The TV Show
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Oak, are there no demand mitigated hunting rationales on private property in Colorado?
Dang nhy, just say what you mean. Don't make me read what you write 6 times just to understand it.
Ok, I'll admit, after 6 times, I still didn't understand it.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Dang nhy, just say what you mean. Don't make me read what you write 6 times just to understand it.
Ok, I'll admit, after 6 times, I still didn't understand it.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/ There ya go Oak. LOL John
Tom
New member
Yes, demand mitigated hunting rationale or insistence reconciled venatics justification,either way:
I think he means screwed up might be a little screwed up way to describe what it is that Oak agrees with me on, eh nhy?
I think he means screwed up might be a little screwed up way to describe what it is that Oak agrees with me on, eh nhy?
Thanks for the comments. Too many questions to answer here, so I will try to make some points that address a few of them.
Most of the hunting guests on the show will be hunttalkers. Yup, for the upcoming year, if you aren't a hunttalker, don't expect to be in the show.
That adds a lot of challenge. Let's face it, hunttalkers are hunters, not actors. Most shows are done with professional hosts. Don't want that in our show. But, there are certain production procedures that get better with practice. Having new guys on every hunt makes it really difficult on the production crew, as they are always giving lessons and pointers about how the hunters must do things to make better TV. So, even though the editors require a checklist of re-enacted scenes, we hardly use any of them, as our guys are way better "in the moment" than they are when asked to re-enact. And, by having two cameras, we can have one on the hunters and one on the game, and catch it all "real time."
Hunttalkers are hardcore hunters, and aren't real excited about being bogged down with doing scenic shots, being asked to climb the ridge a second time, as the first time didn't have good lighting, having a tangled mess of mic cables around their chest, being asked to stop and do two hours of interviews, having to wait as camera guys lug these big loads of equipment as they try their best to keep up, and many other things where TV production gets in the way of hunting. Yet, we are first and foremost trying to tell a story, so we do these things, even though we know it makes the very difficult task of non-guided accessible land hunting that much more of a challenge. As if it wasn't challenging enough.
Most non-professional hunters don't want to be told to hold their shot until the focus is correct and the light conditions are better. They don't like being told to quit a half hour early, as filming light usually expires about a half hour before official end of legal shooting hours.
It is for many of these reasons that most shows have paid professional hunters, hunting in controlled environments, where the animals are less spooky, there is no competition from other hunters, and the conditions under which the videographers must operate are far easier. Those environments and conditions makes it easier to get the footage quality we are shooting for, and can be done at less cost. We have decided to fight these conditions and incur these costs to obtain the footage at the highest possible HD quality, in spite of the obstacles presented by our mission to capture non-guided hunting in the wild.
We don't want a show like many of the others. Therefore, we pass on lots of opportunities due to light conditions, we incur far more costs due to extra days afield and having an additional camera man, and it is much more work. Having been a guest hunter on four shows prior to starting this one, and having filmed my own stuff for three years, I can tell you we are going so far beyond what most shows will do, that it is hard to even make a comparison.
I know I am biased due to my involvement in the show and my passion for On Your Own hunting. Without this commitment to the non-guided hunting idea, I would have given up a long time ago and saved myself many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As far as concerns of those who say I am profiting off a public resource, or off wildlife, I will let you continue to think that. Though it will be a long time before this endeavor becomes profitable. I pay more in filming permits than most could imagine. I think paying for those permits, which is more than most other large scale commercial users of public lands will pay, is a fair fee for what "profit" I am supposedly making off these resources.
I do get frustrated when I see other shows filmed in wilderness areas. I know they are not seeking permits. I know this, as filming permits cannot be acquired for wilderness areas. So, not only are they skipping out on the fees for use of your public lands, they are filming hunts that those of us following the rules will not film, due to our commitment to following permit requirements.
I have seen two TV sheep hunts this winter, both filmed in wilderness areas, and two TV elk hunts filmed in wilderness areas. It is getting to the point where I hope people start reporting this to agencies, as these folks are doing something illegal, and not paying the user fees. In my mind, it is not too much different than hunting without a license.
