that means his wallet is empty sometime.

And yes, if I were a farmer or rancher and was truly concerned about crop damage I'd do whatever it took to control it.


Pay REAL close attention to your comment:

quote:

Here in Wisconsin the landowners are happy to have me fill their damage permits and they never ask for any form of compensation. Of course they also know who I am and where I live. They also know that I know what I'm doing and will fill all the tags without causing any undue problems.

Things are not that way everywhere.

You're spot on about that!

How many times do you go on a place where the land owner doesn't know you?

Never have and never will.

How many times do you go on a landowners property and take guests without telling the land owner?

Never have and never will.

There are aspects/parameters involved that you may not be or are not familiar with. Every invite an acquaintance on one of those properties, and then that person goes back to that property and takes another "Friend", WITHOUT consulting you????

Nope. My hunting privileges are sacred to me and I would never endanger them by such actions.

I have seen that happen way too many times. Land owners have to protect themselves from lawsuits and they also don't have the time to be constantly monitoring their properties.

No question about that!

It is not all that uncommon for enterprising individuals in the area I live to drive the county dirt roads and shoot any pig they see and drive off and leave it!

We don't have any feral pigs here so I'll have to substitute deer. Around these parts a certain demographic is usually responsible for that sort thing and it is sometimes a matter of expressing "off reservation treaty rights." Tresspassing and poaching go on but the perps aren't that bold about it.

Some have no problem in driving off the county road and pulling up beside the fence and turning their dogs loose on any pig they see. The dogs are just as guilty of trespassing as their owners are.

I am not a land owner, but I do work for one, and just because things are the way they are where you live, that does not mean they are the same way nation wide!

You've sure got that right! This whole discussion makes me glad I live where I do.

Apologies to the board for staying so far off the original topic.

Apparently plenty of room for spirited discussion.
Maybe hogs on private property are not a realistic correlation to doing a public service on public land, like ridding the Florida Everglades of Burmese pythons.
I realize that $25 is a not a large fee, but I opened the topic basd on my thought that charging the fee, regardless of amount, was almost unethical.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I don't charge people to hunt, unless it is a lease situation, but I let VERY few people hunt on my place, free or otherwise. No, I wouldn't and won't let someone I don't know who drives up and asks hunt on my place, ESPECIALLY on the hay field behind my house.

So, Mr. Know-it-all, the answer is "No, I wouldn't charge them to hunt, but No, I wouldn't let them hunt for free." I'd rather have the hogs than unknown yahoos running around my ranch and house. So, tell me again how "Texas hog problems are a PR campaign" and how you know all about it.

So you are willing to live with the damage? Got it. I bet the state would get a different story if they showed up asking about damage. i know that we are about as eat up with hogs as you can get, and no one losing crops to them would ever argue about someone shooting some. But that's the difference between a farmer losing crops and a "rancher" claiming to be losing some grass.

Like I said, you should really stick to something you have a minimal bit of knowledge about, otherwise you are simple showing how ignorant you are and are willing to expose it to the world.

BTW, if by your cute use of quotation marks around rancher, you're saying that I'm not a rancher, then you're both displaying your ignorance while calling me a liar, which I don't appreciate, and it makes you a flat lying son of a bitch, and an ignorant one at that.

quote:

Anyone who has the means to buy and/or hold a large piece of property IS wealthy.

WRONG, people can and DO inherit land from their parents/grand parents! Even folks that do buy a piece of property are not necessarily wealthy, but just what is wrong with such a person trying to make income from their investment? Isn't that what the whole American system is based on? Capitalism at its finest. A person spends money and then tries to make some of that expenditure back in return? How much of the complaining is pure jealousy, and how many of the complainers would open their land to anyone/everyone that came along wanting access?

Point is, whether ANY OF US like it or agree with it, the face of hunting has and is changing.

If you live someplace where paying to hunt is not the norm, CONGRATULATIONS, you are lucky. Hope things never change for you.

The state, ANY state charging a fee to participate in a Public Hunt, is reasonable. The state incurs costs to offer the hunting opportunities.

How many folks actually participating in the hunts are complaining, versus the number of people complaining simply because the state is charging a fee?

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Sort of reminds me of the feral hog situation in Texas. You hear all about the billions of dollars in damage that they do but the landowners want $100 a head to hunt them.

Well, I can explain that one, more or less. The farmers and ranchers don't know you, don't know whether you will shoot a cow or bull or sheep, and have some liability for allowing you on their place. In addition, hunting income is what keeps many ranches in the black AFA profit is concerned. Finally, they also know that hunting will not control hog populations so the hassle of handling unknown hog hunters for free is simply not worth the costs in time or effort.

What are the farmer or rancher doing about it beside chewing the fat or bitching?

Well, some of them are trapping and selling the pigs without allowing ANY hunters at all on their property.

Others are contracting with trappers or guides to address the problem

Some are offering do-it-yourself hunts, some are simply shooting pigs as they see them or instructing their employees to shoot the things.

The odd thing is, no one is being forced to pay to go on any of these hunts!

