By Antony Sguazzin
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Leigh Fletcher gazes down a line of fenced, dirt enclosures where she rears 200 lions for American and Russian hunters willing to pay $35,000 to shoot them.
``You are just supplying demand,'' says Fletcher, 31, as a black-maned lion tears apart a donkey carcass. ``It's no different from a cattle-feeding and slaughtering lot.''
South African breeding operations like Fletcher's provided more than 300 lions for trophy hunters to stalk and kill last year, and are part of an industry that brought 1 billion rand ($146 million) into the economy. The farms have also sparked outrage from animal rights groups who say they permit ``canned hunting,'' where marksmen kill lions in small enclosures with no chance to escape.
Starting Feb. 1, South Africa will require that lions roam free for two years before they are hunted. Breeders say the rules will destroy the industry and force them to slaughter many of the 5,000 captive-bred cats. Game farms can't afford to have the lions hunting their other animals for such a long period, and there isn't enough room for them in the wild.
``The moment we can't hunt them they'll have no value,'' says Wouter Pienaar, owner of Bloemfontein-based Shot Productions Ltd., which films hunts for tourists. The farmers ``are just going to start killing them.''
Advocates of the new law say it will let lions adapt to the wild before they are killed, allowing for a fair chase.
``We are putting an end, once and for all, to the reprehensible practice of canned hunting,'' Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa's environment minister, said in a February statement. ``We will not allow our achievements to be undermined by unethical and rogue practices.''

Thatch-Roofed Chalets

The lion-breeding industry, pioneered by Fletcher's father in the 1980s, offers a modern version of what big game hunters experienced in the early 20th century.
Fletcher's Sandhurst Safaris covers 270,000 acres near the Botswana border, an hour's drive from the closest tarred road, where visitors can hunt more than 30 types of animals.
Behind gates flanked by giant stone lions sit thatch-roofed chalets and a kitchen that caters to the dietary needs of guests, from low-fat for dieters to halal meals for Muslims.
In the game room, a hippo head hangs over the pool table, while a stuffed lion stands over a lioness and her gamboling cubs in the dining room. When a customer recently requested Zulu dancers, Fletcher arranged for a troupe to drive seven hours to entertain her guests at the lodge.

`King of the Bush'

Hunters pay to shoot captive-bred cats because of a scarcity of wild lions. About 2,700 free-roaming lions are left in South
Africa, says Dewald Keet, chief state veterinarian for Kruger National Park, the country's biggest wildlife area. Outside of
national parks, there are only enough for hunters to be able to shoot 10 to 15 a year.
While hunters also covet the African buffalo, leopard, rhino and elephant, the lion is still ``the king of the bush,'' says
Apie Reyneke, 51, owner of AA Serapa Safaris, a hunting lodge in North West Province. ``Everyone wants to shoot a lion.''
Visitors at Serapa pay $700 each day to stay at the lodge and hunt the most dangerous species, on top of fees for each animal killed. A French couple spent $70,000 in one week this year, says Reyneke, a former South African off-road driving champion.
``There's no place in the world that has the quality of lion we have in South Africa,'' Reyneke says, while sitting on a leather couch draped with a leopard pelt, his feet resting on a lion skin.

Tracking Lions

Mounted warthog heads and towel rails made from antelope horns flank the walls of the guestrooms. Outside, ostriches surround a waterhole. Reyneke's young son, Adolph, plays with a Jack Russell terrier named Lion.
Serapa boasts 46,000 acres of savannah and a Cessna 210 aircraft to ferry clients from Johannesburg.
During a typical hunt, the customer is driven through the grounds in a Land Rover, accompanied by trackers and two professional hunters. A photographer or cameraman hired by the client may also join them. The team searches for lion tracks and then follows the cat's spoor through the bush on foot.
If the client shoots and misses, one of the professional hunters must kill the lion, which can weigh more than 400 pounds, before it attacks the group. Reyneke says he had to shoot a cat just 20 meters (66 feet) from a customer this year.
A third of the 1,000 cats hunted annually are shot in South Africa, making it the second-biggest lion-hunting destination after Tanzania.