Just another issue I confront while trying to follow the rules, while some competitors cut corners. We had to drop two really cool wilderness hunts from the 2008 filming schedule due to wilderness issues.
As far as tags, I have been applying as a non-resident in many states, since 1993. If points were money, I could fund even more TV production. Between myself and some other hunttalkers, we have enough points to get more than enough tags for the 13 episodes needed each year.
Gotta run. Thanks again. All comments are appreciated.
Most of the hunting guests on the show will be hunttalkers. Yup, for the upcoming year, if you aren't a hunttalker, don't expect to be in the show.
That adds a lot of challenge. Let's face it, hunttalkers are hunters, not actors. Most shows are done with professional hosts. Don't want that in our show. But, there are certain production procedures that get better with practice. Having new guys on every hunt makes it really difficult on the production crew, as they are always giving lessons and pointers about how the hunters must do things to make better TV. So, even though the editors require a checklist of re-enacted scenes, we hardly use any of them, as our guys are way better "in the moment" than they are when asked to re-enact. And, by having two cameras, we can have one on the hunters and one on the game, and catch it all "real time."
Hunttalkers are hardcore hunters, and aren't real excited about being bogged down with doing scenic shots, being asked to climb the ridge a second time, as the first time didn't have good lighting, having a tangled mess of mic cables around their chest, being asked to stop and do two hours of interviews, having to wait as camera guys lug these big loads of equipment as they try their best to keep up, and many other things where TV production gets in the way of hunting. Yet, we are first and foremost trying to tell a story, so we do these things, even though we know it makes the very difficult task of non-guided accessible land hunting that much more of a challenge. As if it wasn't challenging enough.
Most non-professional hunters don't want to be told to hold their shot until the focus is correct and the light conditions are better. They don't like being told to quit a half hour early, as filming light usually expires about a half hour before official end of legal shooting hours.
It is for many of these reasons that most shows have paid professional hunters, hunting in controlled environments, where the animals are less spooky, there is no competition from other hunters, and the conditions under which the videographers must operate are far easier. Those environments and conditions makes it easier to get the footage quality we are shooting for, and can be done at less cost. We have decided to fight these conditions and incur these costs to obtain the footage at the highest possible HD quality, in spite of the obstacles presented by our mission to capture non-guided hunting in the wild.
We don't want a show like many of the others. Therefore, we pass on lots of opportunities due to light conditions, we incur far more costs due to extra days afield and having an additional camera man, and it is much more work. Having been a guest hunter on four shows prior to starting this one, and having filmed my own stuff for three years, I can tell you we are going so far beyond what most shows will do, that it is hard to even make a comparison.
I know I am biased due to my involvement in the show and my passion for On Your Own hunting. Without this commitment to the non-guided hunting idea, I would have given up a long time ago and saved myself many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As far as concerns of those who say I am profiting off a public resource, or off wildlife, I will let you continue to think that. Though it will be a long time before this endeavor becomes profitable. I pay more in filming permits than most could imagine. I think paying for those permits, which is more than most other large scale commercial users of public lands will pay, is a fair fee for what "profit" I am supposedly making off these resources.
I do get frustrated when I see other shows filmed in wilderness areas. I know they are not seeking permits. I know this, as filming permits cannot be acquired for wilderness areas. So, not only are they skipping out on the fees for use of your public lands, they are filming hunts that those of us following the rules will not film, due to our commitment to following permit requirements.
I have seen two TV sheep hunts this winter, both filmed in wilderness areas, and two TV elk hunts filmed in wilderness areas. It is getting to the point where I hope people start reporting this to agencies, as these folks are doing something illegal, and not paying the user fees. In my mind, it is not too much different than hunting without a license.
Just another issue I confront while trying to follow the rules, while some competitors cut corners. We had to drop two really cool wilderness hunts from the 2008 filming schedule due to wilderness issues.
