auction, (big elk)

[AKaviator]

I have always thought that this issue brings up interesting legal debate.The State clearly owns the resource while it's alive. When you shoot it (legally) the animal is reduced you your "possession". You have all of the responsibility that comes with legal possession...salvaging all the edible meat, hides, skulls etc. but you don't really own it. If you truly owned it, you could argue that it's yours and you prefer to leave it to rot, but you can't. You are required to salvage it.

So, at what point do you ever actually totally own an animal that you shot? Never, it seems to me. Not if the State still exercises control by restricting you from selling it. You just possess it. Of course, you have the option of giving it away or throwing it away. The State does say, up here at least, that you can sell antlers that are detached from the skull or the skull is split to destroy the "trophy value".

I happen to agree with that restriction. I do believe, or at least hope, that it reduces poaching a little. This topic is always fun to banter about either way.

 

[Yell Co AR Hunter]

I took my son at the time 10 years of age to a high fence operation in Missouri. I had booked two hunts one for him and one for me. When I got there I decided there was no challenge to kill a deer. I had already paid in advance so I up graded his animal. I saw a guy write a check for $28,000 for a 400+ bull elk. This was over 13 years ago. I always wondered what story would be told about the hunt.
This is kind of like paying college athletes. You either like it or not. I figure if some guy wants to pay me thousands of dollars for a set of antlers. If I killed it under the rules of the state. It is my property to sell if I so choose.

 

[Zim]

I saw a guy write a check for $28,000 for a 400+ bull elk.

Yikes I passed an archery shot on a 400" elk (TWICE) on my 2007 Nevada hunt, from 40 yards. Couldn't bring myself to take a quartering towards shot. Never regretted although I was sure I'd never have another opportunity like that in my lifetime. 28K is quite a chunk of change.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Yikes I passed an archery shot on a 400" elk (TWICE) on my 2007 Nevada hunt, from 40 yards. Couldn't bring myself to take a quartering towards shot. Never regretted although I was sure I'd never have another opportunity like that in my lifetime. 28K is quite a chunk of change.

$28,000 is chump change to more people than you'd think. I wonder if his "Trophy" had an ear tag?

 

[HuskyMusky]

I have always wondered why someone would buy a trophy head or horns, hang it in his den to impress folks and make up lies on how he took it. I wouldn't want someone else's head or horns in my house, but that's me.

I hear ya, but I think there does exist some non-hunters who have a nice home/fireplace and want an elk or moose above it... although they'd probably buy a completed mount.

But of course I'd rather hunt my own elk/moose for my fireplace, I wonder what will come first, my moose or fireplace? haha.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

 

[Jrod]

in California they don't want you selling sport caught game, fish, reptiles and amphibians and so on. It is supposed to be for fun and recreation not commercial purposes.

 

[kidoggy]

in California they don't want you selling sport caught game, fish, reptiles and amphibians and so on. It is supposed to be for fun and recreation not commercial purposes.

oh please, like it or not hunting and frankly anything that has to do with outdoors is commercial now. and the only ones who don't want it that way are the ones that aren't making the money.

 

[BuzzH]

oh please, like it or not hunting and frankly anything that has to do with outdoors is commercial now. and the only ones who don't want it that way are the ones that aren't making the money.

What a load of bunk that statement is.

Commercial hunting was banned for good reason and why the selling of sport caught fish or meat from big-game is illegal. I fully support laws that make it illegal.

 

[go_deep]

I have always wondered why someone would buy a trophy head or horns, hang it in his den to impress folks and make up lies on how he took it. I wouldn't want someone else's head or horns in my house, but that's me.

Years ago my bosses brother was registering a 110" 8 point whitetail in Wisconsin. A guy from Chicago asked him if he'd sell it, he asked him what he had. This guy traded him a 30-06 Mark V Weatherby with a Leupold VX 2 for the buck. I'm sure he took it back to Chicago, had it mounted, and had a heck of a story on how he lost his rifle in the process of getting the deer out.

 

[kidoggy]

What a load of bunk that statement is.

Commercial hunting was banned for good reason and why the selling of sport caught fish or meat from big-game is illegal. I fully support laws that make it illegal.

hate to break it to you but guided hunts are commercial hunts . same goes for guided fishing trips. if someone owns or leases private land and charges money for others to hunt it , that is commercial .

are you against these things?if yes, I would submit that is only because you lack the funds to participate.
if no. it would seem we agree.

 

[kidoggy]

Years ago my bosses brother was registering a 110" 8 point whitetail in Wisconsin. A guy from Chicago asked him if he'd sell it, he asked him what he had. This guy traded him a 30-06 Mark V Weatherby with a Leupold VX 2 for the buck. I'm sure he took it back to Chicago, had it mounted, and had a heck of a story on how he lost his rifle in the process of getting the deer out.