`Bang for Your Buck'

The quality of lions has deteriorated elsewhere because hunters prefer killing large males with black manes, leaving inferior cats to perpetuate the species, Reyneke says.
``South Africa continues to be the best bang for your buck,'' says Gibson Lewis, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, who recently hunted at Reyneke's farm. ``The cat I just got was a lot better, bigger and older'' than those he's shot elsewhere.
Lack of regulation has led to abuses that sullied the industry's reputation, says Rodney Kretzschmar, owner of Trans African Taxidermists near Johannesburg, where he stuffs as many as 30 lions a year for as much as $5,000 each.
``It has been a free-for-all,'' Kretzschmar says. ``I was one of the first people who mentioned we were in for trouble.''
The South African Predator Breeders Association has filed a lawsuit to block the new rules, saying they are so strict they
threaten the livelihood of farmers who have invested in land and lion pens. If that happens, many of the 6,000 people employed in the industry will lose their jobs, the breeders say.

BBC Program

The association is willing to compromise, proposing that lions be allowed to roam free for a month before they are hunted and that hand-rearing of cubs be banned to prevent cats from becoming too docile around people. Farms should also be a minimum of 2,000 hectares (4,942 acres) to give lions room to roam, the
group says. The government hasn't given any guidelines on acreage.
The proposals come 10 years after a British Broadcasting Corp. documentary showed a lioness being shot in a small enclosure in front of her cubs, leading to international criticism.
``The industry should never have been allowed to develop,'' says Christina Pretorius, a Cape Town-based spokeswoman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

`Born Free'

Will Travers, director of the Sussex, England-based Born Free Foundation, says the government should create a fund to compensate farmers for the lions' care.
``The wider international community would be incensed'' if breeders slaughter their lions, says Travers, whose group is named after the 1966 film ``Born Free,'' which starred his parents and told the story of a lion called Elsa that was returned to the wild. ``The government should decide how to bring the industry to an end in as humane a way as possible.''
For now, lion breeders like Fletcher await the outcome of the court case, the first hearing for which is scheduled for this
month.
``Every animal is destined to die and it doesn't have a bad life here,'' she says. ``They'd rather be here than in a zoo cage with a concrete floor eating chicken. I hope we can come to a compromise.''

Sad.

Reminds me of canned deer hunting in Texas and canned elk hunting in many other places.

I see no difference between this practice and the "farming" of 200" whitetails. The excuse that "it is what the market will bear or that it is what people want" is lame and does not stand up to ethical or moral scrutiny.

Sport hunting, by definition, is fair chase and fair methods where the animal has the advantage of natural instincts and survival instincts and where man (hunter) must make the effort to counter those instincts by using "fair and ethical" means to take the life of or capture the prey. Breeding in pens - whether lions, pheasants, deer or whatever - denegrates the activity to that of deviant people who exploit and relish the pain and death of the event when the "cards are stacked in his favor".

We recently had a poster on AR that bragged that he and his companions were able to take 6 lions in a two day time period in the RSA (3 lionesses and 3 males). Experienced people know what happened - it was a ritualized killing of pen raised lions masquerading as a "hunt". It was absolutely not a hunt.

I can see no societal or personal benefit to this practice and would urge every conservation organization and hunter to protest this abortion of killing for blood lust.

PS - I assume you see that this strikes a chord with me...

