In order, ending whenever I get bored.
1)Area was not taken over by war vets. Hunts had been very recently held there, and more were planned. My PH voiced the opinion that that is where he wished we were.Although it isn't relevent the Lacey Act does not apply to Canadians.Whatever the reason for the change was, it was not the above.The area we were in may have been all that was available but not for these reasons.
2)No fire. The outfit had experienced a fire in another area/camp that I had hunted last year and told me about it. Since fires seemed to be worth mentioning, they wouldn't have forgotten about one in the hunting area.
3) No drought, quite the opposite in fact. Cover was a bit thicker than average for that time of year.
4)Nope, no game department closure. One of the discussed areas was never opened in the first place, but that was known far in advance of the hunt to the outfitter.
5)Money..BINGO!! The root of all evil. Schultz had two money disputes that we know about. One stopped a member from hunting the area that he moved to hunt. Another had us moving camps at night.Things have gone down-hill badly when the clients are being told about the owner's money disputes or woes.For the record, the clients held up their end, moneywise.
