# Guides and Outfitters Rules and Regulations



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Currently there are no laws on the *UTAH* books


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yes, yes I do.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I would like to see rules that limit the total numbers of guides and prohibits guides from working/hunting on multiple units. I would also like some kind of process set up where guides must be schooled/educated and then certified and licensed through the state.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I would like to see rules that limit the total numbers of guides and prohibits guides from working/hunting on multiple units. I would also like some kind of process set up where guides must be schooled/educated and then certified and licensed through the state.


I am in agreement with this except I think it is outfitters, not guides that need to be limited in number allowed on a given unit. I also see no value in limiting a guide to guiding on multiple units. What does that accomplish?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Before I answer your question, pro, let's define what guides and outfitters are...I like Idaho's definitions: Guide--A guide is employed by a licensed outfitter to provide personal services for the outfitter which are directly involved with hunting. Outfitter--An outfitter advertises, provides facilities and services for consideration, and maintains equipment or accomodation for compensation for the conduct of hunting animals or birds.

I think both guides and outfitters should be limited to limit the amount of pressure on any given individual unit. I also think both guides and outfitters should be licensed and should go through a training program...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Before I answer your question, pro, let's define what guides and outfitters are...I like Idaho's definitions: Guide--A guide is employed by a licensed outfitter to provide personal services for the outfitter which are directly involved with hunting. Outfitter--An outfitter advertises, provides facilities and services for consideration, and maintains equipment or accomodation for compensation for the conduct of hunting animals or birds.
> 
> I think both guides and outfitters should be limited to limit the amount of pressure on any given individual unit. I also think both guides and outfitters should be licensed and should go through a training program...


I agree with more of this post, but not the one before. I still fail to see why the number of guides working for an outfitter is warranted.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Before I answer your question, pro, let's define what guides and outfitters are...I like Idaho's definitions: Guide--A guide is employed by a licensed outfitter to provide personal services for the outfitter which are directly involved with hunting. Outfitter--An outfitter advertises, provides facilities and services for consideration, and maintains equipment or accomodation for compensation for the conduct of hunting animals or birds.
> ...


I finally agree with W2U as well, except for the part of limiting the amount of guides, that's rediculous and i see no bearing on it.
I am about to draw my Henry's deer tag, you can bet your sweet arse i'm recruiting a "team" of both proffesionals and just plain old good hunters to help me find and kill my dream buck, and i have been guiding for an outfitter for 14 years.....go figure!!

BTW-
I voted YES....there are WAY too many "wanna be's" out there with NO training on how to properly take care of an animal, or a hunter in need of first aid.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I agree with more of this post, but not the one before. I still fail to see why the number of guides working for an outfitter is warranted.


I would limit the number of guides because of the whole fair chase factor...if 150 guides were helping one hunter shoot an animal for one outfitter, I think we have gone way too far. I think a 2 to 1 ratio is much more sporty and fair. Once we start getting up to 5+, I think it is flat out ridiculous.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with more of this post, but not the one before. I still fail to see why the number of guides working for an outfitter is warranted.
> ...


I'll go along with that as soon as the SAME rules apply for "DIY" hunters. If a hunter hiring a guide can have only two helpers, EVERY hunter on that unit can have only two helpers. Otherwise it would be "unfair".


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Fair and socialism have a lot in common.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Fair and socialism have a lot in common.


Bingo!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo, I may be completely off here, butyou seem to create a narrow, contrarian belief system allowing you to be the victim and project a world of smallness on the rest of us. Good thing about that type is that you usually don't end up with any kind of clout, credibility or emotional stability. 

The 'woe is us' bit gets old quick.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Wyo, I may be completely off here, butyou seem to create a narrow, contrarian belief system allowing you to be the victim and project a world of smallness on the rest of us. Good thing about that type is that you usually don't end up with any kind of clout, credibility or emotional stability.
> 
> The 'woe is us' bit gets old quick.