Although the ranch hunted lions in South Africa and Namibia took tremendous pressure off of the wild lions, the misinformation and the bitching will never ever stop. Quite frankly the price of hunting lions is not high enough. Let them destroy the ranch lion hunting in South Africa. Most african hunters don't want to, or can't afford to hunt lion anyway, and if they do, then let them pay over $140K for the privilege to try and shoot a wild lion without fences somewhere in Botswana, Tanzania or elsewhere. As to those remaining ranch lions, euthanize them and be done with it, since they will have no value and cannot be released into the wild. I say do the same thing with white rhino or bontebok or any of the other ranch raised trophies, with all of the goofy rules that South Africa is proposing. Rhino are already up to $3840 an inch from just over $1000 inch a year ago. Moreover, it doesn't matter if it's 270 acres or 270,000 acres the arguments will still be the same from the anti's, the greenies and those who support their flawed agenda. Hunting is under attack and will be until they see to it that it is all stopped, be it canned, fair chase or a combination of the two. "Canned" lion hunting is just the beginning of their efforts to destroy all ranch hunting and ultimately all hunting period.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
Although the ranch hunted lions in South Africa and Namibia took tremendous pressure off of the wild lions, the misinformation and the bitching will never ever stop. Quite frankly the price of hunting lions is not high enough. Let them destroy the ranch lion hunting in South Africa. Most african hunters don't want to, or can't afford to hunt lion anyway, and if they do, then let them pay over $140K for the privilege to try and shoot a wild lion without fences somewhere in Botswana, Tanzania or elsewhere. As to those remaining ranch lions, euthanize them and be done with it, since they will have no value and cannot be released into the wild. I say do the same thing with white rhino or bontebok or any of the other ranch raised trophies, with all of the goofy rules that South Africa is proposing. Rhino are already up to $3840 an inch from just over $1000 inch a year ago. Moreover, it doesn't matter if it's 270 acres or 270,000 acres the arguments will still be the same from the anti's, the greenies and those who support their flawed agenda. Hunting is under attack and will be until they see to it that it is all stopped, be it canned, fair chase or a combination of the two. "Canned" lion hunting is just the beginning of their efforts to destroy all ranch hunting and ultimately all hunting period.

What he said, and to those who help them get rid of ranch hunting, will be an aly in their efforts to get rid of all hunting by all methods! Ranch hunting is simply the door to the whole thing, and some idiot, all mouth, hunters are helping them find the key to the door!

If you don't want to hunt high fence, then don't, but for God sake don't help them by browdcasting simpathy for their cause, by cussing other, in a public forum, who do!

Gentlemen, if you think the antis are not lurking these hunting forums, you are sadly mistaken, and your words will be taken out of context, and posted on their own sites, as a
"SEE EVEN HUNTERS THINK HIGH FENCE IS CANNED!"

.............

MacD37: Thank you for hopefully seeing my point, although caustic at times in my post, regarding lion hunting and those that just think that it's an easy fix by stopping or destroying any ranch hunting for any species, and somehow benefitting the species or hunting by so doing. We do nothing but play into the hands of the opposition by demanding that others not be able to hunt "canned" lions or anything else for that matter. Saeed said it best some time ago when he said that it might not be his cup of tea, but others should be allowed to do so if they desired. If so, you're a man of great wisdom.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
Although the ranch hunted lions in South Africa and Namibia took tremendous pressure off of the wild lions, the misinformation and the bitching will never ever stop. Quite frankly the price of hunting lions is not high enough. Let them destroy the ranch lion hunting in South Africa. Most african hunters don't want to, or can't afford to hunt lion anyway, and if they do, then let them pay over $140K for the privilege to try and shoot a wild lion without fences somewhere in Botswana, Tanzania or elsewhere. As to those remaining ranch lions, euthanize them and be done with it, since they will have no value and cannot be released into the wild. I say do the same thing with white rhino or bontebok or any of the other ranch raised trophies, with all of the goofy rules that South Africa is proposing. Rhino are already up to $3840 an inch from just over $1000 inch a year ago. Moreover, it doesn't matter if it's 270 acres or 270,000 acres the arguments will still be the same from the anti's, the greenies and those who support their flawed agenda. Hunting is under attack and will be until they see to it that it is all stopped, be it canned, fair chase or a combination of the two. "Canned" lion hunting is just the beginning of their efforts to destroy all ranch hunting and ultimately all hunting period.

What he said, and to those who help them get rid of ranch hunting, will be an aly in their efforts to get rid of all hunting by all methods! Ranch hunting is simply the door to the whole thing, and some idiot, all mouth, hunters are helping them find the key to the door!

If you don't want to hunt high fence, then don't, but for God sake don't help them by browdcasting simpathy for their cause, by cussing other, in a public forum, who do!

Gentlemen, if you think the antis are not lurking these hunting forums, you are sadly mistaken, and your words will be taken out of context, and posted on their own sites, as a
"SEE EVEN HUNTERS THINK HIGH FENCE IS CANNED!"

.............

Guys,

Make no mistake there are people out there actively trying to close down hunting completely. Anytime we take the attitude that another hunter does not have the right to pursue any type of legal hunting we are playing into the hands of the these anti-hunting fanatics.

