# Eastman decries big-money hunts



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Eastman decries big-money hunts*
By Charlie Meyers
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/25/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

Guy Eastman bagged this trophy pronghorn on-camera in his native Wyoming. (Photos special to The Denver Post )The Eastman ethic of fair chase has come down through six generations of westerners, the last three famed outdoor filmmakers.

So when Guy Eastman, latest in that famous line, speaks of a serious lag in those standards in many Rocky Mountain states, perhaps it's time for the rest of us to pay attention.

Eastman, 38, operates with brother Ike the Eastman group of outdoor enterprises, including Eastmans' Hunting Journal and Eastmans' Bowhunting Journal magazines and the show "Eastmans' Hunting TV" appearing year-round on the Outdoor Channel.

He's currently appearing at the International Sportsmen's Exposition that concludes today at the Colorado Convention Center. His booth features 12 spectacular mule deer mounts, including the second-largest atypical rack ever taken in Colorado.

His grandfather, the late Gordon Eastman, often visited Denver, starting in the late 1950s with barnstorming auditorium shows that set the stage for the current bloom of outdoor films.

In an extensive interview last week covering everything from officially sanctioned big-money hunts to the abuse of landowner tags, the Cody, Wyo., resident took a hard look at the prospects for public hunting. He didn't particularly like what he saw:

On big-money driven hunts: "We've taken a stand against things like the governor tags where animals are pursued almost year-round in some states," Eastman said of wildlife agency-sponsored tags that sometimes sell for as much as $100,000.

That practice recently came into focus with a Utah hunt that produced a world-record elk. The story that evolved was of a giant bull hounded by teams of paid spotters until the hunter arrived, even rumors of other hunters being harassed when approaching the area.

As Lou Phillipe of Fort Collins observed in a recent e-mail: "Is this 'hunting?' Debatable. But it is what much of western 'hunting' has become these days when big money and trophies are involved."

While acknowledging the Boone and Crockett Club had no choice but to accept as a record an animal taken on public land, Eastman decried an arrangement that allows targeted animals to be hounded over long periods, even in midwinter in deep snow. 
"The notion is to raise money for good causes and it was OK when it started. But over time it's been twisted by the big money. The sportsmanship has gone out of it."

Guaranteed licenses: "Everything started going in the wrong direction toward commercialized hunting when they started issuing guaranteed tags," Eastman said of arrangements like Colorado's landowner preference permits. "Once the money gets involved, things get messy.

"It's worse in political states where officials don't want to get involved in wildlife issues (Colorado again) and the wildlife agencies get caught in the middle."

Hunts for captive animals: "That's where the real damage to hunting comes in. This gives the bunny huggers ammunition to criticize hunting. People hear about hunting inside high fences and get turned off to hunting."

Lazy hunter syndrome: "There are a lot of people out there who won't shoot unless they can drive a truck or ATV up to the animal. We have fewer people willing to hunt hard."

The generation gap: "What scares me is that there's a whole generation of kids growing up with no connection to the outdoors. When we do get kids out there, they like shooting a pheasant. The problem is, who's going to take them? Kids who are involved in hunting and fishing are far less likely to find trouble." 
Eastman acknowledges the role his enterprises have played in popularizing hunting, often in exotic locations, in ways that have contributed to creeping commercialization.

"But we as a family have talked about this whole hunting culture thing, about the average guy who does it the right way, the hard way, about how we might help push things back. I spend a lot of nights awake thinking about that."

Charlie Meyers: 303-954-1609, [email protected]


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Is it just me, or did I read that whole thing and not see the point where he justified, or bashed big money hunting? There was lots of good info given on the topic, but no opinion or what Eastman said.

It is getting nuts how comercialized hunting is getting. :roll:


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Demand = supply
good economy = demand

bad economy = less demand

I think the curve will shift back towards only the wealthy having the resources to afford several of these hunts. I am not stating that only the wealthy will purchase these hunts but there will definately be an impact.


----------



## Gildog (Jan 30, 2007)

northdakotakid said:


> Demand = supply
> good economy = demand
> 
> bad economy = less demand
> ...


Do you think perhaps the outfitters will suffer enough loss of business volume that some will cease operations? If so, maybe some pressure for spots would be reduced...but probably not that much!


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Some may feel the pinch, however most of the guides have high dollar clients, thus won't feel the pinch. The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

The fly by night shady guides may suffer and go away in this ecomony. However Hunt4 nailed it. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of money and they are not affected by this economy.