 -Ov-


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

I think there should be a limited amount of "non tag holders" to be in on the "hunt" be it guides, outfitters, wannabes, or DIY folks. To many people out there chasing the same critter so ONE guy can pull the trigger just cheapens the whole hunting spirit. (My Opinion) Also, limit outfitters to certain areas. If they want to sell the right to that area to someone else, so be it. This is the way it is in Montana. Plus, you have to be licensed and insured by the state. Even if your just taking guys bird hunting on your own ground. If money changes hands, you need to be licensed. Period. There's WAY too much money being whored around for that sake of a 400 bull in this state. It's bounty hunting at best, but it aint *hunting.* (again, my opinion) What would Tred Barta say.... -Ov-

Something needs to be done.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I totally agree that the numbers of people associated with each permit must be limited, be they "guides" or family/friends. Large numbers of people in a hunting area even when pursuing different animals will and can disrupt the hunt of another hunter. I don't know what the numbers should be but we simply can't have large groups of people running around the hills "guiding"/helping for one person while other hunters are trying to hunt. On the other hand not allowing some help, be it bought or barrowed is going to far the other way. 
As far as limiting the number of pro guides...let the market take care of that. Limiting license numbers by law always leads to corruption.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Wow and I thought that freedom was alive and well*

Not a chance.

Maybe before all of you regulators bring hosts of angles down and screw up our deer state of confusion, you might do a little checking into the states that require guides for non resident hunting and see the fine mess that they have created for their selves. Try Alaska on for size, and see how if you sell someone a gallon of gas, or rent lodging a boat or a car, or give them a lift to the field without the proper licensing, you are in violation of the law and could go to jail and loose your hunting and fishing rights for helping out your buddy. And that goes for residence hunters also.

Maybe you could check into Wyoming guide laws and see how happy everyone of the residence are about their restrictive elite system of preferential guide treatment. Oh and check into Alberta's great guide game permit allocations and see how things can get out of hand in a hurry and how the DIY hunters loose there permits in a quick step to the powerful guide lobby interests. Oh please by all means lets make Utah require special licencing for guided hunting. Lets add another revenue and lobbying interest to the pot of bull squat we already have.... And then let us have some smart @ss legislator slip into the law and codes, legal language that makes all hunting in Utah fall under a guide required statute.

Come on Pro, tell us how many Special use permits you have in your name (personally) from the Forest Service and BLM to consumptively use the resources (Game) contained there in and guide legally on federal property. Tell me what your bonding insurance company is...... Tell us how many consumptive special use for hunting permits the Forest service allocates on the Ashley, Manti, Uinta, Fish Lake and Dixie National Forest per year? Tell us what tax forms you fill out to declare your income to the IRS. Inquiring minds want to know....

Do you people really know the can of worms you are about to open and are you ready to deal with the pile of defecation that will result from your meandering in the muck.

Be careful what you wish for........ Is it too **** hard to see that we are living in the best hunting state in the Union and that we have it good already?
Bigbr


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> I totally agree that the numbers of people associated with each permit must be limited, be they "guides" or family/friends. Large numbers of people in a hunting area even when pursuing different animals will and can disrupt the hunt of another hunter. I don't know what the numbers should be but we simply can't have large groups of people running around the hills "guiding"/helping for one person while other hunters are trying to hunt. On the other hand not allowing some help, be it bought or barrowed is going to far the other way.
> As far as limiting the number of pro guides...let the market take care of that. Limiting license numbers by law always leads to corruption.


Hey BPTurkey,

Does that go for ATV users, bird watchers, mountain bikers, campers, photographers, Nature Fornicators and the public in general. Should we just make everywhere a national park with excessive restrictions and put up No hunting signs? Our should we just put up the usual No trespassing signs stay the hell out?


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

Come on guys! These people are just trying to make a living at doing something that they love and can make a lot of money doing. They have a right to be out there, just as we do. Sometimes it's frustrating that they are so successful, but that's the trade and they spend all of thier time scouting and doing research for thier clients. It's just like any other business out there if you think about it. I say let them do thier jobs!
I voted no in case you're wondering


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Big, that was a great rant and made lots of great points...but I never said anything about fornicators! 
I think what most of us are concerned about is the ever growing use of "teams", mostly professional guide services, as a legitimate method of taking trophy game animals. We already have regulation limiting the number of hunters on special pieces of property in our state, i.e. LE's, and if this thinking is correct (and to some degree I have serous questions) then limiting the numbers of team members per tag might be a way of perserving this concept??? Certainly we should never try to regulate the general recreational use of pubic lands unless that use is detrimental to that land. 
You certainly are correct about how government regulation seems to grow once a seed is planted but sometimes the tree needs pruning to maintain a state of good heath. 
It's not 1965 when a guide was a man that helped you not get lost in a strange wilderness, helped you find an area that might harbor a trophy animal, helped you retrieve and take care of the game once down, etc, guide service is rapidly turning into a high dollar corporate affair involving large "teams" of men and equipment competeing against other large like teams for the marketing rights to the "hunt of a lifetime". 
I don't know, just the thoughts of an old hunter that is hoping to perserve and pass on hunting opportunities similar to what he had.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bigbr, I'm soooooooo glad to see someome actually knows whats going on!!!!

