This is a scientific survey so don't vote more than twice and no pontification please.

There is alot of controversy over hunting behind wire in NORTH AMERICA. You can vote for or against, no qualifications on size or terrain.

"I support hunting or shooting of Game Animals within enclosures".

YES or NO

You are limited to one succinct sentence in support of your vote.

No consideration for size? sorry can't even see this as an issue to vote on or give an opinion on. 5 acres judged the same as 50, 500, or 5000, 50,000? Not a realistic set of paramenters or options to consider a vote!

I agree with JJHACK. Depends on the species too. Whitetail deer on 5000 acres wouldn't even know they were fenced, probably. Mulies would. Grizzly would feel they were in a prison.

My vote would be, if the species leads a totally unencumbered existence within the enclosure and the enclosure gives no advantage to the hunter, then it is totally ethical. Anything else is hunting at the stockyard.

I agree with JJHACK also...size does make a difference....Gee...where have I heard that before?????

I support the hunting of game animals by fair chase...

Fenced or not makes no difference

Size, terrain, and cover make a big difference. I'm not biting.

I belong to an international group of hunters that has as its charter continuing discussion of the state of hunting in the world, and especially hunting ethics and hunting aesthetics.

We have gnawed on this bone of a problem, and generally have found that hunting inside fences acceptable. The size of the enclosed area, however, must allow the species to exhibit natural behaviors such as successful reproduction, etc.

In North America whitetail deer can meet our criteria in some really small areas. Mule deer ranges cover much wider areas. The carnivores can really get around.

jim dodd

A naturally reproducing population and size are the two most important to me. And, yes, if both of those are satisfied.

i dont like fences. that being said this is a way too opened ended question to be answered.

Voting just for me,I vote NO
---------------
Flame suit on

Sorry, but size really does matter in this case.

Forget the question.

Someone killing game behind a high fence doesn't tell me anything about him as a "hunter".

Frankly anyone in the field with an outfitter/guide/PH doesn't tell me anything about the individual as a hunter.

The only time that I'm feeling 100% like a hunter is when I'm hunting low fence, on my own.

Take that a step further, you're probably a damn good hunter if you are successful hunting public land / national forest on your own.

Growing up I had a great sense of accomplishment hunting mule deer in New Mexico on public land. I don't have that same sense of achievement when I pay $10,000 to someone to get me on a prime piece of land, and work me into position for a shot. It's a thrill, but it's not the same.

High fence to me means all the odds are stacked in your favor. Given enough time, you will cross paths with the trophy you are seeking. If the property is small enough, you will cross his path enough times to almost guarantee a kill. If your conscience can stand it you can work the fence against him to set up the shot. The whole concept is distasteful.

Then you see the trophy costs structured by B&C points, the bigger the trophy, the more you pay. That is like buying meat in a butcher shop. I don't want any part of it.

I'm for it, as long as the fence is high enough that the hunter can't escape the bear, or lion running him down. Live within the fence/die in the fence.
Trigger

Unfortunatly we live in a world of boundries, wheather it is a fence or whatever...I know some fenced ranches that are bigger than some states, soooo?????? I know places in the east where lots of folks hunt public land that is much much smaller than many high fenced ranches...Where a man hunts has little to do with his ability as a hunter...

I was raised in a big open country without fences and spent many days in the wildest part of Mexico hunting on my own but that was then and this is now...I still hunt the remote wide open country of West Texas, Idaho, and Africa, but I hunt the high fenced ranches if they meet my criteria which is based on size and type of country...

I like to hunt and I will be the one to decide where I hunt, no one else has that priviledge, and I pass that priviledge on to each of you.....

My dad always claimed I was a good kid, but tended to come untrained now and then....

If the animals are wild and live their lives just as they would if the fence did not exist, and provided that the fence is not used to aid in the finding of said wild game...then I personally would not have a problem hunting within an "enclosure".