I'm in the market for a new inshore salt water boat. I've been to a number of boat shows so far. A lot of people at these things buying a lot of boats and gear.

The hard economy is affecting the poor and lower middle class. That's about it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I know of many guiding operations that are hurting. I know of a couple that are teaming up for the next year....sharing fields and pits to help divert costs.

One thing you will see is some of these places shutting down or having to lower prices to retain clients. In the late 90's and early 2000's people had lots of disposable income. People spent freely. Now not so much. So people will have to cut back.

I will bet you will see a decline in lots of things.....NR license sales, sporting equipment purchases, trips, etc.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's interesting that you brought up a drop in sporting equipment. I was talking with the owner of a large car dealership. He was telling me that many people who had previously had 4X4 vehicles were buying smaller vehicles. I jumped to the conclusion that it was gas mileage. He said no, people have told him hunting is becoming a rich mans sport and they were giving up. Most who liked the outdoors were shifting their emphasis from hunting to fishing and told the guy the money they saved they would put into a boat. They said the outfitters can't keep them off a public lake, no one can charge them to fish, and no one wanted $5000 for a trophy walleye in a stock tank. Actually in all honesty the last part about the stock tank was what I had previously said to him and he repeated.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

H4PY
You missed the money line:



> "Once the money gets involved, things get messy."


That's all you need to take away. It's a theme.

M.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> It's a theme.


 :jammin: :jammin: Yeah babby!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

babby????


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

hunt4P&Y said:


> Some may feel the pinch, however most of the guides have high dollar clients, thus won't feel the pinch. The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.


Yeah since this economy has been great for the rich too! You're not that dumb, and i doubt you meant it the way it sounds.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Just my opinion, but I do not believe for a minute that the top 5% of income earners suffer anything near the pain in a recession that the middle and lower income classes do.

period


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

tsodak said:


> Just my opinion, but I do not believe for a minute that the top 5% of income earners suffer anything near the pain in a recession that the middle and lower income classes do.
> 
> period


Actually how would any of us know? If your lower income class you have nothing to loose and your still getting food stamps. The rich may have lost millions each, perhaps their entire life savings. They are no worse off than the poor, but they have lost much more. I think that's pain too. Everything they worked for, saved for, sacrificed for, for all their life, gone. No, I would just as soon feel for all of them and not get caught up in the class envy that some promote for political gain.
Now if you want to talk about the rich turning hunting into a rich man sport then I don't much like their game. I begrudge them nothing monetarily, but I'm not happy letting them turn a sport that belongs into all into their private rich game either.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Actually how would any of us know? If your lower income class you have nothing to loose and your still getting food stamps. The rich may have lost millions each, perhaps their entire life savings. They are no worse off than the poor, but they have lost much more. I think that's pain too. Everything they worked for, saved for, sacrificed for, for all their life, gone. No, I would just as soon feel for all of them and not get caught up in the class envy that some promote for political gain.
> Now if you want to talk about the rich turning hunting into a rich man sport then I don't much like their game. I begrudge them nothing monetarily, but I'm not happy letting them turn a sport that belongs into all into their private rich game either.


Every story has two sides. I agree that hunting is for everybody. However since I can afford to hunt in places that the poor and riffraff cannot afford then I'm going to take advantage of that. By doing so I increase my chances and don't have some slob hunter ruining my day afield.

I'll pay the extra monies to ensure I have a pleasant experience.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ruger1 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Actually how would any of us know? If your lower income class you have nothing to loose and your still getting food stamps. The rich may have lost millions each, perhaps their entire life savings. They are no worse off than the poor, but they have lost much more. I think that's pain too. Everything they worked for, saved for, sacrificed for, for all their life, gone. No, I would just as soon feel for all of them and not get caught up in the class envy that some promote for political gain.
> ...


I can understand that. I am a little alarmed though that all hunting may turn that way. Then prices will escalate until only the very rich can hunt. Unfortunately then with so few numbers the anti-hunters will stop hunting all together. Somewhere a balance must be struck for the sport to survive.

