# Licensed Guide - No Gun Proposal



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

In the 2009 ND legislative session it would be nice to introduce a bill that would prohibit any guide or outfitter from carrying a firearm when with a client - not even in the truck. Follow Canada...

The law would need to state anyone with a guide license could not carry a firearm if their was a single client in the field. This would prevent abuse by having a bunch of "guides" in the field, but only one designated as the guide.

This would ensure that sports (customers) are shooting their own birds and visa versa that the customers are not shooting on their guides limits (illegal already in ND) but largely uninforceable.

This should also reduce the people guiding just to subsidize their own hunting.

Should not be an issue for the bigger, well run operations.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Prairie hunter, That has been tried before and failed, again this is up to the operation. I never carry a gun when guiding, yet many of my clients want me to they can'r understand why I don't. Again this is an etiquette issue, just another jealousy bill


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

> just another jealousy bill


Nope.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

prairie hunter said:


> > just another jealousy bill
> 
> 
> Nope.


I agree. It isn't a jealousy bill at all.

You would think for the integrity of the industry that reputable guides would be all for it....


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

well we all know that "reputable" and "guides" usually don't go together


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

frosty said:


> well we all know that "reputable" and "guides" usually don't go together


Why the bashing?? Aren't there enough topics on this page that are all about the argument? It is just getting real old!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Might as well go after the fishing guides too. Tell them they can't fish while guiding.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ryan, Again go for it, and again I give big odds it will not get out of committee. It's stupid, you guys keep wanting to regulate what you think is ethical. It's not going to happen.

Thanks, Dan we appreciate it, keep it up and you may get to deer hunt yet :lol:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Guides with guns or with out guns.....interesting.

Here is one thing I agree with g/o on this. If I were a guide I would not carry a gun. Just because I would rather do the calling, taking photo's, moving decoys, dog work, etc. (pretty much what I do now with my group). I think that shows more professionalism. Because you are there to guide not shoot. IMO

But I can see the side on where you would want a gun. You would want a gun to take care of cripples. This way you are the one doing the shooting in the safest manner possible. Remember safety is first and foremost.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Chuck, Here is another example, presently I have a bunch of guys here snow goose hunting. They have asked me last year and this year to spend a day hunting with them. Under this proposal I would not be allowed to do that. Yet I have many, many friends that are also clients that want me to hunt with them. Under what they are asking I could not do that even on my own property. Common sense prevails again


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

G/o Let 'em hunt for free and you will be OK.

Fishing guides should be worried about their clients catching fish and not themselves.

I have fished with a couple fishing guides to learn some new techniques and new ideas on electronics. These guys wetted their own line maybe 30 minutes in the 8 hour day. :beer: I doubt they would have had an issue not fishing.

The cripple arguement is old and poor. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Why should anyone other than the hunters being guided care if the G/O hunts along with them.We don't need a law like this. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How about just for big game. I know of an outfit if the warden watches he will find a high percentage of the deer shot by the guide. If the wardens read this give me a call, and I will give you his name.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman,



> Report A Game Violation
> Call 1-800-472-2121 any time, day or night.


Why should they call you? If you see someone violating the law call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

I don't agree with the whole G/O thing in general but if the G/O holds a valid license I see no reason in prohibiting them in carrying a gun. If the G/O is going out in the field with no gun and a license just so the clients can shoot his posessing limit, is just wrong.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I agree with g/o...there isn't a need for legislation on this.

Let the operation decide on whether or not they want their guides carrying a gun.

To the contrary of some of the reasons you guys have listed as to why a guide shouldn't be alllowed to carry a gun, there are reasons they should. I could see where it'd be very beneficial for an experienced guide to have a gun simply to take care of crippled birds his clients shoot.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

So...if the guide shoots a crippled bird - I must assume that it goes against his daily bag limit. When does the "guide" quit shooting? Right - when the "limit" is obtained by everyone. Does anyone now see the reason to not allow "guides" to hunt?
Jim Heggeness


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Use common sense for a change. The bag limit counts against the person making the initial hit on the bird. Not someone doing a coup de grace to keep the bird from suffering. Some people simply grasp at anything just to argue. You assumed wrong. :eyeroll:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Cripples not an issue if you have a good dog.

