|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 4, 2014 8:36:35 GMT -5
What do you all think about this? The DNR posted a picture on their facebook page of a nice buck taken with an outfitter here in Indiana. I'm not sure the DNR shouldn't be promoting an industry that is all about growing big bucks and limiting hunter opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 4, 2014 8:41:56 GMT -5
Guess I'd have to see what they posted with the photo but my initial reaction is it doesn't move the meter for me one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by jb1069 on Dec 4, 2014 8:45:51 GMT -5
Can you post a link to this page?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 8:48:15 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. I'd need to know more about the outfitter. I don't see all outfitters as detrimental to hunting. Sometimes they are necessary for non-residents to have a decent opportunity to make a trip worth their time and money.
In some ways, a good outfitter can increase opportunity...granted, it costs money.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 4, 2014 9:04:32 GMT -5
www.facebook.com/INfishandwildlife?hc_location=timelineIt's on their facebook page at the above link. They didn't say it was an outfitter, they just posted the picture. It's just too close to home for me to like it. From what I've seen/heard I think they are a good outfitter. I just don't like the whole idea of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 9:13:25 GMT -5
I dont think the outfitter is limiting hunter opportunity at all ... the hunters own personal financial state or principal beliefs might limit their opportunity but the outfitter is not.
The outfitter will likely take any hunter that is willing to pay.
To the original topic ... the DNR posted a picture of a great deer killed in the state of Indiana. Promoting their product .... I got no problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 4, 2014 9:30:03 GMT -5
They may not be limiting hunter opportunity but I bet they put some local guys out of a place to hunt. Maybe I'm too much of a softy but I wouldn't feel right going in and taking over land where I knew I was going to put some local guys like me out of a place to hunt. We may not have a lot of outfitters yet but I'm pretty sure we don't want to become like areas of Illinois where all the locals are pushed out by the outfitters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 4, 2014 9:35:42 GMT -5
If they "didn't say it was with an outfitter" then I don't see how they are promoting outfitting?
I would kind of have a problem if the DNR posted a big buck picture and said it was taken with XYZ Outfitters.
That is promoting...
|
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 4, 2014 9:45:18 GMT -5
I guess they are not promoting outfitting but they are promoting bucks taken on outfits whether they clearly say it or not. Most people are going to see the comments which is giving that camp some good advertising.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 4, 2014 9:47:44 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. I'd need to know more about the outfitter. I don't see all outfitters as detrimental to hunting. Sometimes they are necessary for non-residents to have a decent opportunity to make a trip worth their time and money. In some ways, a good outfitter can increase opportunity...granted, it costs money. Most likely it's "Basecamp". |
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Dec 4, 2014 9:54:33 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. I'd need to know more about the outfitter. I don't see all outfitters as detrimental to hunting. Sometimes they are necessary for non-residents to have a decent opportunity to make a trip worth their time and money. In some ways, a good outfitter can increase opportunity...granted, it costs money. Most likely it's "Basecamp". Didn't think Basecamp was an outfitter? |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 9:57:22 GMT -5
They arent ... they are just what their name says they are. A leasing company.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitetail1 on Dec 4, 2014 10:03:02 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. I'd need to know more about the outfitter. I don't see all outfitters as detrimental to hunting. Sometimes they are necessary for non-residents to have a decent opportunity to make a trip worth their time and money. In some ways, a good outfitter can increase opportunity...granted, it costs money. Most likely it's "Basecamp". Basecamp is not an outfitter. They are a local leasing company. |
|
|
|
Post by whitetail1 on Dec 4, 2014 10:03:50 GMT -5
Sorry swilk....didn't see your post before I posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 4, 2014 10:04:35 GMT -5
It's not basecamp. The buck in question was taken with a true outfitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 4, 2014 11:21:13 GMT -5
If the DNR was promoting a pic from a particular outfitter that showed the outfitters name and number then I would say it was over the top.
As far as outfitting and leasing goes. As much as I don't care for it and know it will squeeze a lot of guys out of hunting, the reality is I completely understand why landowners are leasing their ground.
Big bucks = Big bucks.......
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbuckd on Dec 4, 2014 12:06:31 GMT -5
The DNR should most likely not post any pictures of legally harvested deer. The outfitter debate will rage on in forums and across the deer hunting landscape. I have no problem with outfitters that promote fair chase but am against high fence outfitters. The problem with DNR posting any picture of a deer harvest is that it should promote the ethical taking of an animal, not promote Trophy hunting, and influence public perception of how an animal is harvested in a positive way.
That deer is a monster and hard to believe that a deer like that was fair chase. I know there are deer that get that big naturally but they are often in protected areas with limited access i.e. Crane, or other similar areas. This is not to say the landowner does not practice QDMA and have a large parcell of land that may hold deer.
Quick Summary and points:
DNR should not promote "Trophy Hunting" pictures.
DNR should not promote harvest that took place outside of fair chase.
|
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 4, 2014 13:02:23 GMT -5
I'm against it. No the DNR did not post the outfitter's name and made it clear in the comments that they were neutral, but the outfitter responsible for that deer harvest went ahead and posted in the comments so it is basically the same thing. In other news, thanks for all the free info about where I can hunt to go score some big bucks and other wild game, IDNR, sometimes you can figure out quite a bit from pictures.  |
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 4, 2014 13:29:26 GMT -5
IMO a outfitter didn't push local hunter's out of a place to hunt. Local hunter's seem to want FREE access to privately held hunting properties. I am sure the property owner would just assume lease to a local, then to a outsider. Problem is most don't want to PAY, they just want to hunt for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 13:38:45 GMT -5
There was a 300"+ fair chase deer killed in Indiana in 2012 so we have the ability to grow em just about as big as possible in a fair chase environment.
What is and what is not a trophy is decided by the person viewing it .... be awfully hard to not "promote trophy hunting pictures" when there is no definition of what a trophy actually is let alone getting everyone to agree with that definition.
|
|
