BigGameHoundsmen.com

brushcreek wrote:I disagree with the fellow hound hunters who have commented on this post. First of all I hunted in 32 last year and had three friends draw out tags last fall. There are plenty of bears in the training units. There are plenty of bears outside of the training units. If you have bear dogs and will hunt you will find this out. If you don't then you are invited to come along with me and maybe I could help out. 4 bears will not affect that area.

Chris already stated that his clients would have to draw a tag like everyone else so even if he gets approved it would not change the potential harvest numbers in that area.

for you guys that are so worried about his clients applying for the tags in these units. 99% of his clients are going to be non residents. So it will be just like every other draw in the state for any animal. Nonresidents are only allowed 10% of the tags and no more. so if there are 10 bear tags 1 every year will go the non residents to fight over. I am not sure about how many tags there are just using it as a example. I think that most people just hate every outfitter out there because they get to spend every day out in the woods and since its there job they are usually the first ones out in the woods every morning. How many of you guys would love to get paid to hound hunt??? I bet if you did your opinions would change on this.

Since when did the forest service over ride fish and game quotas?..... Same amount of tags weather Chris is there or not! Fact! So how is this going to change the number of hunters? Please enlighten me!

So Chris targets sows and juveniles?.... It must be borrowed animals on his website.... That must be bringing his repeat customers back for more. It would me! Look at other forums... Plenty of 1 year old animals beining killed by independants.... I have seen a few cubs and calves myself pictured on other forums! By some letter writers even!

10% of the bear tags will still go to out of state hunters... No matter if this is stopped or not it will still happen!

It seems to me if the Korell crew can't cut tracks then tags don't equal a gauranteed hunt even with outfitters....

Those of you who condemn outfitters better stop helping your buddies kill game because you too are contributing to over harvest. I have seen plenty of non Korell trucks on the Butte hauling bucks with 3 inch horns in the back of their pickups.

Please feel free to post your professions on here so we too can pick apart how you are killing society and heritage.

How does your job contribute to the Pittman Robertson act? I would be willing to bet that your livelihood has not contributed as much as Chris's to this act that supports wildlife restoration, which includes management of wolves.

Its acts like these and coersion into letter writing that is chipping away at the very foundation in which we believe.

Isn't it the Guides and Outfitters that have backed our fights at Fish and Game open forums? Ask these guys for help when there is a fight in your interest. Maybe your antelope hunt will go further in the tank. Maybe your late deer season will be shortened. Hang on pick your weapon, here we come. Can anyone state anything other than the Outfitters and Guides association opposed a previous proposal 15 YEARS AGO. Hell back then we had a real president and gas was cheap!.... Give me some facts! I know riders are common place in todays society. Would you vote on unlimited deer harvest for you personally if it came with Obamacare, and you held premium health insurance through your employer?. I want to read the minutes of that meeting to base a decision before killing someones livelihood. Feel free to jump on the propoganda bandwagon and become a hypocrite yourself!

The most important thing to remember in life is that our lives are totally worthless without making some sort of impact on another human. What impact we choose is totally up to us!...... Make sure that your decisions are based on fact and not influenced by the opinion of others.

For the record I have never met Chris Korell nor ever hired an Outfitter. I am not one myself. I am just sick of what has become commonplace in todays society. I choose to speak outside the box and not become part of the norm in fear of not being accepted..... Those that do will have to explain their actions to god himself. I hope you are glad that you sent your letter. I am glad that I sent mine

Hunt -n play if you are going to come on here and bust chops please do not do so hiding post your name .
Sounds like Kris is runs a good outfit . It would be easier if all outfitters were as kris seems to be but their not at least in my experience . There are some good ones out there that care about the resources .

Shane Raber

huntnplay, by your writings you definitely have your "intentions" in the right place, but I think your missing a little info about Idaho Outfitters.