Personally I have no desire to hunt a lion that was released into an enclosure for me to shoot even 2 years previous to the hunt. I also do not hold anything against folks that want to do this.

I don't think that taking some sort of moral high road on this issue is beneficial to hunting in the long run no matter what your definition of hunitng is.

Mark

Gentlemen,
I respect your opinions on this and accept that we disagree. I cannot accept that stopping the abhorant, unethical and immoral practice of shooting lions or whatever that has been raised in a pen, then released to be shot. That is not hunting and should not be discussed in the same breath as hunting. It is blood sport, pure and simple done to satisfy an ego.

Example - I work with three guys who like to hunt. They recently returned from an elk farm in Nebraska where they each shot a 380" + elk. I asked them about the place. They said that the 2500 acres they "hunted" on contained 124 elk that were 300" or better. They were driven around until they saw one they liked, they got out of the truck and shot the elk. They thought they had killed "record book" elk and have been talking about it daily. They further told me that the "elk ranch" had a 400" elk in a pen being held for another hunter later that next day. The operators did not want to turn the elk out into the pasture until the "hunter" arrived for fear of it getting hurt by one of the other 124 pen raised bulls.

This is disgusting and not hunting. For hunters to call it sport or hunting is wrong. If that is what hunting reverts to in the future, we deserve to have the privilige taken away from us as cannot make the right decision and police ourselves.

If this stirs the pot, so be it.

quote:

kill lions in small enclosures with no chance to escape.

I've been based thinking this over . . . For lunch today I had a hamburger. The beef came from a steer, which was killed (not "harvested" . . . not "taken" . . . not "hunted" . . . just plain "killed") after it was herded into a "small enclosure with no chance to escape".

If I'm going to talk bad about someone shooting a lion in South Africa, then I must quit eating beef . . . or, for that matter, chicken . . . er . . . pork, too! I certainly don't want to be considered a hypocrite!

Shooting the lions is absolutely not "hunting" - but I fail to understand why it is such a horrible practice when compared to a slaughterhouse.

I wouldn't want to do it, but I don't condemn those that do.

Good day!

JDS

really valuable datas.
It's the honor of the hunting community to have all of the offers being publicly aired. The worst as much as the good.
Here is displayed the worst, and I thank UKhunter who is not hiding the it under the carpet. The fact that the anti-hunting gangs could be aware of it is n't bad, that prove that we are consistant with our opinion and aren't cheating as they usually do.
The more we speak of, the less fat cats so called hunters will dare to expose themselves.
I remember what JACO HUMAN told me about these canned hunts : it's only supply and demand . Rules will be bent by scrupuleless rich people. It's our duty and honor to unceasingly expose and condemn them.

Since I "raised" the subject with the article perhaps I should put in my 2cents worth (an accurate valuation!).

One thing to bear in mind is that the article was taken from Bloomberg's wire service. It has been distributed all around the world and will have undoubtably been picked up by newpapers, magazines, radio and tv in many and various places. Stories like this deserve our attention.

Personnaly I wouldn't want to partake in canned hunting. But what is the line between canned and not canned?
I've only hunted PG twice in Africa, both in SA, so my experience pales beside many here. Both places were high fence ranches. Both were plenty big enough (thousands of acres) for the game to be difficult to find, and difficult to stalk. Success was not guaranteed just because there was a fence.
Was that canned PG hunting? By some people definitions yes, by some (including me) no.

If you legislated the game ranches out of existance by declaring a fence=canned then the loss of animals would be enormous. I really do feel that would be a tragedy.

So to Lions....as the article says, the existence of canned hunting has reduced the hunting pressure on wild lions. This I feel is a good result, even if it is a by-product rather than a primary concern. By all means make legal hunting very very expensive, that should have the same effect, it might make for more poaching though. I'm all in favour of hunting, and I really do get it as a tool for conservation. However there is a point at which I become uncomfortable...and if (IF) there really are few fully matured, black maned lions left in the wild because of hunting, then that is not a good thing.

I really fear for the long term future of Lions; the emergence of mega wealth in China etc, combined with their animalistic based medical superstitions will mean the extinction of Tigers within 20 years, that I am convinced of. What a terrible loss to the world. Lions will then take the pressure and will eventually follow.