My answer is a direct relationship to A) the size of the fenced area, B) the habitat within the fenced area, and C) the animal hunted (with its appurtenant habits and habitat requirements). One of these factors means very little without consideration of the other two.

Two questions really sum it up for me: 1) Is the game wild (ie. does it have its naturally developed instincts for self preservation, or have those instincts been dulled by direct or indirect husbandry)?, and 2) Does the fence give me an advantage that I would not have if it didn't exist?

Cheers,
Canuck

[ 04-18-2003, 03:54: Message edited by: Canuck ]

Brent- What I was trying to get to was that some high fenced ranches have somehow developed a population structure that is entirly male!I'm sure you have seen these places advertised.Not to sit here and pick fly shit out of black pepper, but I do think a naturally reproducing should be part of the formulae, along w/size.

Yes.

See, I can follow instructions.

Interesting enough, voters in three state will likely vote on this issue this Fall. No qualifications for breeding population and no minimum size. Just yes or no.

If you want input into this issue, other than this Board that is, contact SCI and let them know your feelings. They are in the midst of formulating a position on the subject to go to State Legislatures and help write sensible laws, not the ones that HSUS want to write.

Unfortunately, the person writing this position is an employee of the current SCI President, who has his own High Fence operation. Probably his farm will meet the minimum SCI rules.

Since I have questioned the ethics of hunting behind high fences on many previous threads, I have been reading the responses with a lot of interest.

All of my hunting to date has been on public land in both Africa and the States. HOWEVER, I will be hunting a Namibia ranch of 300,000+ acres in 2004. Behind fences?, no doubt. How will I feel about this? I think about it daily and I just don't know.

As in my previous posts, I have to agree with JJHACK and consider all aspects of the area. I can't buy into a yes or no answere.

Jim

[ 04-18-2003, 08:13: Message edited by: JBoutfishn ]

THERE IS NO, "YES, OR NO" ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION!

Talk about painting with a broad brush! Many things go into the fair chase tag hung on any kind of hunting, and opinions range from the Animal rights freak's opinion that, "THE ONLY FAIR CHASE IS MAN AGAINST ANIMAL WITHOUT A WEAPON THAT ISN'T GROWN ON YOUR BODY NATURALY!",and on the other end is the close minded person who thinks any high fence is a resounding "NO"! The country of Botswana is high fenced along its border with Namibia. A fence of about 800 miles, does that make hunting in Botswana a shot in a barrel?

This all depends on if the animal has escape routes, and cover, suffecient food and water, in many places where one doesn't have to go to one particular place for either. It also depends on the species. An elk is a migrater, and if he is fenced it must be in a very LARGE enclosier, I'm not sure anyone has enough property for ELK. Convercely, the whitetail, in nature, lives and dies within one mile of his place of birth. One mile in any dirrection is approximently 2540 acres. That same 2540 acres are habited by many whitetail, not just that one deer. Now, there is a 2540 acre plot, and then there is another 2540 acre plot. What I mean by this is, 2540 acres of flat grass land, with a feeder in the middle, has the same outside measurement as 2540 acres, that has hills, creeks, brush thickets, brair, rocks caves, with water everywhere, and plenty of natural food sources. An animal in this acreage has only to take a few steps, and he is out of sight, if you can't see him, you can't shoot him. This place, if mashed flat may be 6, or 8 thousand acres of surface! One is a target shoot, because one can see every deer on the place, from any place on the property. The other, however is a place that I will chalange anyone on these boards to kill a particular whitetail deer that has a red vest on, in a whole season!

The key is not size, but condition of the property, and wheather the animals are wild or tame.

The fact is, to pass a law that is based on a particular size property, without the condition of that property, and the state of wildness of the animals involved, taken into consideration, is about as sane as the gun grabber's law that says if honest people don't have guns, then criminals will not have them either!

I submit there are hunters who have never hunted on anything but private land, who are far better hunters, than some who are lucky enough to be in a state where there is 35,000,000 acres of public land like New Mexico!

THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ONE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION!

I dont care what size it is. I vote an emphatic
NO.

I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel. Its a kill, not a hunt.

Consider this when using the barrel analogy:

A pond, lake, stream, or ocean is in fact bounded on all sides by land. A fish cannot move onto land, so by the definition of "canned" that some of you promote, all fishing is a "canned fish." Let's ban all but free-range fishing too.

Get real people, size, property conditions, and the game hunted, and the hunter make the hunt, not the presence or lack of a fence.

You could argue that it is unethical to hunt in Australia, since the animals have no way to get off the island. I won't make that argument. It depends on the size of the enclosure.

H. C.

Yeah, I'm all for it. Especially if it's a trophy animal and the enclosure is less than 1/2 acre. Makes it easier to find them. Oh yeah, and when I'm in a real hurry to "get the hunt overwith", I like to call ahead and have them tie the animal to a tree . Saves time, you know. Jeff

Lets say you high fence a piece of property, say the state of Montana, that would severely limit the game to freely move from state to state, they would no longer be able to winter in Florida or summer in Alaska, they would be trapped, like fish in barrel, any nimrod with a 30-30 could stop along the highway, walk up to a 7x7 bull elk, stick the barrel in his ear and blast away. Nope no sport there, of course there would be lots of game for those scumbag shooters not hunters, to kill not hunt, because no sportsman would ever consider hunting inside a high fence, canned hunt you know. Now this brings to mind another question, which side of the fence is really the pen, those on the inside can�t get out, those on the outside can�t get in, oh my, wait a minute, neither animal is allow to freely roam where he chooses, in actuality both are in pens, one just a little bigger than the other. I guess the real sportsman can�t hunt anywhere with out being in a pen of some size. Lots of you guys hunt in Africa, how many Texas whitetails do you see over there, I mean all they have to do is swim, the Gulf of Mexico is right there, leads to the Atlantic ocean, heck some of theme might even end up in Kalifonia if they miss the turn at the Cape. I am Sorry to post this, I have never hunted a high fenced property, I really have no right to try to judge those that have or for that matter those that have not, after all, this Original Post was directed toward the United States of America, a free country, that allows each person to make up his own mind about what is fair and what is not. I would much rather discuss how to get the names of people who enter game in the record books out. I, just me, not trying to impose my thoughts or ethics on any other person, don�t feel that sportsman should hunt just to have his name in a book, only trying to kill the largest set of horns, most dominate, most strong, most likely to pass on great genes, animals, letting those weak, deformed, useless survivors do all the breeding for the future generations of the species. Lets start a post on true problems in our country, like the antis and how there love to see hunters fighting among them selves, how the bowhunters snub the rifle shooters, how the traditional bowhunters, snub the compound user, how the flintlock shooters despise the percussion cap people, grow up people. A canned hunt is a canned hunt, it does not matter whether a fence is involved or not, a drugged Lion on 60 minutes shot as it is pushed out of a cage is a canned hunt, a whitetail on 10,000 acres of hillcountry brush is not. Get over the concept of all high fences as being canned, there are not all that way, some are I am sure, I am also sure that most readers here would not and do not hunt this way. Stop lumping high fence in with canned hunt, or join the media, they report that way too, all guns equal bad guns, all hunters equal terrible slobs who shoot up signs, drink beer and blast anything that moves. Again sorry to post this, I have no ties to either side of this high fence question, but I can tell the difference in a canned hunt and a fair hunt.
Flame away, I am going to visit my 89 year of Dad for Easter, maybe take him Turkey hunting. Happy Easter to those who celebrate. Have a good weekend to those who don�t.
OH yeah, I have never done it, but YES, this is a free country and I can make up my own mind.

I've been using that analogy for 10 years. Is it OK to hunt a black or Brown bear on the coastal islands of Alaska. How about the Elk, deer and moose? They are on smaller islands fenced by the sea. How about all the big game in New zealnd. None of it is indiginous, naturally occuring, all of it was stocked and it's all fenced by the sea.

