Choices
Of Interest
Administrative |
HypocrisyThe first hypocrisy involves the deer hunters that blames deer hunters for the rise in the whitetail deer hunting costs and subsequently the cost of hunting itself. This argument avoids the landowner’s right to earn a living from any resource that he may have be it a personal talent, specialized trained skill or deer hunting land. Remembering our society is one of capitalism, it should be of no one's consternation that someone with a resource should seek anything less than what the market will bear. To expect that would be to expect the landowner to be foolish. I would be willing to bet these same deer hunters that make this argument would never consider working their job for another company at a lower wage! The next hypocrisy is the deer hunter that expects something for nothing citing public hunting land that if there was more of it then more hunters could enjoy the deer hunting sport. Hummm, just who pays for that public deer hunting land? Typically one of two sources pays for all public land. The first is the generalized tax that secures private funds via the government taking them indiscriminate of any class of citizen. The other source are specialized taxes such as those from the Pittman-Roberts act. And, regardless of the tax source it is the citizen that pays for public land and that same citizen that wants something for nothing would be the first to complain about a 10 cents per citizen yearly tax to purchase land for public use. The next hypocrisy that rears it head when discussing deer hunting, hunters and leases is that the land being sought had to be purchased by the landowner at cost to his personal fortune. Taxes were/are paid for by the landowner at his cost. Land maintenance costs (a landowner replaced a pipe on a farm lane allowing tractor access to a field at $320 for the pipe and ¾ day’s time). In short land is not free so why should the “average” hunter expect free hunting access? That same “average” hunter furthers his hypocrisy by having a $40/month cell phone in addition to his land line at home, consumes a case of beer a week, purchased a new bow with accoutrements for $1,200 and paid $4,500 for an elk hunt (but that’s different says the hunter as that was a guided hunt). The point is we (deer hunters) will pay for what is important to us and complain when what we want is more cost than we are willing to pay. Deer hunters are far more willing to pay for something tangible they can hold in their hands (bow) than a service or usage fee such as a deer lease. UnderstandingOne final test that any deer hunter seeking to lease hunting land should take to give himself a reminder of just how good we have it here in the USA would be to talk to any military service member and hunter that has been in Europe or Great Briton. Ask them their first hand hunting accounts of how easy or difficult it was for them as the “average” hunter to hunt anything anywhere. That is it for this Iowa deer hunting article as we will not continue the many discussions that remain such as who addresses trespassers, the lease holder or landowner? Or, the pitfalls of group leasing. At the cost MAHA charges it would be prudent for anyone to hunt with us just one year and then compare that experience to running their own deer lease in Iowa or elsewhere.
Return to our Iowa deer hunting page
|