Perhaps the future of the wild populations in fact DEPENDS on canned Lions (and Rhino) being available to take this pressure. We may find it offends our personal fair-chase morals, but I do think we may have to see the neccessity for farmed lions and Rhino.

Whatever the result, I shan't be taking a canned lion myself.

I have hunted both free ranging animals and behind high fences in S. Africa. If you want certain species, you will not have any other choice but to hunt behind high fences. Some hunting because of the topography it is truly a hunt. In other cases it is noting more then a shoot. Hunting Val Rebock, steinbok, Mt. Reed buck, klipspringer are definitely free range hunting. In some cases, Kudu, common reedbuck and bushbuck are free range hunts. Nyala hunting in the Natal is almost like a free range hunt and you are not always guanteed the animal you want, neither is bushpig, warthog. Red duiker, Suni, Blue duiker are usually behind game fences and they are defintely for the most part a free range hunt. Bontebok, because of restrictions are not a free range hunt and are behind high fences and where I hunted are on 2 couple thousand hectars. Did I call it hunt, no, but it is the only way I was able to aquire one. To me it was more of shoot even tho I said hunt. Would I like to take a lion you bet I would but no way would I take a lion out of small fenced enclosure. I would like spend time tracking, working my butt off for it, and I would not expect it to be a guanteed either. If could be on several thousand hectars and was free ranging for several months I might consider it. To each his own, but in any case we need to be careul in this world today. Hunting is previlege and can be taken away anytime. I have hunted most of my life. My most memorable hunts have been in the wilds of Northern British Columbia for Grizzley Bear to hunting on foot for Tahr in New Zealand. Cape Buffalo hunting in Zimbabwe many years ago was an adrenline rush. I cannot think of hunt I did not enjoy from hunting caracal and jackel at night to hunting elk in New Mexico.

So let's not bash each other and support each other in their hunting. Before I retired, I was in Wildlife Mangagement for 34 years. I have seen vast changes over the years and we as hunters are own worst enemies.(sp)

What a thorny topic! As I see it everybody is right. In other words I think the positions on both sides of the argument have justification. My conclusion is that regulation is the answer. I suggest allowing lion production as long as hunting is taking place under acceptable, internationally pre-approved conditions. This sounds like a fertile field for an organization similar to CITES if such an organization cares to tackle it.

As we can all see, money drives this engine now, and will drive it all the more so in the future. Money is not going away, so the problem is not going to go away. At this time lion hunting is already the province of the rich. Eventually foreign hunting in general will be for the rich. At this early stage we do not yet have an elephant production industry or buffalo production or leopard production as such, just well-managed herds. However you can bet that in the future as available hunting land shrinks, these are the new industries which will provoke these same questions to confront our children.

If we can rationalize anything, and if we agree to anything, then we really stand for nothing, and we play into the hands of the people who would like to ban hunting.

I don't support canned lion hunting under any condition; and the lame excuses in the first post are pathetic.

I think one reason hunting is becoming of less interest to the general public is because most of what was exciting has been lost as we turn it into a strictly commercial enterprise. It's become a put-n-take situation which is boring and doesn't take any challenge to be successful. I wouldn't pay $3.50 for cat-in-a-can.

The same "supply and demand" logic works for illegal drugs as well, but it does not make it right or morally acceptable. Just because someone has the money and the "want to" to do something morally and ethically despicable, does not make it right nor should anyone endeavor to "supply" the demand in that type of situation.

Supply and demand thinking implies that the activity is acceptable, legal, moral and ethical without market constraints or manipulation. If the supply/demand logic were acceptable, then, by default, I should be raising grizzley bears and tigers to release in my backyard for someone to shoot and sell the body parts - all in the name of "sport hunting" because some person has the money to engage in the activity.

The other logic that compares canned lions to raising cows/chickens or pigs raised for the sole purpose of consuming in an environment that is structured for that use is not acceptable either. Yes, death is the end result of each animal. However, in the slaughterhouse business, there is no disguise that we are "hunting" chickens/cows/pigs and claiming them as a "trophy". Canned lions or canned anything - animals raised solely to be released and shot - is not hunting nor is it a sport. It is blood lust based on ego for claiming an accomplishment that is not real. It is depraved and denegrates the sport as a whole. If we do not correct this, we deserve to lose the privilege to hunt.