The state of Utah looked into this issue about three years ago, they made the decision to stay out of it , It's already a "can of worms"..... 

If any one is thinking of trying to get a "Special use premit" for outfitting in Utah, Good Luck! It's not impossible, but dam close. The red tape could take two years...

For instance, The insurance bond on the Paunsaugunt is 2 million dollars through the BLM.
Or the Ashley is not accepting ANY new applications for permits, The list go's on forever.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Wyo, I may be completely off here, butyou seem to create a narrow, contrarian belief system allowing you to be the victim and project a world of smallness on the rest of us. Good thing about that type is that you usually don't end up with any kind of clout, credibility or emotional stability.
> 
> The 'woe is us' bit gets old quick.


Are you referring to my belief that conservation tags are wrong? Otherwise, I have not claimed to be a victim of anything....

...but, I do believe having an excess of 2-3 helpers on a single hunt is going beyond the realms of fair chase and violates the B&C concept of having a one-to-one relationship with your quarry. In truth, I really like what New Mexico's law is: "An outfitter must have a guide-to-client ratio of four to one or fewer..."

I also respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with Bigbr...I like the laws Wyoming has regarding outfitters and I believe they make the hunting in that state more fair. I dislike the road hunting is seemingly taking...a road that increasingly stacks the odds against those without money/means. If calling me socialistic means that I agree with the concept that "embedded in our society was/[is] the idea that anyone with desire could be a hunter....and, in addition, fish and wildlife were determined to be public resources--not private assets." I believe that our American tradition holds the ideal that as public resources fish and wildlife should be managed by the states for the enjoyment of everyone...not just those who are of the upper class.

With that being said, I have no problem with guiding/outfitting as long as they follow a certain code of ethics...and, in my opinion, in terms of guide/hunter ratios, I believe we are beginning to go beyond that code....

...if that sounds a bit "woe as me" so be it. However, I am happy with my current hunting opportunity. In fact, I am really excited to exercise that opportunity this weekend in chasing "baby" elk!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: http://utahWow and I thought that freedom was alive and well*



bigbr said:


> Maybe before all of you regulators bring hosts of angles down and screw up our deer state of confusion, you might do a little checking into the states that require guides for non resident hunting and see the fine mess that they have created for their selves. Try Alaska on for size, and see how if you sell someone a gallon of gas, or rent lodging a boat or a car, or give them a lift to the field without the proper licensing, you are in violation of the law and could go to jail and loose your hunting and fishing rights for helping out your buddy. And that goes for residence hunters also.
> 
> I don't recall anyone calling for Utah to do anything similar to this.
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Wyo, I may be completely off here, butyou seem to create a narrow, contrarian belief system allowing you to be the victim and project a world of smallness on the rest of us. Good thing about that type is that you usually don't end up with any kind of clout, credibility or emotional stability.
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Horse pucky! You claim to be a victim in almost EVERY post.[/color]
> 
> I see you failed to address the DIY hunter. Do you support them being restricted to the SAME 2-3 helpers? If not, why?
> 
> ...


1) NO, I haven't. Not once have I claimed to be a victim of anything. I have claimed that auctioning off tags is wrong...I hold to that claim.

2) No, I also believe that Do-It-Yourself hunting is just that...do it yourself. I don't believe it is ethical for anyone to go out with a posse to kill an animal. But, I also believe that is much harder to control. It is also why I believe all guides as well as outfitters should be licensed. I also believe that the manner that "DIY" hunters generally use friends and family much differently than outfitted hunters use guides...

3) I didn't say that any state just manages for the upper class...thanks for trying to take what I said out of context. I am saying that by auctioning off tags, and by condoning high-fenced hunts (or allowing them), and by allowing unlimited guides and unlimited outfitters to hunt as teams we are unfairly stacking the odds against the normal joes. Afterall, how many normal joes out there do you know that have the means to watch, spot, and squat on animals as long as Mossback chased spidey? I know none. And, among all of my acquaintances including family and friends, I know none that have the means to afford Mossback and especially the governor's tag...

