I don't have the patience to type everything that's wrong with what happened in the Dakotas, and now in various Provinces. All have caved to the commercial interests, entirely for the almighty dollar. In the long run it will be the end of hunting as we know it, restricted to canned hunts for a privileged few in the model of Europe.
I've never paid a "hunting" guide/outfitter, and hope I never do. I can see it for elderly or handicapped people incapable of handling the gear, but not for able bodied persons. Gunning in a rig owned and set by others who prepared the equipment, did the scouting, transported the gear, set the rig, and babysit the sport for money, is just shooting. It's an insult to real hunters to call it hunting, barely one step above calling a high fence "trophy" shooter a hunter. If hunting was dating, a hunter does the difficult work to meet people to date, the other guy is at the cathouse.
As has been discussed around here on multiple occasions, it seems fair for a State or Province to set restrictive regulations regarding non-migratory game since they manage it from cradle to grave themselves. Migratory game can't be managed independently because so much of the management money comes from distant sources. Cutting off individual hunter access to the resource will almost certainly reduce funding, resulting in a death spiral for successful management. If somebody wants to suggest that guides, out of pocket or through community efforts, will pick up the funding slack, I'd love to see the accounting in support of that fairy tale model. There are certainly heavy hitters that toss truckloads of cash at the cause every year, but by and large it's a "Walmart" effort, many people contributing a modest amount each. I would also suggest that the hunting population is aging out, with fewer young people entering the sport than are required to replace the deceased. This goes for rich and poor, less hunters equals less funding. No doubt some percentage of new hunters are recruited through guided hunts, but in my experience the vast majority of new hunters are recruited by their families and buddies who've been doing it forever. Paying it forward.
Another related aspect of this mess is my understanding that a landowner can't charge a fee to hunt? Is that correct? Now please understand I am the last guy in favor of pay to hunt. But a guide can make a living bringing sports to hunt on a farmer's land, who legally can't take a dime? I get it, in theory it keeps the guides and the wealthy from locking up vast acreage. No doubt the rule is flouted, but that bothers me a lot less than commercial exploitation of waterfowl. So how about this as a new rule? Nobody can take a dime for any activity related to waterfowl hunting. No more guiding for waterfowl. Everybody is on a level playing field. They still need to buy licences, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants and obtain permission from the landowner. Maybe they slip the landowner a fifty. Horrors. Then they actually go hunting, not just shooting. What a novel idea.