I agree 100% with dogcat, captive bred anything is not hunting and the canned hunting incidents have done hunting in RSA more harm than anything. Ethical hunters must not keep quiet for the sake of hunting as a whole, in the long term this will do more damage. The fact that we are prepared to stand up and criticise fellow hunters and attempt to stamp out undesirable pratices will only help our cause and give us credibility. The only people that support these hunts are those that make a fortune out of them and the clients that have been conned into believing that they have infact "hunted" their lion. The ethical hunting of a mature lion in a wild area is probably one of Africa's most difficult hunts. I read many articles in hunting magazines written by clients who have taken lions in SA and for the majority i cannot belive that they are so proud of their "achievement". Lets do our best to stamp out this practice, even PHASA have been very outspoken about stopping canned lion hunting. There are a few fair chase lion hunts in SA every year but they are few and far between and with alimited number of reputable outfitters

quote:

Originally posted by UKhunter:

I really fear for the long term future of Lions; the emergence of mega wealth in China etc, combined with their animalistic based medical superstitions will mean the extinction of Tigers within 20 years, that I am convinced of. What a terrible loss to the world. Lions will then take the pressure and will eventually follow.

Whatever the result, I shan't be taking a canned lion myself.

UKhunter:

I agree with these two parts of your post 1000% and I have raised this issue in another thread. I don't think canned hunting is the problem. I think it is the symtom. World population is exploding. I have been told that by 2050 the world population will increase by 50% to nine billion people. We have descended on the planet like a plague of locusts and are consuming the world's resources like never before, especially in my own country. Our constant encroachment on the wild animals habitat will signal the end for the lion and tigers. It is so sad and I just don't see any end to the madness that is causing us to breed all the world's wild animals into extinction.

Dave

Guys, one more thought on this topic.

In the golden age of African hunting at the beginning of the last century, the price of sport hunting was determined by the difficulty of the endeavor, not the scarcity of the quarry. Now, it ia exactly the opposite. When that changed, the end of sport hunting as we know it became a reality.

Dave

Gentlemen, I too have no sympathy for a CANNED hunt for anything. The fence is not what makes a CANNED HUNT, CANNED!

Everyone who talks about this, seems only guided by the existence of a fence, or not to make a hunt, or a shoot! That is too simplistic, and if you will think about it you will know what I say is true!

Let me say right here, that I've only shot one animal, in my life behind high fence, and meat Eland. This was for two reasons, one to blood a new to me double rifle, and the other to obtain 300 lbs of very good meat for the freezer, that I was unable to bring back from an Africa killed Eland! However, I hunted this eland, on foot, with an iron sighted double rifle, and I don't, for one minute think he was a canned animal, because he gave me a real run for my money! At 65 yrs old, I was worn to a frazzle befor I put him down with a running shot at 200 yds, as he broke from thick cover!

I can see some of the disdain for the High fence when it encloses wild deer, pronghorn, or Elk, but the exotics are private property, and are valuable to the owner. How long do you think he would have those exotics if they were on a cattle fenced ranch? However those, for instance, who bad mouth high fence, and then hunts WILD Prong horn in Wyoming, and Montana's sheep ranches, are doing exactly the same thing, because a Prong horn will not jump a fence. If he can't crawl under it, he is behind fence that is too high for him to travel.

I can take you to a place in Wyoming, near Casper, where there is a pile of pronghorn bones, of about 40 pronghorn, in the corner of a 4 ft sheep wire fence, where they bunched up against the fence, and froze during a blizzard. With a creek bottom grove of trees 100 yds on the other side of that fence, that would have given them cover from the wind!

Still the guy who just hunted his record book pronghorn, on that same ranch, will be heard bad mouthing someone who hunts any animal behind a high fence that is no more restrictive than the sheep fence to a WILD PRONGHORN! So if the fence holds him, then by the "fence means all" opinion, he has just hunted a canned pronghorn!

There are many things that are needed to make a hunt a CANNED SHOOT, and the fence alone is not it! It is a combination of things, with the existence of a fence being only one.

