An ethical discussion on the service or disservice that commercial agents are doing to hunting, shooting, fishing.
As an internet forum the contributors hereabouts could be expected too believe that paying an agent/guide is a normal/common way to go stalking.
"In the real world that we live in, non-locals, sporting agents, pay by the day sportsmen are all swear words."
Too put monetry value on an untangible thing like a sport experience or on a rare specimen be it imperial stag or white rhino is wrong in most opinions. But what is acceptable?
Should out of country or even out of county sportsmen be encouraged to take on deer management leases/culls that they have "no hope of attaining?"

When I was a kid, I got all the rough shooting I wanted because I lived in the countryside and my friends' fathers were farmers. Back then there was still plenty of land with no commercial interest in the rough shooting or a reluctance from farmers to sell it.

Now I belong to a syndicate and pay for my game shooting and get the rough shooting, pigeons and rabbiting and the odd muntjac for free.

I like to invite my friends to shoot and a luck enough to get invites to shoot elsewhere with them. However, what if I lack the contacts?

If I want to go and hunt a buffalo in Africa, what am I going to do but book it through a professional? If you live in Iceland and want to come and shoot a fallow buck or a red stag in the UK, likewise.

Like most things, there are good and bad consequences to its existence. A good agent allows people to experience a type of hunting they do not normally have access to. He ensures the clients are competent and sporting and the area hunted provides what he says it does.

We all know about the bad agents and bad sportsmen buying a 'day ticket'. But I have had dreadful, dangerous, unsporting clueless morons turn up as the guests of experienced shooters too!

quote:

Originally posted by trans-pond:
An ethical discussion on the service or disservice that commercial agents are doing to hunting, shooting, fishing.
As an internet forum the contributors hereabouts could be expected too believe that paying an agent/guide is a normal/common way to go stalking.
"In the real world that we live in, non-locals, sporting agents, pay by the day sportsmen are all swear words."
Too put monetry value on an untangible thing like a sport experience or on a rare specimen be it imperial stag or white rhino is wrong in most opinions. But what is acceptable?
Should out of country or even out of county sportsmen be encouraged to take on deer management leases/culls that they have "no hope of attaining?"

What you have are 2 separate and diverse issues here. 3rd parties making a living out of two other groups or individuals, and shooters taking on commitments that they can not or will not achieve simply because they have the money to do so.

Agents can be viewed in two ways, parasites or conduits and filters. IMO They are all parasites, but the go ones work hard to balance the scales and the very good ones often tip the balance in their direction. However the very good ones are few and far between. Most are good to mediocre. Some are just atrocious.

In regards to theb latter issue. With the increasing commercialisation of shooting , you're always going to get those with the money and those with the time, skill, and commitment. Its all about the realisation of the equity in the asset. Some pay for that equity with money some pay for it with sweat. Only the owner of the asset can put a value on the means of payment. The greater the commercialisation the more the people involved or those aspiring to be involved have to pay.