In the true American Democrat Society that many are now fighting to get back to what made this Nation so great with things like the Pittman Robertson Act, capitalism is the foundation. This simply means ALL have the ability and right to try and succeed on their own. Those that make it are called successful. Those that don't...... Most States in this Nation follow that with Outfitting and allowed any and all to be a Outfitter if they go through the process to meet the requirements of whats needed. This is true democracy. Many in Idaho have always believe this is the way Outfitting in Idaho should be also. With capitalism in total control, true democracy and Americanism would be working at it's finest. The competition resulting would lower the fees received to a point only the finest and best Outfitters who were the truest stewards over our Natural Resource would be the only one's surviving and in business.

Now...... Obviously I need not explain Socialism and how it's now threatening what made our Nations what it is and how we live today. Obviously I need not go into "big brother" looking over and now coming into all parts of our lives today. Surely I need not go into how monopolies in electronics, oil, power and other industries that have no competition or are controlled by agencies they are part of and how they influence our lives today. But I will point out that in Idaho, to become a Outfitter you must first buy out a area. Some would often call this taking "big bucks" to get start into. Those "big bucks" are then controlled by others that paid "big bucks". Ya..... I know...... sure there's other steps involved in what controls them. That's what all those other monopolies always say too. This Outfitter has already declared he's on the governing board and has excluded himself from the vote. Ya..... right...... sitting right next to his "buddies".

Now, I'm closing in, far to quick, on being involved with the Sport of Hunting with Hounds for 40 years. During that time I have stood side by side with Outfitters that would drop a client in a second to fight with the Sport Hunters against things that threaten our way of hunting. But I assure, while those were doing that, there definitely were those out "raping" our natural Resources trying to recover those "big bucks". If you that have commented about ALL having a right to make money and use our public lands equally truly believe that, then I have to ask, why the heck do you support a group controlled in a Socialistic manor. Where only those that have a right to do something first have to buy that right. I must also ask, in reality, who would truly be the best steward of the resources, those that bought a area that have to repay the money invested, or those that worked hard, hunted hard and managed what they hunted in a manor that allowed them to out do all others that they competed against equally and fairly.

Units 32, 32A, 31 and 22 are unique in many ways. One of them is they are not commercialized, they have no Outfitter. There are many reasons they will fight this, but just this along is why the Archers and the Orange Army will fight this to the end. Has should the IHA and Houndsman of Idaho. This Outfitter has already said he wishes to hunt Out of Stater's under his permit. Let me give you an example of what I would do with that.

Many may know that people travel from all over the Nation to compete in the Bear Bay Competitions held in SC. Many may know that those Competitions were attacked this year by HSUS, supported by the AKC. Many can see, on the horizon, that the days of these type Competitions are drawing to a close. There is a "search" under way to find something to replace them with. Many are also asking for a way to judge what makes a "true bear dog". Because of the population and road systems, these units are perfect for this. Using this Outfitter's proposal of hunting non-residents under his permit, I could easily set up a hunt of eight weeks, using elimination, to arrive at the finalist and winner. The amount of hunters I brought in would be apparently unlimited, but if I allowed a limit of a 6 dog pack at $15 to $30 a dog, on a 7 day, who catches the most bears wins type hunt, I'd be in some major, major dollars for my retirement. Then you throw in the camping and lodging fees I could arrange. Plus some food and "enmities" I could arrange to profit off of too. If you want to get out your calculators, say I brought in 30 to 50 hunters per unit. WOW!!! If you know and have hunted the area he wants with this, you know this is very, very possible. If you let him "in the door" to one area, what's to stop him from the rest of those area's.

In effect, because of how things are done in this State with Outfitters, using this Outfitters own words of proposal, I could "big brother" all you people right out of the area by shear numbers of competition without even killing a bear. I could care less of what is said will be done, THINGS CHANGE WITH TIME. You open the doors, you live with whatever you let in that's hiding on the "outside".

You just lost most readers at the first sentance. This country was never a true democracy nor will it ever be. The state has to make money, thats what funds IDFG, public shcools, county roads, the list goes on. Do you realize what would happen to this state if every Joe Schmoe could get an outfitters license, you would see even more corruption and poaching. Theres bad apples in every bunch, don't matter if its someone hunting to make a living or someone hunting because they enjoy it and feed their families with the meat. A good outfitter has just as much if not more passion for the outdoors than any other hunter. They were smart enough to get a loan, buy an outfit, deal with dickheads and bring a lot of out-of-state dollars in-state. You think any ole hound hunter can pull that off? Thats why outfitters are "successful," not only are they avid outdoorsman, they know how to use their brains and they work their asses off.