If someone is willing to pay, that is their business, and the funny thing is, enough people ARE willing to pay to hunt the hogs that landowners do not have to try all that hard to find customers.

Florida is not forcing anyone to hunt Pythons, and those that enjoy it do not seem to mind paying the money, same with hog hunts in Texas, no one is being forced to pay to hunt hogs, but whining about something that is not going to change is Free!

I wonder if those so called rancher or farmer collect insurance money for crop damage and if the US taxpayers are paying for it?

Thankfully the State of Oregon put a stop to it because it was considered FRAUD. Rancher's didn't want the help, they wanted the MONEY.

Taxpayer's shouldn't have to foot the bill for the property owners.

This also reminds me of a conversation that I heard when I waiting in line to get Social Security card replacement, the conversation went like this,
"I don't want or need food stamps, I want money"!!!!

Freakin liberals support this crap?

Norseman, I don't know of any ranchers in this part of Texas that receive any money from the state or feds for crop damage caused by feral hogs.

To set there and act like you would not take money for something that is causing you problems, seems extremely hard to believe.

Things are the way they are, and they are not going to change, end of story. None of us are forced to participate in an activity that we do not want to pay for.

Landowners and State agencies are perfectly within the law to charge fees for such activities as hunting/fishing/camping etc., and the big deal is, enough people do not have any problem paying the fees, so the fees are not going to go away.

I don't like the direction things went concerning hunting especially, but as someone that does not own land of my own and living in Texas where Public hunting opportunities are limited, it is either be related to someone with land, be willing to pay for access or simply stop hunting.

quote:

I wonder if those so called rancher or farmer collect insurance money for crop damage and if the US taxpayers are paying for it?

To put your little conservative heart to rest, AFAIK there are no payments for hog damage in Texas at this time. There are some bounties on hogs (ranging between $5 and $10/hog) in a few of the central Texas counties (mostly around Austin) but AFAIK they are all locally or state funded.

I suppose it might be possible for a farmer to claim some type of crop hog damages on his tax return, but it would probably "red flag" it for the IRS if the claim was substantial. Of course, most farmers have some form of crop insurance that is federally backed, but, to my knowledge (which is limited, since I don't farm), unlike in the past, crop insurance MIGHT get your basic costs back, but very few people make any money on it. At least those who are honest.

Another person with no real knowledge of the situation heard from.

Finally, there are MANY government programs for farmers and ranchers that are ridiculous wastes of money. The sugar subsidy and the ethanol requirements are right at the top. I oppose all of them but if I'm eligible for one, I step right up to the trough like everyone else. I look at it as a small return on my tax payment "investment" every year.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Like I said, you should really stick to something you have a minimal bit of knowledge about, otherwise you are simple showing how ignorant you are and are willing to expose it to the world.

BTW, if by your cute use of quotation marks around rancher, you're saying that I'm not a rancher, then you're both displaying your ignorance while calling me a liar, which I don't appreciate, and it makes you a flat lying son of a bitch, and an ignorant one at that.

Funny stuff that. I never thought of quotation marks as cute, but I guess if you squint just right and the room was dark I could see it. I poke fun at ranchers since most that I know who claim to be ranchers are actually hobby farmers sitting on a 5 acre parcel on the edge of a subdivision. They buy the hat and the truck, but that's about as close to being a rancher as a plumber. Now I am certain that doesn't apply to you, you are without doubt a "real" rancher with "real" pig problems. Problems so bad that you don't actually do anything about them. If a "rancher" is going to cry crop loss and property damage that's fine, and it is truly the case in some instances. Just don't bitch about pigs eating your hay when you don't actually take any steps to eradicate them. That's where comments like "PR campaign" originated from.

I personally know more than a few ranchers and farmers who are crying about the state not paying for some losses when others are drawing hundreds of thousands in grants for hog control. So they allow the hogs to breed and stay, and the damage continues in order to justify the claims. That is the difference between what is happening in Texas and what is happening in other states with hog problems. The only difference is that if someone asks me "have you done anything to address the problem" my answer won't be "I bitched about it on the computer". We'll walk them out to the fence and let them count the ears nailed up on the posts and rails. We shoot pigs by the dozens, pay two families to trap them and allow darned near anyone that we know to hunt them.

No I don't allow pay or free hunting for pigs. I also don't allow pay or free hunting for any other game. We've got more than enough family members and employees to manage our game. Like Skyline said above, its a individuals choice to allow hunting or not, and I respect that. I just don't respect the number of people out there waiting with their hand out and not actually addressing the problem.

What I find totally hilarious about this whole "Discussion"(????), is the piety some have regarding people charging $$$$ for something other people are WILLING to pay for!

Isn't that one of the major cornerstones of the American belief system, capitalism at its finest.

Just like this forum, no one is forced to participate, no one has the Right to not be Offended just as no one is forced to read or respond on any topic.

This is just another of those divisive topics that illustrate one of the rifts among the ranks of hunters.

Pay to play is here to stay, and it is likely that at some point in the future, it will be the only way people will be able to hunt.