Ken uke: I disagree.

nice law in Canada, good law here.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll get it done Monday.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

It should be the guides or the clients choice for birds. Party hunting is illegal in SD for big game, while MN allows it, and I'm not sure about ND. I can't believe MN with as many rules and laws that they have for hunting still allow party hunting for deer.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject:
> So...if the guide shoots a crippled bird - I must assume that it goes against his daily bag limit. When does the "guide" quit shooting? Right - when the "limit" is obtained by everyone. Does anyone now see the reason to not allow "guides" to hunt?
> Jim Heggeness


Jim, please tell me why that because I'm a guide and licensed hunter I should not be allowed to take a limit of birds? What makes you always think you are so much better than everyone else? I pay taxes just like you and my clients, and you think I'm not entitled to shoot a limit of birds? Give me a break, you want socialism go somewhere else.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

jhegg said:


> So...if the guide shoots a crippled bird - I must assume that it goes against his daily bag limit. When does the "guide" quit shooting? Right - when the "limit" is obtained by everyone. Does anyone now see the reason to not allow "guides" to hunt?
> Jim Heggeness


How do you do it Jim? Who's bird is it if it's shot by hunter A and then finished off by hunter B? Who does it belong to? Sadly, there aren't any laws that dictate who's posession it should belong to. :roll:

On a similar note, do you count cripples towards your bag limit? Let's be honest, the law states that you're supposed to, but how many hunters follow this? Not many.

I'd rather see a guide finish a bird off for a client then to let it get away and simply have them shoot another bird toward their limit. Think of it this way, it could save ducks and geese.

You're attitude stems from you're distaste of guides...I get that. But let's not let emotions confuse common sense here.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Party hunting for deer, upland and waterfowl (fed rule) is illegal in ND.


----------



## honkerslayr (Dec 14, 2006)

yes i agree it's their right to carry a gun while guiding. There are just as entitled to as anyone else. however i would like to always see the clients get first crack at some incoming birds because they are paying to shoot birds. but I am all for guides carrying guns though and a limit is definetely fine by me. I was curious though about if this bill passed i think a guide who perhaps guided in remote grizzy or bear country should be able to carry a sidearm for persinal protection. this is the only exception i could see that would make sense if this was passed. But IMO wouldn't it be much easier not to pass this law? it's just another hassle and law to enforce.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Honkerslayer, I agree that when hunting dangerous game the guide should have a gun. I would not want to be a guide hunting dangerous game with a client who I had no idea of his proficiency with a firearm. Waterfowl I don't have much of an opinion. Deer, that's a different story. If the client can't hit the broad side of a barn that's his tough luck. I know guides that have really had the pressure put on them by clients. Clients that all they wanted was a deer, and the guide might kiss the remainder of his fees good -bye if the client didn't get one. It's not always the guide that wants to shoot a deer, he often has a jerk client that demands it. I am sure there are many guides out there that don't dare say anything, but think the law would take pressure off them. 
My favorite story, that I can not verify, maybe I heard it from one of you. Give guys from Chicago fly into Northern Minnesota. The outfitter meets them at the airport and they give him all their equipment and they get on another plane for Las Vegas. They tell the outfitter to have their deer ready when they get back. These guys were hiding a Las Vegas vacation from their wives. The story supposedly originated from this outfitter.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

????

If a waterfowl guide is hunting everyday and is shooting birds, I would be a little concerned over the guide's possession limits.

I would suspect that after the recent Lodge dumping pit issues, client and guide tagging maybe mandated next session in G/O operations.

All dead birds and processed birds in a G/O operations should be tagged with shooter or guides name and license number.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good points PH


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I would suspect that after the recent Lodge dumping pit issues, client and guide tagging maybe mandated next session in G/O operations.
> 
> All dead birds and processed birds in a G/O operations should be tagged with shooter or guides name and license number.


Prairie Hunter, Your feelings towards guides is obvious , you should really know the laws before you post. FYI it has been a law for years that all birds must be tagged, with the species the name of hunter lic. number and date taken. This is a federal law, ND goes one step farther and requires us to do it with upland game also. Also, we are not allowed of WPA's or PLOTS, so if you a MN resident wants pass a law that already exists, go for it.

By the way this applies to freelance hunters also

As far as possession limit goes, that law applies to me as well as you. Only difference is my freezer is checked at least once a week, has yours ever been?


