dakor, I don't recall saying anything concerning bears, so I really don't know how to reply to this :
Also this was on the radio last week hunters in Wyoming had 230 reported Grizzly Bear encounters last year but I suppose that is because there #'s are down right?

Jeff, thanks for posting all the related links, I had to step out for a bit but will start looking through them. Very interesting on the head counts/per state. Looks like to me you should start exporting a few of them to Texas
Do you think your state is overpopulated with keeping the head count at between 1600 and 2000, that seems alful high since they also stated the population will double each two years (I think).

The facts about the bear are for Posure. I should have made that clear sorry. Posure now that you say there are no preditors left in the lower 48 let me tie a raw steak around your neck and let you walk around Wyoming in the fall I think you will change your mind. As far your comment about a place with no game management does the place have a hunting season and do you have to buy a license? If it does that is called managing game that is why they have seasons to manage game. So if it has a season that you have to follow that is game management.

Jimmy,
I live in the Lower Penninsula of Michigan so there are no wolves. All of ours are in the UP. I can't speak for Minnesota. I was surprised at the number of wolves there when I looked it up. In my area the main predators for whitetails, outside of hunters, have four wheels. Right around 3000 car/deer accidents a year in my county alone.

Poseur,
My issue with the way you started this thread is the antagonistic tone. A much more valuable discussion could be had by simply bring up the question in a non-attacking way. The value of a forum like this is to gain input and perspective from hunters in all regions.

Jeff

Jeff, I read that also, vehicle/deer death's, hell sounds like better huntin with the family car I would have never guessed the population to be that high, compared to the other western states. It has been a very interesting read so far.

Skibum,

Sorry, but I have been gone awhile, and it just appeared that antagonistic posting had become the accepted norm. In my defense, I direct you to any number of threads dealing with hunting behind fences, 45-70 debates, etc.

I am glad that some have found the topic interesting and/or enlightening.

I think some are upset because they realize the truth. We all hunt managed game.

If one goes to a game preserve one is paying for a top notch trophy animal, with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. Hunting with an outfitter results in no guarantee on trophy quality, but with a high probability of a kill (obviously the cost is lower than the game preserve for again obvious reasons). The purpose of an outfitter is to provide detailed knowledge of WHERE the game so as dramatically improving the probably for an "out of area" hunter to kill something, logisitics is a secondary consideration. Finally, we have the unguided "do-it-yourselfer" who may or may not have had the opportunity to scout the area in question and find the game, he pays the lowest cost of all because he assumes the greatest risk of failure (failure being defined as no kill, not that this is considered a failure to all who hunt). To me only a fool of an "out of area" hunter would hunt an area without first extensively scouting it. I say he is a fool, because without extensive scouting he has no clue if there are any game animals present in the hunting area or not.

So you can buy a high quality trophy from a game preserve risk 0% failure, 100% success.

You can pay on Outfitter to find the game and escort you to it. Risk 15% - 25% failure, 75% - 85% success typically achieved if your Outfitter is worth a DAMN!

You can scout out an area yourself and hunt unguided for the lowest personal cost. Risk - 100% failure to 0% failure i.e. VERY HIGH risk proposition, but cost is low so cost benefit relationship isn't too aweful bad in the final analysis.

Finally, you do not scout area, and hunt unguided for same cost as above. More than likely this approach nets you a week long nature hike in less than ideal weather for such an activity.

I agree that antagonistic posting has seemed to become the accepted norm. I happened to pick this thread to voice my opinion on it but I feel the same about the rest.

Sure all game is managed if you use a loose enough definition but I guess I consider that a good thing (exclusive of preserves). One only has to look at game populations at the turn of the 20th century as opposed to now to see that. As far as the types of hunts you list I'm missing the point? You seem to relate hunting purely as a cost/risk venture. I view it as a large range of experiences of which all are enjoyable for what they are (again, for me I leave out preserves). Sort of like food. Sometimes a pizza and a cold beer is just the ticket and sometimes a five star meal.

Jeff

Jeff, would that be light beer

Poseur,
I do hunt in areas that I do not feel are managed other than in name only. If someone prescribes a hunting season and the only game dept people that even set foot in the area are there to check licenses, that does not fit my definition of managed. You may think so but I think you are way off base and rather uniformed. If you try to equate that to someone feeding deer and elk and giving them medical care and say it is all the same then there is no hope with further discussion. I do believe you stated something with no facts or information and then echo those same statements for the lacking of being able to either see another view or the lack being able to say you are wrong.

Chic,
The setting of hunting seasons alone constitutes game management. I also do not dispute that you hunt an area with minimal management.

