Saw this a few months back on the hunt quietly IG account....
- Thread starter tod osier
- Start date
We're being a little harsh toward DU. I can be disgusted with management and appreciate the successful habitat work. There are regions where I wish they would concentrate more effort, the northeast being one. I'll still toss a few bucks their way.
Always like Teddy quotes. Bully.
Agree, they do fine work with the money they actually spend towards buying and managing land. I started this discussion thinking that CEO compensation was an interesting issue and something that I have a hard time understanding/swallowing, but it is good to be reminded what other people have a problem with.
Back to guides... another reason I don't like guides beyond just that they often attempt to monopolize a shared resource is that they let posers and pussies pretend that they are more of a sportsman than they are.
That's for sure. Many of said weenies would benefit from learning to do it themselves, the most satisfying part of the hunt IMO. Maybe some do as a result of a guided hunt. We can only hope.
Richard Lathrop
Well-known member
I read the DU annual report. Total assets are reported at 548 million with annual compensation at 14 million. If my math is correct that is around 2.5% of assets.
Yessir. And that makes sense to me. But AI (actually large-language models) don't know everything. They just regurgitate what they find on the internet.
At $35 for membership that would take over 17,000 members to pay for the CEO salary.
Like I said, what they have done for then nesting region has been very impactful and beneficial, but when you get the vast majority of support from hunters and promote all these hunting things like decoy spreads, gun and ammo options, and other such things but won't support hunters when they have having access taken away or other harassment then that's hypocritical. When issues come up with big game then RMEF is there supporting, when conservation issues come up they are also there then too.
The comment about if we had a selfish manor towards duckboats then why would we donate. Well Eric isn't take even 1% of the money we donate. It is a shared community that supports each other in the boat building and waterfowl space.
RMEF has done nothing locally for me. Closest thing is the elk in the smoky mountains which I have visited and enjoyed seeing and hope to have a season one day. But even if I never get to hunt them I agree with how they have handled the money taken in where they conserve land, make it better, allow access for public use, turn it over the wildlife agencies for public use, and support the hunting community and landowners when it's needed.
Like I said, what they have done for then nesting region has been very impactful and beneficial, but when you get the vast majority of support from hunters and promote all these hunting things like decoy spreads, gun and ammo options, and other such things but won't support hunters when they have having access taken away or other harassment then that's hypocritical. When issues come up with big game then RMEF is there supporting, when conservation issues come up they are also there then too.
The comment about if we had a selfish manor towards duckboats then why would we donate. Well Eric isn't take even 1% of the money we donate. It is a shared community that supports each other in the boat building and waterfowl space.
RMEF has done nothing locally for me. Closest thing is the elk in the smoky mountains which I have visited and enjoyed seeing and hope to have a season one day. But even if I never get to hunt them I agree with how they have handled the money taken in where they conserve land, make it better, allow access for public use, turn it over the wildlife agencies for public use, and support the hunting community and landowners when it's needed.
With the guides, I have family that are guides in NC and MT. I don't agree with guides being able to lease land and lock it out in order to make a profit off a resource that is owned by everyone. That seems to go against the North American model of wildlife conservation.
If they charge to take someone out, that's great, I love they can make money off their knowledge and experience. But why should they be able to lock me out of land for a resource held in public trust. I'm not saying that I have a right to hunt anyone's land or that the landowner can't restrict who hunts his land, that is private property rights but he doesn't own the wildlife and shouldn't be able to control it in that same manner. Seems not that far different than market hunting.
If they charge to take someone out, that's great, I love they can make money off their knowledge and experience. But why should they be able to lock me out of land for a resource held in public trust. I'm not saying that I have a right to hunt anyone's land or that the landowner can't restrict who hunts his land, that is private property rights but he doesn't own the wildlife and shouldn't be able to control it in that same manner. Seems not that far different than market hunting.
Ben
I'm not trying to disagree because I very much feel the sport is getting lopsided in favor of guide services to the detriment of avg. joe access. What are the ways they lock you or me out of the land? Now I understand laws can be passed that limit non-resident hunting and getting a guide can be a way around that, like what Manitoba does. But here in the US and other parts of Canada how can guides lock the average hunter out? Obviously they can lease land but doesn't that come down to capitalism in the form of highest bidder wins? Or are you referring to other ways and what are those?
