If a Game-ranch provides the client with some good outdoor time/fresh-air, views of wildlife and scenery, an opportunity to shoot his weapon, and the good chance of taking home meat and/or antlers--that's all something Good.

If the animals hunted have been well cared for and allowed to live to their maximum development, instead of being killed as youngsters for dining by yuppie gourmets in fancy restaurants, and have been killed cleanly by a practised shooter without the terror of the abbatoir, then that is all good, too.

Voters won't consider any of that, only that Bambi is being "murdered in a pen".

Too many freedoms are being eliminated by manipulated emotions of the voters who have no understanding of the situations.

What we feel about ourselves as "hunters" should not be Pride, but rather (and hopefully)a sense of having performed well in our accepted role/tasks.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Goldfinch:
"We're talking about something entirely different here with the high-fenced game farms.
Nice hyena by the way."


I've hunted both RSA and Zim plenty (fenced and unfenced) and there is absolutely nothing unfair about a big fenced piece of property. There are lots of game farms that are 10, 15, 20+ thousand acres of fenced property. If you're trying to convince people that hunting on 20k acres of fenced property isn't fair chase then you've been hunting the wrong plances...or not hunting them at all. Small put and take operations are a different story, but a big sustainable piece of property with over 10k acres...come on...get real.

But there is a difference: if the landowner sees a 45 inch sable or a 60 inch kudu, they are still there when you hunt, assuming no one else has shot them.

The answer to the question "why do we need fences?" exactly explains why so many find them distasteful.

I have held back on this topic until I had enough time to portray my thoughts.

I have noticed that similar debates come up on forums and common talk. They vary from aspect to aspect, will come up for a short period, get kicked around like a can, and disappear for a short period, only to be kicked around again.

Ethical to you is not ethical to me, and vise-versa. I think the idea needs to be that us hunters agree to disagree. Many want to shut down this or that style of hunting, often to suit themselves, guess what? They sound no different than PETA or the HSUS.

I have no bone to pick with hunting out of a pen, simply because its not my fancy. For business folks and those who may not have been acquaintance to hunting it seems like a great opportunity to start. Some pens may be fair, others may not.

I am not a big still hunter, used to live for it. I would rather stalk my game or tactfully chase it. Still hunting to me requires little skill in America, as the game is often baited and shot out of comfortable stands. I like to work for my quarry a bit more, as pleasure to me comes from hardships. The feeling of accomplishment is worth more than money. If that is your cup of tea, great! Life is short, averaging 25,000 days, so enjoy it!

Me personally I love hunting dogs. I enjoy breeding and raising dogs from puppies. It forms a bond almost like father and son. I start my puppies early and place alot of time in them. Hearing them work a track is worth more than harvesting an animal. Often I don't even carry a gun with me into the woods. I put on hunts generally for younger hunters and those who do not have the chance to hunt. Covering large blocks of land requires amazing strategies. Because the deer are ahead of the dogs, its a tough job to keep distance between you and the dogs. Alot of predictions, and gambles are taken to find the right place. Often I will try to find a larger track to attempt to run a buck, once it is established I am running a big buck, the hunt gets intense. I truly do believe my style of dog hunting is "fair chase/fair game." To me it is the last of the "fair chase" in North Carolina, as it requires work and strategy to overcome the odds and harvest a deer.

I tend to like Africa's style of track hunting the best of any method I have seen thus far. It appears to take great skill to harvest an animal in Africa. Probably what attracts me most to that style is how the PH's are like biologist and the massive quantities of information they contain.

Few will see it from my perspective, but if they ever hunted with me, they would leave with a different train of thought.

Posted by AnotherAZWriter: "But there is a difference: if the landowner sees a 45 inch sable or a 60 inch kudu, they are still there when you hunt, assuming no one else has shot them.

The answer to the question "why do we need fences?" exactly explains why so many find them distasteful."


The reason we "need" fences at all are not to "cage" animals, but to secure them from Humans. As many Zimbos will tell you, and have told me in the past...RSA does things RIGHT. I'm sure some may disagree, but for the most part, RSA's theme for conservation has worked. Zim's has not. Fenced property (privately owned ranches or conservancies usually) tend to be well maintained, somewhat protected from rampant poaching, and inspires land-owners/lessees to implement a conservation minded plan. Now take the unfenced concessions. Outfitters are often fighting a losing battle and many resign themselves to "getting what they can out of the property for the next 5 years." This inspires quotas that are too high, very little anti-poaching, and a less conservation minded politicians.

As for your specific comment...the last time I hunted Zim, I killed a sable that had been consistently seen in this one area that we found him. On the other hand, the last time we hunted in RSA we killed a 35" waterbuck that had never been seen, by us or the outfitter. I'm sure a 35" waterbuck wouldn't have gotten that old if someone could keep tabs on him.