Hunting in this country, and most others, is a business. Sorry if that is painful to some, but it is true just the same. I thought my last post clearly defined the major levels of hunting as they exist in the good ol' USA. I class them based upon a cost/benefit relationship, where the benefit is probability of collecting a trophy class animal, and the cost is, well the cost.

If one what a 100% guarantee trophy class animal ones pays the game preserve for their services. They also pay accordingly.

If one is willing to settle for a success rate of 75% + for any bull, they employ the services of a Outfitter. The Outfitters primary job is to get the client to the game animal, and secondarily to provide logistical support (pack animals/vehicles). You are paying the outfitter, first and foremost, for his scouting of the local big game herds / hunting areas.

Next you have the "do-it-yourselfer". I believe Chic and several others around here fit this category. These are the guys who scout on there own through the year, find where the animals are, and then go out and get them come the opening day of the season (or when they can get out). The cost for this hunter is small, but the success rate may well be higher than that achievable with the Outfitter. This category is typically applicable to local hunters. To me this is hunting. However, I am not able to do it any longer since I live far far from the elk herds out west and can no longer scout. A predator, any predator, must know where the game is, if he is to be successful.

Finally, we have the individual, that does no scouting (for whatever reason) and just walks through the woods relying upon dumb luck. His money is more than likely wasted, but if he enjoys it so be it.

I don't think I can be more specific in general terms.

Quote

Finally, we have the individual, that does no scouting (for whatever reason) and just walks through the woods relying upon dumb luck. His money is more than likely wasted, but if he enjoys it so be it.

If you feel that you are owed an animal for money spent on tags and that if you don't get an animal your money is wasted then maybe you should find another pastime. I rarely shoot an animal and feel my money is well spent on the experience and viewing many animals and enjoying the hunting season. It also contributes to their well being. If I followed the viewpoint that if I don't get something something in hand for the money I spent then I would never watch a ball game or movie and the money is wasted because I didn't take anything home. There are not too many recreational activities that are not regulated in some way without costs of some sort. Everything we do comes at a price. There would be no world series if someone didn't charge admission to pay the players. There would be no little league if someone didn't pay for the uniforms and supply a park to play in and maintain it. There would be no hunting if someone didn't charge a fee of somesort and provide rules, quotas and seasons. So yes of coarse all hunting in this country is managed in some way otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Your equating hunting success with money spent. Your also equating wildlife management to a business. Yes spending a lot of money can better your odds a great deal. Spending money on the best players will better the odds of winning the superbowl. People can still play football for nothing if they can find the space. People can also have a canned hunting preserve if they have the money and the land or they could have a football stadium. Thats private enterprise for profit not managed or regulated by the state but by the business owner who charges what the market will bear. The state sets a licence fee and supplies a fish and wildlife management branch to manage this activity and the regulations and seasons to sustain it. This is a public service provided for a fee much like any other. It is a business in a sense that provides a service or product for a fee but the difference is that it isn't supposed to be profit driven, just cost recovery. Much like any other service the gov't provides there are fees and taxes collected to support these programs otherwise they could not be provided for long. Wildlife must be managed otherwise we would have anarchy in the woods and there would be little or no wildlife left.

If you really want to 'hunt' 'big game' in the 'USA', look no farther than a couple of miles out my back door. Get yourself down here and I can outfit you with a set of fins, snorkel, diving mask, and speargun and we can go for some real big dangerous game. Try a little 5' blacktip shark for starters, then move up to the 10+ foot long tiger sharks around here. No high fences either!

Yeeha! Rodeo time!

CDH,

Interesting! Actually, I have been told that shark hunting/fishing is being seriously considered for control. This is becuase unrestricted fishing/hunting is reducing the shark populations to dangerous lows. Enjoy it while it lasts my friend.

Oscar,

Hunting is a business if you like the fact or not. If it wasn't there would be no outfitters, game preserves, or game management. Game management, by the way, is only about 90 to 100 years old here in the USA and much younger than that in many other countries (older in some). Bunny huggers (that would be their "title" in modern terminology back then they were called "Naturalists") were the ones that got it implemented, and hunters continue to finance it.

As I said, to each his own. Most hunters I have known regard the reward of hunting, outside of the fellowship of friends, to be the "thrill of the kill" or at least the opportunity at a shot. If you are happy just hiking in poor weather, that is fine with me. I hunt for meat, so I want something to bring home.

To me that means:
1.) I scout out a local area and find the game. This is done long before season opening.
2.) If hunting far from home I employ an Outfitter who had better have done the scouting for me.
3.) If I do not have the time for 1 or 2 above I hit a game preserve for a meat hunt. I am not interested in trophies so their high dollar trophy hunts mean nothing to me. I acquired my trophies when younger and find now that I have, for the most part, out grown that stage.