As far as the hound hunters go, don't want to hear it. Not only do those tags bring out-of-state dollars to IDFG but to local economies. Outfitters have damn good dogs becuase they train them, breed them and hunt the sh!t out of them. If an outfitter is poaching, turn his ass in. An outfitter isn't different than any other hunter, he was just smart enough and works hard enough to make a living at it. If hound hunters are so concerned about the game populations, don't kill every animal you tree. A true passion for hound hunting is that rush when you hear and watch your dogs strike, trail and tree. That should mean more than just using them as tools to kill game. If all you want to do is kill a bear, try spotting and stalking, calling, baiting or even use dogs to kill a mature bear with no cubs.

Sorry Dennis, sounds like you just need a hand out. Vote Obama and he will give you your "fair shot".

After reading Mr. Fishers comments on outfitting in Idaho and the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Board I would like to respond to all to set the record straight. The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board is made up of five members. Three members are licensed outfitters in the state of Idaho. Each of these three outfitters represent a part of the outfitting business in Idaho. One for boating, one for recreation, and one for hunting. The other two members represent the general public , and the IDFG. The outfitter members are appointed by the Gov. from a list of canidates sent to him by the Outfitters and Guides Assoc. The general public member is picked by the gov. himself and the IDFG member is selected by the IDFG. All members are then confirmed by the Idaho State Legislature. There is no buddy system here with all members representing there constituents. The IOGLB is the model system in which all other states are trying to copy. Idaho's unique operating area sysem in which only one outfitter can operate in a certain area at a time prevents overharvest and protects everyone involved. This is no socialist group like Mr. Fisher states. I bought my first outfitting business at 23 years old. I am now 42. I was the youngest outfitter ever in the state and now have one of the oldest outfitting business in the state. My brother is 29 and has been a part of this since he was 18. It truly is a family business. I started small and cut timber for the first ten years when I was not hunting clients. The last few years has been hard like everybody else but we keep on hunting. Being appointed to the licensing board is the highest honor a outfitter can get. I am a outfitter and a hunter but first and foremost I am a hound hunter. I think that is what alot of people forget when my name gets mentioned. I am a third generation houndsmen and to this day after 19 years everytime I load my dogs and get paid to do it I think I am the luckiest man alive.

ckorell, You could not have said it better.

ckorell,

I was going to respond but you beat me to it. Thank you for the response on how it all works. Well said!

I would also like to add by guides introducing hound hunting to clients that have never hunted behind hounds, he is promoting the love of the sport we all enjoy. Years ago I guided in Washington State with my hounds and I can tell you I think I made believers out of a lot of clients that hound hunting is one of the hardest types of hunting around. As long as the outfitter is respectful in his harvest, I think guiding is a positive thing! Sometimes one bad outfitter makes the rest of them look bad- just like everything else.

Let the man run his business.

Instead of fighting against other hunters (outfitters) why not take the time and energy and fight F & G about lowering female quotas on lions in Idaho. Or making our lion pursuit season all year long... or something that benefits more than just you. Maybe if we keep up the infighting we can end up with a system like Utah where any Joe or Steve with a valid drivers license can get an outfitter license and kill the hell out of everything.