4) I don't know what you are referring to for sure...but, it all depends on how it was done. Did they camp on the animal for months? Did they have numerous people watching and a specific deer day in and day out well before and into the hunt? How many friends and family helped? How did they help?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) NO, I haven't. Not once have I claimed to be a victim of anything. I have claimed that auctioning off tags is wrong...I hold to that claim.
> 
> You also say it is wrong that the rich get more opportunity than you, that is playing the victim card.
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You also say it is wrong that the rich get more opportunity than you, that is playing the victim card.
> 
> So, because it's 'harder' to regulate we should only make the guides/outfitters adhere to 'fair chase'? Is that "fair"? :shock:
> 
> ...


1) Whatever...it is still wrong. I am saying that all blue collar workers are victims then!

2) I didn't say that they shouldn't be regulated...and, I also said that usually what they do is different than what guides/outfitters do.

3) Again, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth....I never once said that states manage *only* for the rich. But, I do believe that we do manage for the rich. The governor's tag is the perfect example.

4) yeah...I thought so. Although I don't agree with what they (I know the family) did, I also believe that their actions were much different than what Mossback does...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Whatever...it is still wrong. I am saying that all blue collar workers are victims then!
> 
> 2) I didn't say that they shouldn't be regulated...and, I also said that usually what they do is different than what guides/outfitters do.
> 
> ...


1)Sounds just like what a socialist VICTIM would say.

2)You say it is 'different', but is it "fair chase" in your mind?

3)


> I believe that our American tradition holds the ideal that as public resources fish and wildlife should be managed by the states for the enjoyment of everyone...not just those who are of the upper class.


This implies that the 'states' manage "JUST" for the upper class. To say otherwise makes no sense. If you didn't mean that, why did you type it?

4)Was it "fair chase" in your mind?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)Sounds just like what a socialist VICTIM would say.
> 
> 2)You say it is 'different', but is it "fair chase" in your mind?
> 
> ...


1) :roll: Call it what you want...but, I do believe that our public wildlife should be managed for the benefit of all the public and not just for those who have means. Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me...I guess, in your opinion then, the idea that only the aristocrats should be able to hunt the king's deer...I don't.

2) It depends on what is done....family and friends squatting on an animal for weeks and days before and during a hunt until the killer shows up to kill is wrong.

3) That does not imply anything at all similar to what you are saying...it simply states that we are moving in a direction where the rich are given more and more opportunities while the poor are losing. I am implying that the selling of governor's tags to the richest bidder is managing just for the rich...I typed it because I believe it.

4) No. Any more questions, Grasshopper?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) :roll: Call it what you want...but, *I do believe that our public wildlife should be managed for the benefit of all the public and not just for those who have means*. Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me...I guess, in your opinion then, the idea that only the aristocrats should be able to hunt the king's deer...I don't.
> 
> You did it AGAIN! :roll:
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > 1)Sounds just like what a socialist VICTIM would say.
> ...


*

Woe is me. If someone who hasn't a clue about Utah's wildlife and public places were to read this, they would derrive that they have ZERO opportunity and that the only people priveliged enought to hunt are they of money.

Agreed, Horse pucky.*


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro...if you want to have a discussion that's fine. But trying to put words into my mouth or trying to change the context of what I am saying is childish, stupid, and pointless. Why is it you are so offended at the notion that some believe the ethics of hunting are deteriorating and that they should be reviewed? Is it because you know that you can't or refuse to adhere to a higher standard of hunting?

Auctioning off governor's tags is wrong....I believe in the idea that we shouldn't just give tags to the rich....I believe what Jim Posewitz said: "The peril in some of the contemporary forms of commercial hunting is not in that they seek compensation for landowner needs or for services provided. The peril is its own belief that it must exclude every rank and file hunter or aspiring hunter unable or unwilling to pay the toll."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, I'm just curious, but are you a member of PETA? You have in the past quoted many anti-hunting websites.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro...if you want to have a discussion that's fine. But trying to put words into my mouth or trying to change the context of what I am saying is childish, stupid, and pointless. Why is it you are so offended at the notion that some believe the ethics of hunting are deteriorating and that they should be reviewed? Is it because you know that you can't or refuse to adhere to a higher standard of hunting?


Now you resort back to name calling and insults. Very telling! I do NOT think our ethics of hunting are deteriorating like you do, but I am NOT offended that you do. I just find it sad you feel so gloom about your hunting opportunities in Utah. I also NEVER put words in your mouth, YOU have made it clear by repeating the assertion that only the upper class can get a trophy animal.