I would have traded that bucks antlers for a rifle and scope and sent him off with my blessing to tell whatever tall tale he wished.no sweat off my butt, if he needs to lie to feel manly.
I have zero desire to see such things outlawed.

 

[BuzzH]

hate to break it to you but guided hunts are commercial hunts . same goes for guided fishing trips. if someone owns or leases private land and charges money for others to hunt it , that is commercial .

are you against these things?if yes, I would submit that is only because you lack the funds to participate.
if no. it would seem we agree.

Don't break your leg jumping to conclusions. Try staying on point, we're not talking about trespass fees and outfitted hunts, we're talking about the commercial sale of sport caught fish and the meat from big-game. Those things are illegal, and have been for a long time, and for good reason. Some states have also made it illegal to sell other wildlife parts, some states you cant even possess things like dead-heads (bighorn sheep in Montana for an example).

As to your "lack of funds to participate", that's seems an odd question to prove a point about laws that prohibit the sale of sport caught fish and the meat from big-game???

For the record, just to help heal that broken leg...there are lots of hunters that don't "lack the funds to participate" in guided hunts that also don't see the need to be lead around by the hand to find sheep, moose, goats, deer, elk, pronghorn, bears, etc. etc.

Thank you for taking a swipe at DIY hunters who choose to not use an outfitter, those that may "lack the funds to participate with a commercial operator" (but have enough funds to hunt on their own). You paint with a broad brush...and a pretty huge ASSumption on your part regarding why people choose to participate in guided hunts or not. Its not as simple as the money there partner...

 

[jjennings]

Interesting points of view on this thread. Hard to regulate a given set of horns or legally harvested. Poachers need a harder "slap" than they typically get, since they won't follow the law anyways and be out there again doing the wrong thing. I wouldn't sell any of my deer and they aren't record book by no means, But maybe I haven't gotten the right offer? lol My dad gave me his deer big whitetail last year. and he was offered $4500 for his whitetail from Cabela's since they were opening a store locally and they wanted to have local shot deer to showcase, he told them to shove off. Glad he didn't get rid of it, since it will look great remounted in my basement.

 

[kidoggy]

Don't break your leg jumping to conclusions. Try staying on point, we're not talking about trespass fees and outfitted hunts, we're talking about the commercial sale of sport caught fish and the meat from big-game. Those things are illegal, and have been for a long time, and for good reason. Some states have also made it illegal to sell other wildlife parts, some states you cant even possess things like dead-heads (bighorn sheep in Montana for an example).

As to your "lack of funds to participate", that's seems an odd question to prove a point about laws that prohibit the sale of sport caught fish and the meat from big-game???

For the record, just to help heal that broken leg...there are lots of hunters that don't "lack the funds to participate" in guided hunts that also don't see the need to be lead around by the hand to find sheep, moose, goats, deer, elk, pronghorn, bears, etc. etc.
my goodness aren't we an excitable one.lol. FOR THE RECORD, I have never paid for a guided hunt in my life, though every hunt I have been on cost me something(commercial lol) nor HAVE I EVER BEEN LED BY THE NOSE and each and every hunt I have ever been on was DIY.but you go right on assuming and painting with that ol big bad brush.lol.
Thank you for taking a swipe at DIY hunters who choose to not use an outfitter, those that may "lack the funds to participate with a commercial operator" (but have enough funds to hunt on their own). You paint with a broad brush...and a pretty huge ASSumption on your part regarding why people choose to participate in guided hunts or not. Its not as simple as the money there partner...

lol. no ,we were actually talking about wether or not selling of antlers should be legal and I MADE THE POINT that those who are against it are generally the ones who do not do it. same can be said of ANY activity the masses decide to pass laws against. things such as running dogs, bear baiting, "common sense gun laws", come to mind. as I said before ,I hope such decisions remain with the states .I would hate to see the federal government ever get involved in such decisions, and I CANNOT IMAGINE A WORSE FATE THEN HAVING CALIFORNIA GETTING A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN IDAHO.

 

[kidoggy]

Interesting points of view on this thread. Hard to regulate a given set of horns or legally harvested. Poachers need a harder "slap" than they typically get, since they won't follow the law anyways and be out there again doing the wrong thing. I wouldn't sell any of my deer and they aren't record book by no means, But maybe I haven't gotten the right offer? lol My dad gave me his deer big whitetail last year. and he was offered $4500 for his whitetail from Cabela's since they were opening a store locally and they wanted to have local shot deer to showcase, he told them to shove off. Glad he didn't get rid of it, since it will look great remounted in my basement.

MY POINT IS BASICALLY since it has already been regulated, what is the legal way to TAKE AN ANIMAL why should there be a need to regulate what to do with its antlers?so long as it was taken legally ,who care who's wall it ends up on. years aGO MANY HUNTERS SIMPLY HUNG THEM IN A TREE and went on there way.is it really any worst to sell em to a rich man if one can?