I'm not sure where the minimum or definition of fair hunting territory lies. Certainly shooting the captive treed animal put up by dogs is not free roaming. It's fenced by hounds! I ran a hound hunting business for years and love to chase game with the dogs. I don't mistake it for "fair chase" though!

B&C and P&Y seem to think it's fine. But I sure don't consider it the same taking a black bear by your own effort of spot and stalk VS shooting one out of a tree. How is a game farm of thousands of acres where a deer can run free on more land then it's natural home range not ethical/acceptable to B&C or P&Y yet a captive audiance in the tree is?

Those folks at the upper end of the ethics scale don't realize that the laws are different from state to state so what's ethical in one location is not legal in another. The playing field is not level for all types of hunting. I would think a record book would require the same rules for all who play?

I don't care anymore where a fellow hunts or what he shoots. The person who has thought it through and decided it is ok and he feels good about the conditions is going to have to live with that decision. It's simply his to make and nobody else.

I am disgusted with much of the bait and switch that goes on which hunters don't know about when they book a hunt. Hunters travelling overseas to hunt can be put on very small prestocked properties to hunt and not know what they are getting into. These arrangements are more common then you realize. It's one thing to make the decision on your own, quite another when your tricked with small prestocked property. I suppose what you don't know about won't hurt you in this situation though.

Just this last season I had a couple of my hunters ask me why our game management was so one sided towards females and young.

I replied it was perfectly managed, why do you think it's off?

He said were we hunted in the Eastern Cape a few years ago we saw very few females and almost no young aniamls. They had mostly all shootable bulls and younger males.

I replied well they have perfect game management then don't they. They only stock what you can shoot!

His mouth dropped and he did not reply. A few days later he said to me. Thanks for ruining my last safari. I asked what? He said up until our conversation the other night I really felt I had gone on a great hunt last time. Now I realize I was tricked into a stocked game farm operation.

Size is certainly important but the way it's managed is critical. Africa is much like the USA in game distribution. When people go there to hunt they need to realize not all game is indiginous to the entire continent. No more then shooting a Bighorn Sheep in Florida would be for an African hunter coming to the USA to hunt. You can go to one location and hunt anything you want. However if you do it's likely been stocked with game brought in from it's natural home range.

It's not just size, it's also the philosophy of the landowner and his business ethics that establish how your hunt will be.

Way to many variables and conditions to make a blanket statement like this. Thank goodness for informative sites like this to help folks sort through the BS and find what suits there style and capabilties.

[ 04-18-2003, 20:15: Message edited by: JJHACK ]

Mickey1 and all,

I choose not to hunt behind high wire but I believe it is up to the individual to decide what is and is not ethical. I used to hunt bear with hounds a lot and, as JJ stated, this may not be ethical to some. I've bear hunted over bait, again some don't like this either. I've also been rockfish fishing in Albemarle sound, Eastern N.C., and on a couple of occasions saw a black bear swimming the 6-7 mile sound , climbing up on a bombing target to rest before finishing his trek. Have you ever seen a band of Dall sheep disappear over the top of a mountain, or caribou or grizzly? When was the last time you "trapped" some of these animals against a mountain or two. Mountains and bodies of water are not high fences and are lame comparisons at best.
There need not be overall justification or approval for high fenced hunting. It should be an individual thing. If you're satisfied with your trophys and where they're taken, what's the difference? Pay your money, shoot your game. I don't always agree with Ray, but I think he may be right when he says the future of hunting may be fenced. I don't think it will be in my lifetime, but it could certainly be the shape of things to come. It's convenient, fits the lifestyle, eh? It'll be a sad day.