As for adhering to a higher standard of hunting, I will but my ETHICS and how I hunt up against you and yours ANY DAY ANY TIME! You run your mouth, but are you willing to back it up? There are several members of this forum that have hunted with me and KNOW me, I will stand with confidence and say they will all attest to me being a hunter of high standards in how I hunt/guide, and how I treat fellow hunters in the field. I don't HIDE behind a computer and act like a do gooder who runs his mouth. I get out there and I get it done and I sleep just fine at night after a day in the hills!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

:roll: ...I never called you a single name. I said your tactics are childish, stupid, and pointless. I have made it very clear that I believe auctioning off tags is wrong and is a way of rewarding the small portion of our population that have money an easy way to get a trophy tag. I believe that is wrong and a step in the wrong direction...I believe it is moving us towards an aristocratic style of wildlife management. I have NEVER once said that only the rich can get a trophy animal--that is YOU putting words in my mouth. 

As for your ethics versus mine... :roll: Why are you so against a review or change of hunting ethics then? What are you afraid of?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> As for your ethics versus mine... :roll: Why are you so against a review or change of hunting ethics then? What are you afraid of?


Don't call me out and then cut and run! I am not afraid of anything. When did I say I was against a "review or change" of hunting ethics? Talk about making stuff up. I am saying I am not overly concerned about the state of hunting ethics practiced today.

Calling my hunting ethics into question when you are completely clueless about how I hunt is beyond childish, stupid, and pointless. It is also gutless and chicken #[email protected]*!

It is YOU that are afraid. Afraid to act like a man and go get a dang animal and stop worrying about how everybody else is hunting. Stop trying to get everyone to hunt YOUR way. I recall you didn't even like helping a friend who had drawn a LE tag because it was "boring". That speaks volumes about how you see the world. It's all about wy2ut, and if you could you would make everyone get direct approval from you before getting a permit to even go on the mountain, let alone be issued a tag. Stop trying to make everyone hunt YOUR way. I prefer to hunt my way.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

You also complained about your Antelope hunt and you tried to blame it on guides when it was just other average hunters that were hunting at your watering hole.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro, I think your ego get's in the way of reasonable thinking sometimes...I asked a question. I asked whether you would refuse to adhere to higher standards. Apparently, you would not. I am not sure, though, because you didn't answer the question....instead, you were offended and had to make a simple question a "you" versus "me" thing. This isn't about what "you" or about what "I" do...it is about what kind of standards "ALL" hunters should follow....why can't we simply discuss that? Why does this always have to turn into a fight about "you" and "me"?

Let me rephrase my original question: would you be unwilling to change your standards of hunting if B&C changed theirs?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Let me rephrase my original question: would you be unwilling to change your standards of hunting if B&C changed theirs?


The BC standards have been put in place for years so why do you see a need to have them changed now Wyo???


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> When did I say I was against a "review or change" of hunting ethics? Talk about making stuff up.


ummm...how about right.......Here:


proutdoors said:


> I disagree, I think the current 'standards' are just fine. Re-defining while likely make things worse and more restrictive.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Let me rephrase my original question: would you be unwilling to change your standards of hunting if B&C changed theirs?


I doubt I would change my standards because my standards are more stringent than B&C's already. But, I would be willing to look at them.

One last comment on this 'personal' stuff between us. YOU did call me out, and I forgive you for it. :wink: Now, let's move on and solve some real issues affecting our passions.

PBH, that doesn't mean I am "afraid" of changing it, I just don't think it is warranted. :?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The BC standards have been put in place for years so why do you see a need to have them changed now Wyo???


'yote -- do you suffer from selective reading?

Isn't that what the last 3 days have been about?

I believe that it was mulepacker that said "Ignorance is not in believing there is room for improvement but having a closed mind that all is well."

Are you so ignorant to think that the standards that have been in place for years couldn't use some updating? After all, haven't our hunting standards changed?

'yote -- I think you're probably a pretty good guy -- but your posts drive me crazy. The whole "yes, what he said!" type of posts are pathetic. Can you think for yourself? Try posting something with some original thought. Open up that mind. I know you can do it.

I'll hand it to Pro -- at least he can stand up for his point of view and debate it with some credible thoughts


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> 'yote -- I think you're probably a pretty good guy -- but your posts drive me crazy. The whole "yes, what he said!" type of posts are pathetic. Can you think for yourself? Try posting something with some original thought. Open up that mind. I know you can do it.


