This is an interesting read. I know I have said this before, but the comparison to fly fishing in the 90s is apt, with one vital difference; there's no catch-and-release hunting (unless you're me shooting at pheasants). I was on a state committee to look at overcrowding on Montana rivers. Cogent facts were that Montana outfitters advertised magnitudes more than in other western states, newsgroups were flourishing (everyone knew what was hatching where, and when), THE MOVIE was released, and a generalized drought drove more pressure to the tailwaters.
Limiting outfitters is fought bitterly to this day, almost always losing.
In the 90s, before outfitters leased up most of the ranches, pretty easy for local folks, and even polite out-of-staters who planned ahead to gain access for deer; admittedly a little tougher for elk. No longer.
So, it's not really a matter of selfishness, but of carrying capacity of public land hunting, and by extension, fishing. So yeah, trying to fish the Madison or Missouri in season is a pretty miserable experience devoid of solitude, but you do catch fish; whether it's worth it or not is an individual decision. I think this is what Matt is driving at.
Another comment about Steve. Have enjoyed him through the years, and bought his books, cooking and otherwise.
Recently, though, he seems to be a bit of a dilettante. We all miss once in a while, but it's becoming a pattern. He went hunting with a flintlock, muffed a bunch of shots through his unfamiliarity with the set trigger; clean misses, but could just as easily have been a wounded animal. Who goes hunting with a rifle they have only fired a few times? Not a good lesson for newbies.
I get the recruitment of advocates argument, but when is the resource "loved to death"?