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

When I lived in LA everything had to be tagged.

In ND - maybe lodges require tagging, but I have no experience there so I would not know. I have hunted 32 years and have never been given even a warning. In fact I have a couple of T.I.P. calls that have resulted in arrests so I guess I have a few pluses.

In ND I have been stopped by both state and Fed wardens no one even mentioned tags. Incuding major roadblock stops.

My freezer is fine. We eat what we shoot and prefer it fresh. Clean 'em and put the ducks on the grill. :jammin:

I am sure you are fine too, but then I suspect so was the SVL freezer. All their ducks were sitting in the dump pit.  And our friend from NW ND guiding a few states south of here had a clean freezer. Did not even have to plug it in since the geese were left in a rent-a-garage. God only knows what was going on around Streeter.

Everything that I have seen and read around here says you are legit, but your industry is :lame:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I am sure you are fine too, but then I suspect so was the SVL freezer. All their ducks were sitting in the dump pit. And our friend from NW ND guiding a few states south of here had a clean freezer. Did not even have to plug it in since the geese were left in a rent-a-garage. God only knows what was going on around Streeter.
> 
> Everything that I have seen and read around here says you are legit, but your industry is lame


If your goal has been to offend me well congratulations you accomplished your goal. To insinuate that I am dumping birds uncleaned in a pit is ridiculous. I have had my garbage gone through several times and never once a violation. 90 % of the outfitters are law abiding but yes there are a few bad ones like every walk of life. I'm though with this, I find it hard to believe all you have to do is bash me. So go ahead and have a good time I'm done with you, grow up


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

PH

Good idea.

I've taken lots of kids out for youth hunting (even on non-youth days) - of course, without a gun myself. They've never needed my help with a crippled bird. They can swat as well as I.

I guess things change a WHOLE bunch once you start charging folks.

I like the comparison with youth hunting - folks doing the supervising shouldn't have a gun - it's all about safety.

M.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I guess things change a WHOLE bunch once you start charging folks.


         

Same old crap from MRN just a different day, but what do expect from a person who sponges $69,000.00 a year from us taxpayers


----------



## crewhunting (Mar 29, 2007)

Well i just got caught up on reading this. I am a guide in nd and i would have to say that it should be up to the clients. I dont carry a gun i like to handle the bogs and the calling i also take alot of picktures. One concern is on some of these birds your client shoots they sometimes arent good, which makes the dog swim alot extra and well it would be nice to have a gun i dont allow them to shoot anything on the water due to the dog. If i had a gun with i could finish them off without worry about a client gettting all excitted and forget the dog. I truley dont think this will ever be a law. LIke said earlier whos bird is it well with waterfowl hunting its always had you just have to give it to somone because well you have a good volley and have four clients and shoot seven geese there might have been a guy shooting three of them but how do you know????? Unless they come out with a new shotgun shell with little paint balls in them all diffrent colors that would help lol. Its funney you guys are soo agaist guides and outfitters and well i just dont get it. ND gets money just for outfitting and guide lic most stats you dont even need a guide lic. GUiding isnt a bad thing like most of you think it its i think most of the people that bash it are would doo it in a second they jsut dont have the oppurtunity. Outfitting bring alot of money to these small town that would die without hunting. THs is jsut my two cents i guess.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

first of all....Outfitting doesn't bring in anywhere close to the money that free-lancing does......a thimble full?Outfitting ties up 1,000's of acres of land that only clients can hunt.So don't start tooting your own horn to loud.Many Outfitters provide everything......they don't need a thing from a small town.And I'm not talking about G/O here as he only hunts his own land.

As to the issue on this thread......yes I agree with you in that I as the client should make the decision whether you should be shooting or not.It would be one of the questions I would ask if I hunted as one of your paying clients.If I didn't like your answer,I would find another.We don't need a law to help me make that decision.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> We don't need a law to help me make that decision.


AGREED!!!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

G/O: I said I am sure you are fine. I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF ANY WRONG DOING. In fact I said:



> Everything that I have seen and read around here says you are legit, but your industry is


I just mentioned what your friendly G/Os down the road were caught doing. If this offends you then .............. :eyeroll:

YOU DID ASK ABOUT MY FREEZER FIRST - in the words of Jacque LeMair - an accusation NO DOUBT.

