Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I voted yes simply for species like addax and scimitar, Asian species like blackbuck, nilgai, etc that are not available in their native range.


Had it not been for Texas and a few other enterprising men, many of the endangered species in the world would have all but disappeared. I have no problem hunting the exotics, in fact I enjoy the off season practice and it took me 3 trips to get my fine Aoudad from Wendell's ranch. I passed on marginal billies and it paid off. I thoroughly enjoyed each hunt with him and others I've hunted with. I have seen operations that were not fair chase in any sense of the word and no, that's not something I would care to partake in. :-)

I have always had a dream of hunting the world's dangerous bovines. I was injured in 2006 to the extent that international travel would be very risky for me, for a variety of reasons. I have always been fascinated with Indian Gaur, simply majestic animals. However they are protected to a ridiculous extent due to such small populations existing. There is however a ranch in TX that has a Gaur hybrid, which is bred for hunting and conservation purposes. The price is ridiculously high, but it is unavailable in it's natural homeland. Many species have been saved from extinction by captive breeding programs. Which gives me a glimmer of hope when it comes to the future of exotic hunting. While not quite the same as a traditional safari, which has the adventure of foreign travel, it still gives opportunities for the challenged hunter that might not be available elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by nube:
On a small 10 000 acre area my vote it no. I do not consider this tobe a large area at all. I'm not a fan of any fenced hunts. I watch enough of that kind of stuff on t.v with the feeders and minerals and introduced gene pools. It is not for me.

Although I am not a fan I do see a need for it in places like the U.S in some areas. There is not enough public land around and I think it would appeal to a lot of people if the price was right.

IMO the cut and dried statement that to be a quality hunt the land behind fence needs to be X number of acres is a mistake! Without qualifying that statement with some description of the land involved, and the method of hunting that property!

What I mean by the statement above is, there are 10,000 acre places, and then there are other 10,000 acre places! Land area is measured by area measured by the length of all the sides of the boundaries. This is fine to define where property lines are for ownership of land, but tells you nothing about the actual surface area of the land inside those boundaries.

To make this simple for understanding my meaning lets use one section (640 acres, one square mile) of land that is perfectly square. With two separate sections. One section that is flat grass land with grass no more than 2 feet high, and the other section with creeks running through it, brush thickets and trees, rock over-hangs on the sides of hills.

On the first section is actually exactly 640 acres of surface area! On this place, no matter how you hunt with modern firearms, a large game animal has absolutely no chance of escape from the so-called HUNTER! From a position in the exact center of this property he can hit the animal with most bolt rifles made today! On the second section, however, the animal there can be out of sight very easily, by simply using the cover placed between him and the hunter, and moving to keep it that way. If he is out of sight he may as well be 100 miles away for all practical purposes.

Now lets look at how the hunter is hunting these two properties. IN the first example, as long as his rifle has long accurate range, it makes little difference whether he hunts from the top of a car, a ground blind, or on foot, he has total advantage over any game animal on the property! In the second example, however, if the hunter hunts on foot without bait of any kind, and stalks the land to find the animal he is hunting, and adds the draw-back of hunting with a handgun, historically appointed muzzleloader, or a double rifle, IMO, on this property the game has the advantage, by simply staying out of sight of the hunter. The game in any enclosure surly knows the trails, cover, and escape routes far better than a hunter on the land for the first time!

To me this is the danger of assigning certain size in acres to automatically make a place canned, or fair chase! I know of places of no more than 100 acres on our family ranch that was originally 108 sections in size that an elephant could avoid a foot hunter who did not know the lay of the land there. This property was low cattle fenced but though I hunted that land most of my life there were whitetails on that place that died of old age. They were animals we would see while working cattle, but never when hunting! The pastures I hunted not all the same type of terrain and the wildlife was free to roam about, but the area where you saw a big deer, is area where you would see him every time. A whitetail lives and dies within one mile of his birth unless pushed very hard. IMO the high perimeter fences are more to keep things (people and predators) out of the property than to keep things in!

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not a high fence hunter, though I’ve done some culling hunts on a few, but what my point is here, is, the size of the land is not a good measure of fair-chase without the other considerations. A flat, no cover section is exactly 640 acres, but the same legal boundary with the features of the second example could be as much a twice the size of the first in actual surface area, and with added cover and water my be the same legal size but is far better for the purpose of fair-chase hunting as long as it is done properly! Stating size behind a fence as the only condition for fair-chase is a slippery slope and one that the antis will use against you in the long run!

Yes. As Anne said for sure. I also wouldnt mind a hunt or shoot for meat for anything else. A hunt is a hunt as long as it meets my definition of fair chase. A shoot is a meat cull or what I dont consider to be fair chase. Both can be be done fair chase and no there is not a magic number to property size. It has more to do with terrain, ability of animals to evade and escape, and manner hunted. Money of course has to be correct for culls. No it isnt and will not replace Africa or hunts of old. It dosnt carry the same experience but it is still a day outdoors and a chace to put sme good meat in the freezer.

This guy kept Exotic animals on a different continent....

http://news.smh.com.au/breakin...i-20091122-isg1.html

http://www.perthnow.com.au/bus...frg2qu-1225801768759