Joe

A barrel is a man made enclosure or boundry Just as a high fence is. Do I support hunting of game animals within (a man made enclosure)
Still an emphatic NO. A natural boundry falls
within an all natural hunt. Sure a hunter can use
it to his benifit aka small island. But this is a
rarity. If an animal I'm stalking/hunting decides
to pick it up and head to the next county, thats to his benifit and part of a natural hunt. In an
enclosure any tracker can wear down any animal and kill it without fan fare. I dont think these
kills should make book.
Its the non professionals that need the muligan.
If they stack the odds in favor to themselves in
an UNnatural way its just a kill.
Maybe I think this way growing up out west where
its wide open and a chase can involve days of work for a season only to lose when the last day of the season comes to a close and you are empty
handed after a whole lot of hard work. That is
more of an accomplishmnet than the person who enters an enclosure and kills an animal.
big deal....

I've thought about this quite a bit. In the summer of 2001 I hunted in Zimbabwe and found myself for the very first time in my life within the confines of a high fence ranch. I had already taken my leopard (no fence involved but then, they could climb a 20 foot fence!) I was looking for the best Blue Wildebeest I could find in the area. The first morning we saw what my PH assured me was the best we would find on the place. Well, I had 11 days left to hunt and only wanted the wildebeest and a bush pig. I refused to shoot that first day with a fence in sight and we continued to look for a bigger bull on several different properties. Not all were high fenced. I'll have to say that the first place was huge and 99% of the time you wouldn't have any idea there was a fence there but I KNEW it was there! I ended up shooting that same Wildbeest but in an inerior area. It was a fair stalk and I got within 100 yards of the undisturbed animal. It's on the wall and a nice looking trophy but again....I KNEW that fence was there. As I understand it, it's impossible to hunt the Black Wildebeest out side of a fenced in ranch. I'll probably never hunt one. That's just my personal feeling. I've been spoiled by years of open country out West and open Concessions in various parts of wild Africa. I did hunt in Namibia in the early days and it was fenced but it was breakaway fences that allowed free movement of every species found there. Not the high chain link confinds one sees today. In short NO! Don't fence me in.

Rich Elliott

I guess based on the opinions of some, every animal I have taken outside of the United States is in some way "tainted". Without the trackers and PH's to guide me, I am sure that I would be less likely to have been able to be successful. And of course the leopards and lion taken over bait are less that exactly sporting. I have not hunted behind a fence yet, but probably will in the future. I guess the only thing to do is not enter your trophies in the record book, which I haven't done in a while, and not write any magazine articles, which I haven't done in a while, and no bragging, which I try to refrain from. Then is the question whether only the animals taken on open land without a guide, no bait, nothing in your favor, truly "hunting", all the rest is just collecting? An interesting thought.

Yes, depends on size of the enclosure, the only game I have ever taken in high fence was a wild boar. Wild boar shot in a high fence area is better than pork from the supermarket.

BigB

MAYBE

The size of the area does make a huge difference to this debate.

However, I personally do not like to hunt behind wire. I just have this belief that the game must be able to choose where they live for it to be fair chase. It has to be a HUGE area before I feel that it is really fair chase hunting.

Hello;
My theory is; if the game doesn't have the option of escaping, no matter how large the enclosure, it ain't hunting. As soon as you manipulate the population to favor one gender, huge horns or exotic species, it ain't hunting either.
Grizz

[ 04-20-2003, 15:48: Message edited by: Cold Bore ]

Lets face it,high Fenced in enclosures, no matter the size, just help to keep the genetics high, because lets face it, who's gonna pay to hunt a 65 inch scrub 6 point whitetail?
Not that it's easier to hunt the animal, it just helps the landowner pay his or her taxes by putting a higher price on superior genetic animals that he or she knows he has out there, and keeps the weak animals from contaminating his or her proverbial nest egg. $$money,folks$$
Trigger

could be, and should be... but sometimes is so badly and ethically abused that it's a crime

jeffe

My short answer is yes.

My longer answer is more of a differentiation of hunting vs. shooting.

My buddies and I shot some buffalo in an enclosure this fall it WAS NOT hunting but it did put meat on the table.