I have a proposal that will perhaps be a hornets nest. If we can do nothing about outfitting on private land because it interferes with landowner rights perhaps hunters should call for all outfitters and guides off public land. Why should they make a living off a public resource. However, I think that's just around the corner anyway. Guides will come running to hunters for support, but we are foolish and cutting our own throat if we do. Ok let the clubbing begin.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

> I have a proposal that will perhaps be a hornets nest. If we can do nothing about outfitting on private land because it interferes with landowner rights perhaps hunters should call for all outfitters and guides off public land. Why should they make a living off a public resource. However, I think that's just around the corner anyway. Guides will come running to hunters for support, but we are foolish and cutting our own throat if we do. Ok let the clubbing begin.


I completely agree 110%. Public lands are paid for by ALL the public. IF and this is a big IF. An outfitter wants to gain profit from the public lands, then they should have to pay an extra fee to use said lands.

I have a huge issue with the ranchers in Montana being able to land lock BLM lands that my taxes pay for and I cannot access. All the while they rent from the gov't and destroy with cattle all for a lousy $1 per acre rent.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Guiding is not allowed on public land in SD. And there is alot of it that is great hunting and alot of work to get to which makes it even better


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ruger, my biggest grip is places like Wyoming. You can hike anywhere you want to in the summer, but carry a rifle in the fall and it is against the law to hunt wilderness area without a guide. The guides run Wyoming.

I completely agree on the grazing. I'm not against grazing, but look at a fence line that divides private and public land. They complain that the public land isn't in good shape, but often that rancher has had grazing rights on that public land, and his father before him, and they are the ones who abused it. Looking down that fence line it's clear the public land is abused. I seen all this abuse when I worked on the Grassland Classification of the Great Plains. I walked eight to twelve miles a day on public land from May though July in 1975, 76, and 77. I walked the four sides of quarter section of lightly grazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed public land. That included 200 plots in Montana, 200 in Wyoming, 100 in Colorado, 100 in Nebraska, 200 in South Dakota, and 100 in North Dakota. 
Also, they complain about grain farmers getting subsidies. They get bargain basement price on grazing. Currently it's something around $3.50 per AUM (animal unit month). That may sound expensive, but much of the public land is rated at 20 to 30 acres per AUM. So in other words they get that many acres for $3.50. They say it isn't worth it so let me give you a story. It's legal to sublease when leasing from some government agencies, while renting from other agencies it is illegal. A fellow a few years ago was prosecuted for subleasing at $10 per AUM. At that time he was paying $1.75 and was one of the people claiming he was ripped off. He made $30,000 a year for ten years and the judge only fined him a total of $30,000 claiming it was fair for him to loose his sublease money for that year.
Each state will have to do as they think with their land, but as far as federal land and guiding I say no license no permits just get off. While they are at it enforce the grazing pressure estimated for the pastures. Often they will pay for 200 AUM, but graze 300.

I don't have current figures, but back in 1988 the leasing of federal land brought in $26 million, but the administration of that land cost the government $58 million. I think we should at least break even. The only people being ripped of is the taxpayer, and non more so than the American hunter.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Plainsman,



> I have a proposal that will perhaps be a hornets nest. If we can do nothing about outfitting on private land because it interferes with landowner rights perhaps hunters should call for all outfitters and guides off public land. Why should they make a living off a public resource. However, I think that's just around the corner anyway. Guides will come running to hunters for support, but we are foolish and cutting our own throat if we do. Ok let the clubbing begin.


I would love this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When this nation was born a man could walk with rifle in hand and be hindered only by the Mexican border, the Canadian border, and the depth of the sea. Look where we are today. It's been the pursuit not of happiness, but of the dollar that has brought us to this brink. The least we can do is ensure that public land will remain open spaces and not pay to play. 
Currently its bargain oil, bargain grazing, and guides and outfitters are splitting it up. Look at Wyoming where you have to have a guide to hunt on land that belongs to you and every other American. At the rate pay to play is accelerating in the hunting "industry" we do something now, or you will not hunt public land either. Not unless you pay a guide, and I'm not paying a guide to hunt our land.


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

> Currently its bargain oil, bargain grazing, and guides and outfitters are splitting it up. Look at Wyoming where you have to have a guide to hunt on land that belongs to you and every other American. At the rate pay to play is accelerating in the hunting "industry" we do something now, or you will not hunt public land either. Not unless you pay a guide, and I'm not paying a guide to hunt our land.


I hate to say it but money makes the world go round. Espeically with the political powers that be. That being said and the fact that we may be loosing our gun owner rights.