To be fair, there is a certain relative of yours that cuts and pastes OTHER people's views more than anyone else on here. Are you saying he is close minded? :wink: I'm just saying..........


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Pro, so far the survey is running about 7:1 *against* your rigid stance of all is well, hands off the guide business, team hunting is OK, etc. Now the survey may not reflect the truth of the matter but perhaps you and the other guide boys ought to listen up a little and maybe rethink some of your practices. Just let some of these issues hit the floor of a RAC meeting a few more years running 7:1 against you guides and see, right or wrong, if regulation happens!


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

About ehtics and "unethical tools of hunting"- 
Does anyone think Teddy Roosevelt himself wasn't excited when the first rifle mounted scopes came out......or did he scoff at it and say it was "unethical and we should stay with the basics"? 
And were they in question when the Boone & Crockett club started??

Every single newly invented or improved "tool" for hunting is intended to make hunting and "killing" more affective and more humane.

Radios are not allowed by the B&C, but range finders and .50 caliber rifles are.
I for one would MUCH rather see a person "talked into an animal" to a resonable and "sensible" killing range than seeing some guy TRYING to kill an animal at 1500 yds with a military sniper rifle!

Just food for thought and a slight twist to the topic of ethics.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> To be fair, there is a certain relative of yours that cuts and pastes OTHER people's views more than anyone else on here. Are you saying he is close minded? :wink: I'm just saying..........


there is a huge difference in citing your sources, and simple "yes, what he said".

I find much more credibility when someone can cite an article or reference to back up a point than someone who only uses his own thoughts.

When in high-school, didn't you ever have to write a persuasive essay? One of the biggest parts of this type of paper was citations. Including documentation to prove your point. Isn't that exactly what W2U is doing? Proving his points through the use of citing other's work? He's not simply quoting mindless banter from some forum -- he's citing published literature that has been critiqued by others in that specific field. Pretty credible stuff...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Pro, so far the survey is running about 7:1 *against* your rigid stance of all is well, hands off the guide business, team hunting is OK, etc. Now the survey may not reflect the truth of the matter but perhaps you and the other guide boys ought to listen up a little and maybe rethink some of your practices. Just let some of these issues hit the floor of a RAC meeting a few more years running 7:1 against you guides and see, right or wrong, if regulation happens!


Do you even pay attention EVER? Go back and read the FIRST post I made on this topic. What do you have to say about the FACT that I am involved in discussions with several outfitters/guides to form a guide association? :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH, I am not about to defend yote and his tactics, he is able and likely willing to do that on his own. My point is, to single one person out for doing something others do is silly and a poor argument. I have seen numerous links cited by yote from "credible" sources that you/w2u have quickly dismissed. Are you the pot or the kettle? To be clear, I enjoy many of the links w2u posts up. I have learned a lot from many of them. But, that is not my point.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Pro, Don't kill the old messenger for Christ sake...I am just pointing out most of the arguments you have made, seem to me anyway, appear to be in support of the status quo. The fact that you are trying to get a guide association up and going may or may not be a good thing. Hell, the tobacco industry has an association. It just looks like with 7:1 against you guys, perhaps, just maybe, not saying for sure, but just maybe the guide industry has a little problem on it's hands!
I think from what I have read, and yeah, I may have missed a blog or two, that everyone on this forum, including you guides are truly concerned, wildlife loving hunters, and hopfully with discussions like this we will only help improve hunting for all the generations to come.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 'yote -- do you suffer from selective reading?
> 
> Isn't that what the last 3 days have been about?
> 
> I believe that it was mulepacker that said "Ignorance is not in believing there is room for improvement but having a closed mind that all is well."


Your questions have been answer three days ago, but you keep asking the same thing over and over like your a broken record.



> 'yote -- I think you're probably a pretty good guy -- but your posts drive me crazy. The whole "yes, what he said!" type of posts are pathetic. Can you think for yourself? Try posting something with some original thought. Open up that mind. I know you can do it.


I'm glad my posts drive you crazy. Wyo2ut and YOURS drive a lot of people crazy and its ever comical. Do you have multiple personalities like your brother. I think a lot more for myself than Wyo2ut does your thinking for you. Your trying to defend your brother so that he doesnt look like a complete moron.