As far as tags, I have been applying as a non-resident in many states, since 1993. If points were money, I could fund even more TV production. Between myself and some other hunttalkers, we have enough points to get more than enough tags for the 13 episodes needed each year.
Gotta run. Thanks again. All comments are appreciated.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Big Fin, If it helps any with what you consider in a Hunttalker, I played one of the 3 Gentlemen in "A Christmas Carol" when I was in the 5th Grade! John
EXCELLENT!!
That was a great lead into a new show. If you can maintain that quality on DIY hunts I would think you can't miss with this one.
I am a DIY hunter from day one and this show looks to be fantastic!
I always joke while I'm watching some of the shows on the Outdoor Channel and some "hunter", who is really just a shooter,(no names here we all know who they are) take "the biggest buck I ever shot!". What a load of crap. Some rancher who feeds his deer out of the back of his pickup sets the guy up on the chute the deer needs to take to get from the pickup to water or the other way around.
Of course, after he shoots the buck he claims that if it wasn't for his XYZ Scope or the BFD camo or his ABC scent, he would never have been successful. If the sponsors hadn't paid the rancher for the trip the rancher wouldn't have had the $$ to feed the buck the "Wonder Oats" sold by Big Buck Inc. that made his rack grow so out-of-proportion.
There are only a couple of hunting shows that I enjoy watching. I know some of you pick on Eastman's but that and a couple of others are mostly DIY and show something of what it takes. But FIN, what I just saw of your show surpasses any of the others by leaps and bounds.
There is nothing wrong with hunting on a guy's ranch or farm and shooting a nice animal. But when it's a hunting for profit operation don't tell me that's a fair chase animal. That's just like going out and shooting some guy's Hereford bull and saying that you "stalked him for an hour before I could get a shot". Give me a break!
Good luck with this show, I know I'll watch it everytime it's on. :hump:
That was a great lead into a new show. If you can maintain that quality on DIY hunts I would think you can't miss with this one.
I am a DIY hunter from day one and this show looks to be fantastic!
I always joke while I'm watching some of the shows on the Outdoor Channel and some "hunter", who is really just a shooter,(no names here we all know who they are) take "the biggest buck I ever shot!". What a load of crap. Some rancher who feeds his deer out of the back of his pickup sets the guy up on the chute the deer needs to take to get from the pickup to water or the other way around.
Of course, after he shoots the buck he claims that if it wasn't for his XYZ Scope or the BFD camo or his ABC scent, he would never have been successful. If the sponsors hadn't paid the rancher for the trip the rancher wouldn't have had the $$ to feed the buck the "Wonder Oats" sold by Big Buck Inc. that made his rack grow so out-of-proportion.
There are only a couple of hunting shows that I enjoy watching. I know some of you pick on Eastman's but that and a couple of others are mostly DIY and show something of what it takes. But FIN, what I just saw of your show surpasses any of the others by leaps and bounds.
There is nothing wrong with hunting on a guy's ranch or farm and shooting a nice animal. But when it's a hunting for profit operation don't tell me that's a fair chase animal. That's just like going out and shooting some guy's Hereford bull and saying that you "stalked him for an hour before I could get a shot". Give me a break!
Good luck with this show, I know I'll watch it everytime it's on. :hump:
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
First of all, the footage looked great, but I have a bit of a problem with this statement and have to throw out the "Bullshit Flag". Now you are splitting hairs as far as how much profit you are making, or should I say how little of a profit that you are making, and this makes it right. Maybe you should all get your heads out of the sand, or wherever they are stuck, and come to the realizaation that the so called "Welfare ranchers" are not getting rich off of public land like you would like to think. Don't outfitters have to pay for usage on public ground as well? This attitude is typical for this site, profiting off of public ground is wrong unless it is you gaining the profit. Unless you are just so concerned about getting your face on T.V. that you don't care about making a profit, then that is fine, but I don't think that that is the case. You surely intend on profiting in some
way, shape or form or you wouldn't have stuck your neck out like that.