Between youth seasons and a couple visits to a preserve with youth hunters, I spent quite a few days in ND last fall NOT carrying a gun.

My 12 year old son - in his first year of hunting watched his dog get most of the cripples (only a few were actually healthy enough to run or swim, but I guess technically a cripple since it was alive when the dog brough it to us).

The one he did have to shoot was a nice lesson to learn. I held the dog, he dispatched it in one or two shots.

So why couldn't a Sport / Client do the same? Are these guys that lame, hung over, what?

So you say let the clients decide???, I suppose there are clients that just prefer the guide help collect the limit so they can get back to the lodge and :beer I agree with Ken, the guide would not carry a gun if I was paying him.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

prairie hunter said:


> I agree with Ken, the guide would not carry a gun if I was paying him.


You have to be kidding me. 
If you are using a guide and you do not want them to carry a shotgun when hunting then TELL them. This is your decision, do not make that call for every one else. The one thing I like about upland hunting is watching a good flush and others making a nice shot on a bird, as long as the guide allowed me to have the first shot it would not bother me one bit if they shot their limit of birds right along with me. If they shot at birds before I did, then I would ask them to please refrain from shooting until I took at least two shots. 
Do you remember the Christian Crusades or better yet how about the radical Islamic groups that are in the news every day. These two groups killed and are killing others for one reason, others did not or do not believe in or practice what they did or do. How about if we just use the laws and regulations that are on the books and put some teeth behind them. I am getting sick of reading about repeat offenders guides and the average hunter. If you see a game law being committed, call it in, do not come on here and tell every one about it and how upset you are because of it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> So you say let the clients decide???, I suppose there are clients that just prefer the guide help collect the limit so they can get back to the lodge and :beer


Can't you discuss something without being just totally asinine about it. I'm sure there are clients that wouldn't want the guide to carry a gun and there would be clients that didn't mind the guide with his gun shooting his own limit if he wished. Shooting cripples was nothing more than someone suggesting that was one of the reasons why a guide might carry a gun.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you remember the Christian Crusades or better yet how about the radical Islamic groups that are in the news every day. These two groups killed and are killing others for one reason


That's a common mistake. The Crusades didn't form until Islam threatened Europe. If I am not mistaken it started in 1385 with the burning of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and killing of all Christians in the Holy Land. The Crusades didn't get rolling until the Muslims were already advanced into Spain. 
Sorry for changing the subject I just don't like Christians taking a hit without reason. This mistake happens all to often, and is nearly always accepted.


----------



## franchi (Oct 29, 2005)

FPP


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman I think you missed it by a couple centuries. If I'm not mistaken the first of seven crusades was started around 1095 or there abouts by Alexus I. I remember reading that a few months back when I was doing some net searching on Muslims.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Plainsman, why take things off topic? There were 7 major cursades, they started in 1095 and went to 1250. 
The Christians went into the holy land to take it back from the Turks.

Pope Urban II was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.

The catholics have a far from clean past, even they called their enemy infidels (sound familiar?) and KILLED because others were different.

Let's get back on topic, if you don't want the guide to carry a shotgun while they are out with you just tell them, no need for a law to mandate it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> rescue the Holy Land from the Turks.


I think the key word is rescue, but I sure will look into it further before opening my mouth again. I had been under the impression that it was said so often that people just begin to believe it.

I know the Catholic church isn't pure white innocent, and neither are Christians. I think we have done enough wrong without being blamed for what we haven't done.

Well at least now I have something interesting to do this evening.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Turner said:


> prairie hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Ken, the guide would not carry a gun if I was paying him.
> ...


Not sure what you are saying......I said it would be my choice to tell the G/O .....no shooting.Prairie hunter is agreeing.I can make the decision w/o a law.If the G/O insists.....find a different one.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

My statement of You have to be kidding me was ment for this whole thread. I can not believe that tryng to ban a guide carring a gun while guiding is even worth wasting our tax dollars. I would think that there are a lot more things we need to worry about.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

OK......got it..