Sorry, sometimes I don't have time to read all your nonsense because I'm at work doing some DNA testing.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:



> Sorry, sometimes I don't have time to read all your nonsense because I'm at work doing some DNA testing.


Finally! You posted something of your own accord!

Out of curiosity, what kind of work are you in? DNA testing sounds very interesting...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We are testing the Y-chromosome and the mtDNA. We compare Haplogroups and SNP tests.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Very good!! Sounds much more exciting than setting up a 64bit server in a virtual environment to test Exchange 2007.




No ****....mitochondrial DNA. Human? Or something else?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> *Sorry, sometimes I don't have time to read all your nonsense because I'm at work doing some DNA testing.*


Are you STILL trying to prove your parents aren't brother and sister? You're very stubborn.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

No but I found out your Mom likes the milkman :lol: :lol: and you have Fragile X syndrome.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> No but I found out your Mom likes the milkman :lol: :lol: and you have Fragile X syndrome.


Are you a DNA donor? I hear a lot of Ute fans donate quite often. :wink:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

OK Back on track. I would like to see

1. verification of equipment used while outfitting/guiding
2. outlaw use of radio's and "spotters" not just for guides but for *ALL *theres no difference between this and old time party hunting. Cell phones also qualify.
3. guides must register for a region or specific hunt unit and each additional guide on that unit will be added at a *SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT CHARGED*
4. ensure that guides/outfitters carry adequate insurance for both public and private land.
5. outlaw any and all bounty hunting. If a person sells the location of an animal and a guide pays for it both would be penalized.

This is a start there is more that I would love to get added but these five things are the most crucial.

Have at it PRO and MULLETT HEADS


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Well all you guide boys, seems the vote is now 9:1 against the guide industry as we know it. With these odds I got to think maybe something other than simple jealouscy is at work here. 
It looks to me like a true ethics issue. *Unfortunately for the minority, ethics are ALWAYS defined by the majority ( I guess God might have veto power, but so far he's been pretty quiet about guide services). SOOO...if the majority say what you guys are doing is un-ethical, it is un-ethical!*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Well all you guide boys, seems the vote is now 9:1 against the guide industry as we know it. With these odds I got to think maybe something other than simple jealouscy is at work here.
> It looks to me like a true ethics issue. *Unfortunately for the minority, ethics are ALWAYS defined by the majority ( I guess God might have veto power, but so far he's been pretty quiet about guide services). SOOO...if the majority say what you guys are doing is un-ethical, it is un-ethical!*


Again, I voted yes! Did you get it that time? A yes vote has NOTHING to do with saying what "we" are doing is unethical. Are you 1I's dad or what? :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Are you a DNA donor? I hear a lot of Ute fans donate quite often.


Hahaha :lol:

I think a lot of people on this forum needs their DNA tested.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> OK Back on track. I would like to see
> 
> 1. verification of equipment used while outfitting/guiding
> No need to verify my equipment, my wife says it's there and all GOOD!
> ...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1. verification of equipment used while outfitting/guiding
> 2. outlaw use of radio's and "spotters" not just for guides but for ALL theres no difference between this and old time party hunting. Cell phones also qualify.


Will average joe hunter be required to abide by these same rules? Why are we only making rules for guides when average joe hunters do the exact same thing or in many cases a lot worse.


----------



## Cold Track (Sep 11, 2007)

I kind of agree with number three. I think it's crap that MB goes on any draw unit they want, unlike other states where outfitters have a designated area. I understand that the governors tag holder can hunt wherever they want, but what about the rest of the hunters they book that are hunting draw units all over the state? It's just amazing to me that they can get that many forrest use permits in that many places when I know other outfitters in Utah that had to beg and plead with a lawyer at their side to get day use for one unit, and I myself have fought, and fought for one just to take people on trail rides.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I guess I'll take the wife's word on your equipment.

CS Yep average Joe will have to do without the radio's as well 
like the post a few months back radio aided spotting is illegal in some states already.

I know what my equipment is like. I know when my heater is used in a tent or trailer
that I will wake up in the morning. I know that my vehicle will get me where I am going and 
back safely. I know that if I drag my rig in to an area 15 miles back in what it is and is not capable of doing. I know the horse I used to ride didn't like slickers ( rain not city ) 
bottom line is when you are on an outfitted hunt you are using another persons gear


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

Regulated states are ridiculous & a giant waste of money!
If you are in support of them then you must be trying to curb the competition….


----------