SIZE of a property is also a factor, but not as simple as the objector would have you believe. So now it is the size, in combination with the fence, you say, that makes it CANNED! That is not true either. Because the size of a place behind fence, is measured only by it's outside borders, with no regard to the topography of the land within!

So now the dissenter claims, because the animal cannot leave the fenced area, it is CANNED, and the size makes it CANNED! This is just repeating the two examples above!

Now, let’s look at the topography of the land behind the fence, in say a 10,000 acre property! The measurment of the borders state that it is exactly 10,000 acres, but is it only 10,000 acres? Well it can be, but at the same time it may not be that small, depending on the topography.

If this land is flat, and perfectly square then it is, in fact, 10,000 acres. Does this make a hunt on this fenced land a canned hunt? Absolutely not! If this land holds species that have a natural range that is smaller than 10,000 acres, that takes away one of the variables.

Now you say, on a perfectly square 10,000 acre piece of land, and good shot, with a good flat shooting rifle, can hit any animal on that land from the center! That may be an exaggeration with all, but cretainly
most HUNTERS, because most hunters can’t keep all his shots on a 55 gal drum at anything over 300 yds, under hunting conditions. However, for sake of debate, lets say he can, that is, if he can see him. This brings into play, another condition that is needed to make a hunt CANNED!lack of COVER!

Now, we have 10,000 acres that is flat, perfectly square, and fenced, but it has woods! This means an animal has only to move to a spot where the cover is between him, and the hunter, to be out of sight. If he is out of sight, the hunter can’t shoot him, no matter the flat terrain, or the fence, or the size that is bigger than the distance between the hunter, and the animal, which is now out of sight! Additionally, all he has to do is keep moving to keep out of sight. Is he still canned?

Well, lets look further at the topography of this piece of land! We’ve established the fact that it is 10,000 acres, square, flat, with woods. You say well if you have one of those magic rifles that will shoot through brush, and you know where he stopped, you can shoot him through the brush. Yeh, right! A 470 NE solid would be lucky to find the intended target through even light brush! But let’s say you could shoot through the brush, and hit the animal. This brings up another feature of topography! Hills, gullies, and rock outcroppings. If he gets behind either of those, what bullet will you need to hit him then?

Well, you say, he has to go to water in this hilly, woodsy, fenced, perfectly square 10,000 acres. I say you are correct, if there is only one source of water, he has to come there at least every day, so you simply sit on the water source, and wait! He’s CANNED! What if the land has a creek, and a pond, and/or small springs on the hillsides, in several places? So now, we have a perfectly square 10,000 acres that has woods, hills, creeks, water holes, rock outcroppings, usable cover, and his habitat is as large as his natural range. Is he still CANNED?

Now you say well he has to come to a feeder! Well, he doesn’t if he has water, woods, grass, bedding places, to hide in, woods to give him cover, and escape routes, then he has natural food!

Now, lets say the perfectly square 10,000 acres with hills, creek bottoms, is somehow ironed out flat! Suddenly that 10,000 acres becomes 20,000 acres of land surface, with woods, water, food, escape routes, bedding/hiding places, but he is still fenced, is he still CANNED? NO! He is not, as long as he hasn’t been hand fed, and turned out in front of a gun, and either doped, or tame, and has been on the property long enough to know the land like his own favorite bedding area, he’s not! The fence is not going to make him canned, simply because of its existence, between him and the rest of the world,the shores of an Island do the same thing, but hunting on an island is not considered CANNED, except by PeTA heads. If the hunter hunts on his feet, it is fair chasse!

Making the property simply based on whether there is a fence or not,a canned hunting place, is the brain scan results of the skull of a PeTA head, and all other anti hunting zealots. Unfortunately, there are some really intelligent hunters who talk without thinking, and take a very complex thing too simply. The fact that a place is fenced doesn’t make a hunt canned, and all high fence ranches are individuals, and should be judged as such. Blanket judgments based on only one feature are flawed, and play into the very close-minded, anti hunting community's agenda! Like the news media, you are giving aid, and comfort to the enemy, by making these silly one size fits all judgments!

Agree or disagree, this is too important to just cloe your mind, and stick your head in the sand, and the words you post in a public forum are like bullets, once rung, the bell cannot be un-rung!

...Think Gentlemen, the words you post today,without thought, may be a bad meal when you have to eat them, down the line!