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

While I don't think we need this law in ND, I can see the logic behind it. Since I'm from SD, I thought clients shooting the guides limit was just a given. Guides will even bring friends to help block, and do other work, but all have guns, so 3 more birds can be shot. Usually paying customers will shoot the extra birds. But sometimes the friends shoot most the birds becaus"e the clients want birds and can't hit them. Again I'm from SD, and 5 guys can shoot 15 birds, and no one will question who shoot what. One guy can shoot them all, and I'll bet most people in ND hunt and fish that way too, since its all most impossible to inforce.

I think the idea behind the law is that some guides are bringing extra "helpers/guides" just to increase the number of guns, thus increasing the number of birds that can be harvested. I'm guessing that many people think that the clients are then getting to shoot many more birds by filling the leagal limit for the group. How easy would it be to do this?? Even if being watched close by warddens it would be hard to prove who hit which birds, especially in goose blinds.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

rowdie said:


> While I don't think we need this law in ND, I can see the logic behind it. Since I'm from SD, I thought clients shooting the guides limit was just a given. Guides will even bring friends to help block, and do other work, but all have guns, so 3 more birds can be shot. Usually paying customers will shoot the extra birds. But sometimes the friends shoot most the birds becaus"e the clients want birds and can't hit them. Again I'm from SD, and 5 guys can shoot 15 birds, and no one will question who shoot what. One guy can shoot them all, and I'll bet most people in ND hunt and fish that way too, since its all most impossible to inforce.
> 
> I think the idea behind the law is that some guides are bringing extra "helpers/guides" just to increase the number of guns, thus increasing the number of birds that can be harvested. I'm guessing that many people think that the clients are then getting to shoot many more birds by filling the leagal limit for the group. How easy would it be to do this?? Even if being watched close by warddens it would be hard to prove who hit which birds, especially in goose blinds.


rowdie

That is NOT how ND works. Game wardens will sit and pay strict attention to a party of hunters counting who shoots which bird. Sure it doesn't happen every time. But I'm here to tell you that they do on occasion keep track.

They especially keep track of waterfowl, often keeping a notepad next to them as they sit and scope you from a half mile away. I've sat with them while they do it, with a second spotting scope, discussing who shot which bird as it falls. They even go so far as to scope what species of birds each person is shooting, so that you can't swap out with a buddy to keep you at your 1 pintail limit, or 1 Can limit etc etc...

We once had a warden sit and scope us, as we pass shot ducks flying between 2 sloughs. We didn't realize he was there until the end. This was during the days of Closed Canvasback Season, and a limit of one redhead.

Anyways, my uncles were sitting there and having us practice our bird identification as the flew by, so they had us call out what kind of ducks were flying over before being allowed to shoot them. Between the 7 of us we shot our 42 ducks in a couple hours. As we were leaving, he walked up to us and checked our licenses. We started to get our birds together for him and he put up his hand and said "Don't bother. I watched every bird you guys shot." "I was listening to you call out every flock, and you only missed 2 flocks incorrectly all morning. Anyone who can ID ducks like you folks deserves kudos." "I don't need to count your birds, I kept track of everyone's ducks. You all did a great job of shooting your legal birds."

He had sat there and watched every single duck in flight, and then fall when shot, and noted who shot which bird.

Note to you... the Feds do this all the time.

Advocating that "Everyone just does it... so it must be ok" is not sound logic.

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Advocating that "Everyone just does it... so it must be ok" is not sound logic


He didn't say that.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

This is the USA we have a second amandment. If the guide wants to carry a gun then let him or her. There are enough laws on the books to take care of any issue that comes up.

Here in ND I can not see a reason to carry a gun all the time but not to have any guns sounds like some Good Old Cali laws that we do not need.

What is wrong with having a gun with? A gun can be dead lined and it is easy to lend yours to a client when the time comes for shooting.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Ryan

Good for ND game and fish if htey are that good, and i hope they can and do as you say. I just don't see how they can identify who shot at that distance, and especially who made the hit. If there are five to 10 guys changeing blinds for others to get the shots. Sometimes I will shoot lefthanded out of a blind or from under a decoy.

I also think it would be hard to do for pheasants. I've seen large parties keep shooting at the birds while they are dead and falling, its hard to tell who shot which bird, especially when dogs are finding downed birds. Hunters then will relocate miles away to hit another patch of cover, sometimes with new guys.