I'm not trying to disagree because I very much feel the sport is getting lopsided in favor of guide services to the detriment of avg. joe access. What are the ways they lock you or me out of the land? Now I understand laws can be passed that limit non-resident hunting and getting a guide can be a way around that, like what Manitoba does. But here in the US and other parts of Canada how can guides lock the average hunter out? Obviously they can lease land but doesn't that come down to capitalism in the form of highest bidder wins? Or are you referring to other ways and what are those?
A related issue is a state requiring a guide when the hunting is being done on federal land. If an OOS wants to hunt bears, sheep, elk etc. in certain states, he needs to pay for a guide when a resident does not. I say fair game on private land and state owned land, not ok on federal land.
Eric, mostly private land. Where I feel it is different than say someone leasing for cattle, farming, or even just to recreate is that they are leasing land to have explicit access to a public resource that is not owned by that one individual but to over 300 million. I find that different than straight capitalism.
No here in NC on the public waterway called curritck sound that is an example of public water being locked up by private individuals.
Last edited:
yeah need a guide to hunt those dangerous wilderness areas in WY but not MT and in AK don't want them grizzly's to get the non guided hikers.. I mean hunters.Good law in WY, not good in AK.
Should be a lifetime thing. Ya know, guys from east coast move out, need a guide for life.Good law in WY, not good in AK.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions...for they are unprofitable and vain.
Where is the "warmth of collectivism" that I keep reading about? Is Henry any less of a boat builder because he sought help? Am I any less of a bear hunter because it took three tries with a guide? Guides provide a valuable service and do much more to protect a resource than you realize. For example, if you wound but don't recover a big game animal, your hunt is over. Not everyone can pack an animal out by themselves so a guide is hired. Are we to believe that only elite woodsman such as yourself should enjoy a hunt of a lifetime? I perceive that you are trying to turn this issue into some kind of class warfare. I personally know many wealthy individuals but I have never envied them. When guided hunts to Alaska cost around $10,000 I was able to save money (several years for each) and treat myself to five hunts of a lifetime. I've shared tents with wealthy oil men who probably spent a weeks salary. It didn't bother me because I always reasoned that my reward was greater from the toil it took to save those funds. When I got priced out of Alaska hunts, I took up freelance bird hunting and haven't looked back because I am having so damn much fun. We are blessed in this country with the amount of access we have and have never felt restricted. Sure there are neighboring states that have gotten a little selfish. No problem, Saskatchewan welcomed us with open arms. My point is, do questions such as these divide or bring our community closer together? Maybe it's time to quit stirring the pot. RM
Don't know if it's been posted yet, but here is the breakdown from DUs website:
Thank you for posting that Steven.
"Conservation without money is conversation".
Author Unknown
That's actually a quote from on old DU president.
RM I think what Tod is talking about is like things I've heard from guide friends from Kodiak, Montana, and here in NC.
There are the people that come that has saved up for the once of a lifetime hunt or just to have a good time together with friends but they are hunters that know what it takes to kill an animal. But a lot of people that use guides are not hunters. They are shooters, they expect the guide to make it happen because they are paying them even if it means breaking the law or making unethical shots so they can be of some status either with their friends or on the instagram to mimic the influencers.
So I agree that guides help with conservation if they are good but I know quite a few that harm the hunt industry and the quality of hunt. Quite a few waterfowl guides around here bait ducks to either keep others from hunting an area or to just get their clients birds at all cost. That's not helping the waterfowl any form or fashion and creates problems with the hunting community.
So just because someone uses a guide, or asks for help on here to build a boat, doesn't make them a less of a hunter or craftsman. But in the guiding industry there is a huge swath of clients that are not hunters.
There are the people that come that has saved up for the once of a lifetime hunt or just to have a good time together with friends but they are hunters that know what it takes to kill an animal. But a lot of people that use guides are not hunters. They are shooters, they expect the guide to make it happen because they are paying them even if it means breaking the law or making unethical shots so they can be of some status either with their friends or on the instagram to mimic the influencers.
So I agree that guides help with conservation if they are good but I know quite a few that harm the hunt industry and the quality of hunt. Quite a few waterfowl guides around here bait ducks to either keep others from hunting an area or to just get their clients birds at all cost. That's not helping the waterfowl any form or fashion and creates problems with the hunting community.
So just because someone uses a guide, or asks for help on here to build a boat, doesn't make them a less of a hunter or craftsman. But in the guiding industry there is a huge swath of clients that are not hunters.