Like I said, great footage and good luck, but I am not totally buying the non-profit B.S.
Shooter: Not sure where you got that, but what ever you want to think. My point is that I am paying more for the minimal impact that me and two camera guys have on the land, than many other users of land. Whether I lose money or make millions, my point was that I think it was a fair fee. Why should the fee be determined by the profit or loss of the enterprise? In my mind, it shouldn't. The fee should be determined by the impact on the land/resources and the value of comparative private resources.
We have had this discussion before. I have never used the term welfare ranchers. Since you brought it back up, I will comments on what you have stated. A filming permit for one of my thirteen episodes, is the same fee that a rancher will pay for 300 pairs on the same ground for three months. Just my opinion, but from any impact on the resource standpoint, it seems that my five day filming permit is way overpriced, or the grazing fee paid for the cattle on public land is way underpriced.
I have never said that ranchers were getting rich off public land. It is about paying the cost of impacts imposed or a fee that reflects the same cost they would pay for equivalent private resources. I couldn't care less if ranchers, loggers, miners, videographers, or who ever, makes millions off public resources, so long as they pay the value of the public resource they are using or impacting. In fact, I wish they were all making millions.
Yup, and on BLM, they pay the same fee I pay for a five day filming permit, for the a full season of outfitting.
I don't find that to be typical for this site. I don't hear people complaining about folks making a profit of public ground. What I hear is people pointing out that many users of public ground don't pay for the impacts they have on public ground. And often these users complain that if they had to pay "full boat" for the costs they impose on public resources, they would not make a profit. I, and many others, call the transferring of costs, a subsidy.
Having had long debates on that topic in the past, I know I will not change your mind on it. To me, there is nothing contradictory about having a distaste for public subsidy while supporting activities that pay for their impacts and still make a profit on public ground.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I am willing to pay the fee, as I see it as fair. If you want to make that into an issue of unfairly profiting off public ground, go ahead.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
I am a CPA. I don't plan on things being a non-profit activity. Given the difficulty of making money in this business, I certainly don't plan on getting rich, either. And, I don't expect the world to subsidize my activities, because there are low profit margins in my chosen pursuit, and therefore ask the public to pay for costs I impose on public resources. Like I have said, it is a fair fee and I will pay it.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Is it $1.37 aum this year?
bobbydean
Well-known member
Some great footage! I'll be watching when it hits the tube.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Federal Grazing Fee
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I guess the explanation that you aren't allowed to film in Wilderness areas will exclude any shows on backpack hunting trips. I learned something new today. Thanks Fin.
shooter, comparing a film crew's impact compared to 300 cattle on the range for 3 months is ridiculous don't you think. Old thinking, gets old. I'd rather kick all the cattle off and raise wildlife so Randy could make more films. Less impact on the land, and all of us could enjoy his results. (I don't eat beef so don't get going on that).
shooter, comparing a film crew's impact compared to 300 cattle on the range for 3 months is ridiculous don't you think. Old thinking, gets old. I'd rather kick all the cattle off and raise wildlife so Randy could make more films. Less impact on the land, and all of us could enjoy his results. (I don't eat beef so don't get going on that).
I apologize in advance for continuing the hijacking of this thread, but here's some information on the subsidy Big Fin was talking about:
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
Dear "Big Kahuna" (A.K.A. Big Fin);
There has been many discussions on this site, and yes there has been times that you have been involved (believe it or not), about how ranchers and outfitters shouldn 't be able to profit off of publicly owned game animals as well as publicly owned ground yada, yada, yada...... But now that you are doing it, it's O.K.? I am all for you making a profit and good luck with it, but you need to quit being such a damn hypocrite, come on, you are better than that. Your peanut gallery has damn sure voiced their opinions in the past about it as well, I didn't just dream this up.