 

[BuzzH]

lol. no ,we were actually talking about wether or not selling of antlers should be legal and I MADE THE POINT that those who are against it are generally the ones who do not do it. same can be said of ANY activity the masses decide to pass laws against. things such as running dogs, bear baiting, "common sense gun laws", come to mind. as I said before ,I hope such decisions remain with the states .I would hate to see the federal government ever get involved in such decisions, and I CANNOT IMAGINE A WORSE FATE THEN HAVING CALIFORNIA GETTING A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN IDAHO.

You're in luck...if you knew much of anything about the case law regarding States rights in regard to wildlife management, you wouldn't need to get out in the weeds on the "federal government or California getting involved in such decisions".

The Feds and California have no legal path to control Idaho's wildlife...if only obviously.

Oh, and using your "argument" about those that don't participate in outfitted hunts...is it safe to assume that since you never have, you must lack the funds?

 

[BuzzH]

MY POINT IS BASICALLY since it has already been regulated, what is the legal way to TAKE AN ANIMAL why should there be a need to regulate what to do with its antlers?so long as it was taken legally ,who care who's wall it ends up on. years aGO MANY HUNTERS SIMPLY HUNG THEM IN A TREE and went on there way.is it really any worst to sell em to a rich man if one can?

Lots of good reasons why a give State's citizens may choose to do so. When you create a "market" for things like horns, antlers, etc. there is almost always a black market that is created by anything with value. When a set of sheep horns is worth a few thousand dollars, when trophy deer racks are worth similar amounts, there are always going to be those that will kill them simply for the money.

I happen to think that, rather than legislate to control it, and make the legal sellers and buyers suffer, perhaps a better approach would be laws with significant jail time, loss of all outdoor recreation "rights", loss of all personal assets, and a felony to boot. There has to be harsh and severe laws/penalties that deal with those that choose to illegally pillage our resources for a profit. The penalty has to exceed the potential profit from this kind of behavior.

 

[kidoggy]

You're in luck...if you knew much of anything about the case law regarding States rights in regard to wildlife management, you wouldn't need to get out in the weeds on the "federal government or California getting involved in such decisions".

The Feds and California have no legal path to control Idaho's wildlife...if only obviously.

Oh, and using your "argument" about those that don't participate in outfitted hunts...is it safe to assume that since you never have, you must lack the funds?

oh yes . very safe to assume that? lol.
but for the record what I said, or if I said it poorly ,what I MEANT TO SAY, was folks generally only pass laws against those things they do not do or have no stake in.
I also said hunting and fishing are commercial. wether you wish to admit it or not is irrelevant to the truth of that statement.

IF ONLY OBVIOUSLY????? so you believe you(california) should have the right to dictate what idaho should or should not do?

 

[BuzzH]

oh yes . very safe to assume that? lol.
but for the record what I said, or if I said it poorly ,what I MEANT TO SAY, was folks generally only pass laws against those things they do not do or have no stake in.
I also said hunting and fishing are commercial. wether you wish to admit it or not is irrelevant to the truth of that statement.

IF ONLY OBVIOUSLY????? so you believe you(california) should have the right to dictate what idaho should or should not do?

I think you need to slow down and read.

The commercial side of wildlife is tightly controlled via all kinds of laws, a vast majority of it by the States with a vast majority of the laws being State law. Your worry about the "feds and California" controlling wildlife in Idaho is a red herring, best case, and an unfounded worry. Neither California, nor the Feds, have anything to say about how Idaho chooses to manage deer, elk, bears, sheep, goats, moose, grouse, quail, bears, yellow perch, crappie, bass, sunfish, etc. etc. Further, there is no legal path for them to interfere in, or pass laws, regarding Idaho's management of same...including the sale of antlers.

Any law pertaining to wildlife management in Idaho, is strictly the business of the Residents of Idaho...case law matters, and there is a long legal history of the individual States rights of wildlife within their border. I fully support the individual States to make their own decision and pass any law they see fit to manage their wildlife assets. If Idaho decides to ban the sale of antlers...nobody to blame but the citizens of Idaho.

BTW, the (you) that you refer to is not from California...

 

[kidoggy]

Lots of good reasons why a give State's citizens may choose to do so. When you create a "market" for things like horns, antlers, etc. there is almost always a black market that is created by anything with value. When a set of sheep horns is worth a few thousand dollars, when trophy deer racks are worth similar amounts, there are always going to be those that will kill them simply for the money.

I happen to think that, rather than legislate to control it, and make the legal sellers and buyers suffer, perhaps a better approach would be laws with significant jail time, loss of all outdoor recreation "rights", loss of all personal assets, and a felony to boot. There has to be harsh and severe laws/penalties that deal with those that choose to illegally pillage our resources for a profit. The penalty has to exceed the potential profit from this kind of behavior.

then it seems we are in agreement