|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Comments on high success rates-
Posted by Michael Strahan on Dec 27 2005
Mark,
I want to comment on the issue you mentioned about hunters clamoring for high success rates, because this is one issue that has changed the complexion of guiding in Alaska.
I don't think many hunters realize that they are doing this. But if you take outdoor shows as an example, you can see how it happens. The Harrisburg, PA show is a good example. This show is the largest (and longest) annual outdoor show in the country. Most of the folks who attend are white, middle class working folks like the rest of us. They spend several years going to this show before they've saved up enough money to pull of an Alaska hunt. Eventually they come to the show with a pocketfull of cash and they start shopping for a guide. They have no way of knowing that the guy with the single, 10x10 booth and photos of average-sized animals is running a true fair-chase outfit, because they don't even see him. What they see is the guy next door with the six-booth spread loaded with record-book heads and glossy pictures of huge animals. If they inquire about success rates, they quickly discover that the big-booth guy is running 80-90% and the other guy is sitting at about 50% or so. Again, the hunters don't know that the big operator has airplanes in the air every day spotting game and dropping hunters on top of animals. They don't know that the large operation is a self-perpetuating cash machine. All they know (and care about at the moment) is that their chances of "success" are higher with the big guy. So guess where there money goes? What hunter would spend the same money for less chances of "success"? In today's consumer society, where folks expect instant gratification, everything besides the success rate is a secondary consideration. I know many examples of "hunters" who shoot an animal on the second or third day of a ten-day hunt, and just can't wait to get out of the field. They accomplished what they came to accomplish; the killing of an animal (hopefully bigger than the one their friend got). In fact, some operators build their hunt schedule around this. I know one brown bear guide service that even has hunters "on standby" in a hotel, just waiting for the first round of hunters to "tag out". They leave the guide in the field and slap another fresh hunter on him and the game continues. In this way they can get perhaps three or four hunters on a 1x1 basis, in a twenty-day season. These hunts are usually booked at ten days, but if the hunter leaves early the operator gets to keep the cash. So you can see how the money is generated and the machine perpetuates itself.
On the other hand, the smaller operator is running on a shoestring budget and is hoping to scrape a hunter or two out of these shows. But he'll never be able to compete with the "big boys" unless he decides to compromise the values he has concerning fair chase.
It's not all hopeless though. There are hunters out there who opt to limit themselves and are interested in an old-fashioned hunt where you are dropped off in good habitat that has a history of producing, and then looking for an animal on the ground. I remember years ago hearing that hunters booking with Jay Massey (for those who knew him) averaged FIVE HUNTS before they got a shot at a moose. Granted, most of these hunters were using traditional archery gear, but it says something that these sort of men and women were attracted to his operation to the point that Jay had a waiting list.
Anyway, my point is that sometimes hunters themselves unwittingly play the deciding role in this thing, and that the erosion of ethics on the commercial side is often the result. As long as there is a market for something, there will be people willing to sell it.
-Mike
Previous: It's a tough call, Frank, I admit bushrat Dec 27 2005
Next: great points Mark fullkurl Dec 27 2005
 Message Thread:
|