People are getting sick and tired of hearing the resident hunters of Montana piss and moan about being treated so unfair and it's getting really, really old. You might want to check your statistics on how much outfitters have to pay to use BLM too, if I remember correctly I was told by a reliable source that it is a little more than that. I will say this, the filming permit seems to be awfully high too for as little impact as you have on the BLM owned ground, honestly. Maybe you and Greenhorn should start writing letters to your legislatures and congressman on that subject too since you like to bother them all of the time on hunter/outfitter/landowner issues.
There has been many discussions on this site, and yes there has been times that you have been involved (believe it or not), about how ranchers and outfitters shouldn 't be able to profit off of publicly owned game animals as well as publicly owned ground yada, yada, yada...... But now that you are doing it, it's O.K.? I am all for you making a profit and good luck with it, but you need to quit being such a damn hypocrite, come on, you are better than that. Your peanut gallery has damn sure voiced their opinions in the past about it as well, I didn't just dream this up.
People are getting sick and tired of hearing the resident hunters of Montana piss and moan about being treated so unfair and it's getting really, really old. You might want to check your statistics on how much outfitters have to pay to use BLM too, if I remember correctly I was told by a reliable source that it is a little more than that. I will say this, the filming permit seems to be awfully high too for as little impact as you have on the BLM owned ground, honestly. Maybe you and Greenhorn should start writing letters to your legislatures and congressman on that subject too since you like to bother them all of the time on hunter/outfitter/landowner issues.
Shooter:
I would challenge you to cite one instance where I complained about someone making a profit on a public resource. If so, post it here. Don't post some small piece that you will take out of context.
You might find where I criticize those policies whereby a user of a public resource does not pay their fair share, or they receive/are allocated assets to the detriment of others. But, you will never find me criticizing any one who makes a profit in a manner where they pay full share, whether from a public or private resource.
Every piece you will read that I wrote regarding the outfitter issues is the subsidy issue. I couldn't give two hoots if they all became billionaires, if they did so without the subsidy of guaranteed tags. That is the issue I continue to discuss about outfitting in MT. I wish for two things. 1) We get rid of the subsidy of guaranteed tags, and 2) the remaining outfitters who can survive without that subsidy all have thriving businesses.
As far as ranching on public ground, I feel the same way. If they build Berkshire Hathaway-like empires from ranching, I will be glad for them. I just want those who graze on public land to pay the going rate and pay for the impacts they place on the land. If they can pay those rates and make a profit all the better.
This subsidy does two things. 1) It results in impacts on public land that are not compensated for, and 2) It artificially lowers the price of grazing pasture for my clients who own pasture near National Forest. Why would somone pay going rate pasture for my client's private ground, when they can get subsidized pasture from the USDA?
Seems like every person I have these debates with, including you, never want to talk about subsidy. You want to change the argument from what the real topic is - receiving benefit without paying the fair share. I know the word subsidy is a dirty word to those who like to create this mythical image of self-reliance and independence, but what outfitters and public land grazers receive is a subsidy. Call it whatever else you want, but it is a subsidy.
And if you search more threads, you will see where I am embarrassed about the fees MT resident hunters pay. We are getting a subsidy, no doubt about it. We are asking non-residents to pay way too much. When I go to the legislature and ask that those fees be raised, every legislator and governor calls it a tax and the idea is dead before it arrives. But, I am not afraid to call it what it is - a subsidy.
I have no problem if I, or any other user of public lands, makes a profit, so long as we are paying for our impacts and paying the same as we would pay for private resources. No change in my position, just because I have been paying thousands of dollars for filming permits.
I think the cost of filming permits are fair, so I won't be writing my legislators about it. I do wish they would let me film in a wilderness area, and I do call/write them about that.
JoseCuervo
New member
I think you forgot the "flag", and just threw bullshit....
If your local Welfare Rancher isn't "getting rich" off of My Public Lands, then why don't you ask him to give up his grazing leases and just rely on using private, deeded land to "get rich"?
My guess is you would see the typical Welfare Rancher whining and crying like every other time. Luckily, Judge Winmill, last week, has decided that Welfare Ranching needs another good look as to the damage that cattle due to our hunting opportunities.