A couple of other things the public should be aware of. First, outfitting will happen whether it be legal or illegal. In the 1950's, Idaho chose to have a legalized outfitting system. To be legal, the outfitter has to be licensed by the state. He has to be permitted by the forest service or BLM or approved by the land owner. He has to be insured for liability and bonded in case he renigs on his client. All of this costs money. The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board ( not to be confused with the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association) is the state agency that is paid for by the sale of outfitter and guide license dollars. The general public does not pay taxes to run this agency. When there is a complaint about illegal outfitting activity, the licensing board must pay for an inforcement officer to investigate. So, right now, licensed outfitters have to pay for the enforcement of unlicensed area.
The thing that most folks don't seem to touch on is the game is owned by the people of the state- that means everyone. Our fish and game department has agreed to give 10% of all tags to non residents. Whether Chris gets licensed to this area or not is not going to change the odds of a resident drawing one of these tags. What is happening though is non residents do want to hunt there and the only option for them to hunt is to hunt on their own or hire an illegal outfitter. Many hunters have their own dogs or have friends with dogs and they see an outfitter moving in as a threat. The reality is and history shows that if you put a legal outfitter in an area, it will decrease the illegal outfitting activity and, in turn, decrease hunting presure. Now, it sounds like in this area that the hunting presure on bears is already limited so this is a mute point- from either side of the argument. For those misinformed about allocation ( some have refered to it as taking tags off the top before the controlled hunt), there is no allocation of non resident bear or lion tags. There is only allocation for elk and deer tags in controlled hunts in Idaho.
Once again, this seems to be an argument over jelousy over who gets to harvest the resource, not what is best for management of the resource.
A couple of other facts folks might want to think about are these. 10% of the tags go to non residents. That 10% pays over 60% of IDFG's revenue. Of the 10% non resident tags, outfitters take about 3% of those hunters. A typical non resident non outfitted hunter spends money to buy his license and tag in Idaho. Most of his groceries are bought out of state. He may buy some gas and some may buy a motel room or two. He may also pay for an air taxi to fly him into the wilderness. I think it is safe to say each non outfitted non resident probably spends less than $1000 in Idaho. On the other hand, a non resident, outfitted hunter spends on average of $5000+. The game is owned by all of those in Idaho and the more money we can make off of our resource, the better it is for residents of this state.
Good hunting

Travis Bullock
Mile High Outfitters

mile high wrote: The thing that most folks don't seem to touch on is the game is owned by the people of the state- that means everyone. Our fish and game department has agreed to give 10% of all tags to non residents. Whether Chris gets licensed to this area or not is not going to change the odds of a resident drawing one of these tags.
Once again, this seems to be an argument over jelousy over who gets to harvest the resource, not what is best for management of the resource.

Travis Bullock
Mile High Outfitters

I understand what you are saying Travis.There are 100 fall tags available in that area.Residents are competing for 90 tags and non-residents are competing for 10 tags but is there any law that says that Chris cannot guide Idaho residents ? What if 25 extra people apply for this hunt because they want to use his services ? Then that means that the odds per individual go down.Do you have documentation to confirm that 10 non-resident tags have actually been given out in this area ? I would be interested to know how many non-residents apply for this hunt annually ?

In regards to your comment about jealousy over who gets to harvest the resource....I think you are way off base there.Most the people I know who hunt that area mostly want that tag so they can have the privilege of running their hounds in that bear rich environment.Maybe jealousy over getting the tag but not jealousy over harvesting the resource.Hound hunters are the only hunters that practice catch and release and very little of their motivation and enjoyment is based on the harvest.

Last thing I want to say is,I don't know Chris from Adam and certainly have no ax to grind with him.Everything I have ever heard about him has been good.I'm just trying to figure out if there are any ways that this could negatively impact those of us who have an interest in this area both now and in the future.Either way this goes, he is welcome at my campfire for a beer anytime.

mile high wrote:A couple of other things the public should be aware of. First, outfitting will happen whether it be legal or illegal.


The reality is and history shows that if you put a legal outfitter in an area, it will decrease the illegal outfitting activity and, in turn, decrease hunting presure. Mile High Outfitters

So you're saying that someone should support something they disagree with because it's going to happen anyway? Isn't that like saying we should legalize drunk driving because people are going to do it anyway? (or anything else)


Where is the evidence that putting a legal outfitter in an area decreases illegal activity? I'd love to see that scientific study. Let's be clear. I don't have any skin in this game and if I lived in Idaho I'd be more than likely in support of it. But facts are important. I haven't read every post in this because they are mostly long and boring. But did I miss where the outfitter said he is going to only guide non residents? What's to stop him from bringing in residents, therefore making it harder to draw tags?