I may be thinking I'd rather fish than hunt. You get way more for your dollar when it comes to fishing and as you've stated before in another post. I don't have to pay to get access to lakes, guides can't lease up the water, and there isn't anyone that has a 15# walleye in a stock tank somewhere that I can go catch for $5,000.


----------



## Call-em (Jan 10, 2009)

We have 30 acres of grain/fields.
we have a 2 acre garden. 12 cows, 350 chickens.
If the bottom drops out, i have them, 
I reload most of my rounds. I make my own deisel for my truck and tractors.
I can snipe deer, bear, and other edible animals from ranges 1-750 yards.

Country boys and gals, Can survive. The city folks will depend on us to survive.

All else fails.
There is lake here that has 8000 snow geese every winter.
I can get my scuba gear and snatch em at night.
HEHEHE. Or the old trusty long bow with bamboo arrows.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I have a proposal that will perhaps be a hornets nest. If we can do nothing about outfitting on private land because it interferes with landowner rights perhaps hunters should call for all outfitters and guides off public land. Why should they make a living off a public resource. However, I think that's just around the corner anyway. Guides will come running to hunters for support, but we are foolish and cutting our own throat if we do. Ok let the clubbing begin.


No clubbing from me, in fact we were originally allowed to guide on PLOTS land. We joined with the sportsman to make it illegal for us to do that. :lol: :lol:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

```
and there isn't anyone that has a 15# walleye in a stock tank somewhere that I can go catch for $5,000.
```
I bet that someone, somewhere has one that they would let you catch.....Might be more than $5000 though!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > I have a proposal that will perhaps be a hornets nest. If we can do nothing about outfitting on private land because it interferes with landowner rights perhaps hunters should call for all outfitters and guides off public land. Why should they make a living off a public resource. However, I think that's just around the corner anyway. Guides will come running to hunters for support, but we are foolish and cutting our own throat if we do. Ok let the clubbing begin.
> 
> 
> No clubbing from me, in fact we were originally allowed to guide on PLOTS land. We joined with the sportsman to make it illegal for us to do that. :lol: :lol:


Well, if I was negligent in saying thank you let me do that now. Thank you and much appreciated. :thumb:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

djleye said:


> ```
> and there isn't anyone that has a 15# walleye in a stock tank somewhere that I can go catch for $5,000.
> ```
> I bet that someone, somewhere has one that they would let you catch.....Might be more than $5000 though!!!


Someone on this site is well on there way to having eyes that big in there man made lake! I bet he would let you! :lol:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/man-made-walleye-lake.php

Give them a call djleye they are in your hood


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

Guides and Outfitters do have to pay to use national forest and state lands

from the forest service:


> Fees
> Outfitting and guiding permits issued by the Forest Service in Alaska are subject to a flat fee for each day or part of a day a client spends on National Forest System lands. In the case of big game hunting the flat fees are charged per client per hunt. The flat fee policy and schedule of fees by activity is available on the Forest Service website, Fees for resorts, marinas, and ski areas are based on a graduated rate percentage of the gross revenue. There is a minimum fee of $100 for any special use permit. Consult the Forest Service for specific information relating to your situation.
> 
> Permit duration
> Outfitting and guiding permits are initially issued as a temporary use for one year or less and may be reissued. After two years of satisfactory performance, temporary use permit holders may be assigned priority use and issued up to a five year permit. Term permits for periods of up to 30 years may be issued for resorts, marinas, and certain other visitor service facilities. Term permits for major ski areas may be issued for up to 40 years.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

I think Guy hit the nail on the head... Its a crying shame hunting trophy class animals and come down to he who pays the $$$$ will get the greatest chance, and its just going to get worse. To many people are lazy and they just want to show up shoot a booner and go home and brag to there buddy's about the trophy they have taken. As far as im conserned these idiots can go to the nearest high fence elk range and kill a 400 class bull. I dont want them taking away the chances of me kill the bull on public land due to these hired scouts doing 97 percent of the work ( and chasing other hunters out of the area) for the guy with the gun. Whatever happened to giving the game a fair chase? I think the governor sponsored tags are abunch of b.s. Even though they generate a pile of cash they also have a negative effect on how the game is pursued and hunted.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

all this big $$$ stuff sucks!!!. i would hate to be a young kid growing up these days with a passion to hunt. as a side note to all landowners or private land BIG BUCK people. after you have got em down, please let a few youngsters in even if its to shoot a doe. the future of our sport depends on up and commers.


----------