I'm just saying that I can see why some might want another law (although hard to enforce) for guides not to be able to bring extra guns just so the clients can shoot their limit too. Unless its an undercover sting, I don't think you'll catch many. IMO I don't think making a law to keep guides from carrying a gun would even be constituional, and if warddens really are that good at detecting which gun dropped which bird at great distances, then we don't need to waste time on this bill.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

:stirpot:

Good discussion.


----------



## echoXLT (Aug 27, 2007)

Some of you guys are so off base here it isn't even funny! First off, I say let the guide and client decide whether he should bring his gun. Then, the main thing that clients seem to look over is that the g/o has a business. It is his business, they are hiring him to do a service, his job. Would you really go to any other business and tell them how to run it? If you did, do you know the most likely response? "Well, that's not the way we do things, sorry." That is exactly how it should be for a guiding operation. They have set rules they should follow, and if a client doesn't like it, then don't HIRE them for them job. There are many g/o out there, go to a different one. It just cracks me up when people get on here and say how they tell the guide what they should be doing, how to do it, etc. Didn't you hire them to perform a service in the first place?


----------



## Burnout (Apr 20, 2004)

Interesting topic,

Personally I really dont care if the guide carries a gun or not, he bought a license let him use it just like everyone else. If I were a guide, I would not, I have gone on a guided trip, and to be honest that fella was way too busy running dogs and keeping the clients moving to even think about taking a shot. As far as cripples go, dogs took care of it, he had great dogs.

the last thing we need is more laws

Now for off topic ?

Plainsman you were partially correct, You were thinking of the Muslim invasion of europe in the 700's not sure the dates. More or less ended at the battle of tours, when Charles Martel gave em a whoopin, spain was more or less a staging ground at that point. Turner has the rest pretty well covered as far as I can remember.

THough I think it had more to do with the fact they ended up with a lot of trained soldiers, bored and nothing to do, and with nobody to fight with but themselves, for various reasons mostly land power and money. SOOO..in order to quell all the bloodshed and fighting amonst themselves and at the same time "reclaim" the holy land, they went on a "crusade", and since they already had problems with the muslims it was all the more reason to go. Just my take on it.

If you look at it this way, and to tie it in a bit. notice most of the fighting happens in the off season (bored hunters with nothing better to do), usually involves land money and power, and dont forget the Politicians. All fighting over what they precieve as "right and just" or what they are "entitled" to. So they pick a group they already have issues with and start another "crusade". Happens every year. :wink:

I say hunt how ya want just be safe, and be thankful you still can.

thanks and sorry for the rant

Dave


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks burnout that was educational. There are a lot of intelligent people on this site and it's always fun to learn something each day. I was going to look into it further and I got sidetracked with a new book I purchased on edible and medicinal plants of the west. One of my hobbies over the past 40 years.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Im just really curious Plainsman why you didn't turn in this guy a long time ago. I read the previous posts and I really don't understand why you would wait till the past month to do something about it. It should be zero tolerance. Your quote says it all, but if your gonna have a quote like that you better honor it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

bretts said:


> Im just really curious Plainsman why you didn't turn in this guy a long time ago. I read the previous posts and I really don't understand why you would wait till the past month to do something about it. It should be zero tolerance. Your quote says it all, but if your gonna have a quote like that you better honor it.


Yes, your right. I had reported him guiding and unlicensed before and never heard anything back. Some of my hesitance came from that experience. I guess part of it was I lost faith in the system. His family has been getting by with things for years. His brother in the past spotted deer from an airplane and radioed to hunters on the ground. He got careless and drilled his plane in. No he did not survive.

I am sticking out my neck again. My hesitancy was if they don't catch him it will reflect poorly on my credability. I value my credability above many other things. However, your right, if I am going to keep those quotes I better live by them.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

I want you to know im not calling you out to be a jerk. I definitely understand where your coming from, because yes you are sticking your neck out. But when a guy sticks his neck out like that, others realize that there isn't gonna be any tolerance of crap like that. This is a domino effect, others will follow with zero tolerance. To much of this crap goes on. The one that really gets me going is little johnny sending in for tags in their mom, sisters, aunts names, whoever then going and harvesting those bucks too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I want you to know im not calling you out to be a jerk.


No problem I didn't take it that way. A person sometimes needs a little put up or shut up reminder once in a while.


----------

