I have seen some responses to my post about put and take

hunting which show that the typical AR user does not

really know how big a fenced area is big enough on which

to hunt ethically. This is not meant as critism, just an

observation. In the interest of hunting I think it is a

good idea to offer some of my own opinions on how to decide

when a fenced area is big enough to undertake ethical fair

chase hunting there. This is only my opinion, and you can

consider it, or ignore it. The fact that you may have

quite a different opinion does not make mine wrong. We can

argue about it, we can argue about the figures used. And

we can argue about the principles used to make the

decision. But I do not want to let such arguments miss the

point of this posting: How to decide if a fenced area is

big enough to hunt a specific species in an ethical

manner. For this argument I call ethical hunting any

hunting in which the hunted animal has a good chance of

evading a poor or unlucky hunter for a long time. I do

hope to at least assist some individuals to help them form

their own opinion about the subject, and so decide for

themselves when their own hunting is/was ethical in their

own opinion.



As point of departure I will use the example of a hunter

who wishes to hunt an impala. Similar considerations can

be applied for most [but not all] other game species.

He/she (for ease of writing only he will be used

hereafter) has done the required homework and has chosen an

honest hunting outfitter to arrange his hunt. He had

communicated to his outfitter that he wants a really

worthwhile representative impala, and the outfitter in

response suggested that the hunting be undertaken at

Leeuwdoorns, a concession near Dwaalboom in the Limpopo

Province. This western bushveldt area is known for the

good quality impala trophies regularly taken there. A hunt

in early May, i.e. near the peak rutting time was

suggested. The outfitter also confirmed that the

Leeuwdoorns concession area in which he will hunt is

indeed fenced by high (impala proof) fences and is y acres

in extent. The veldt type was given as of the typical

bushveldt with some, but not excessive, thorn bush

infestation. Our hunter now has to decide if the quoted

y acres are enough to have a real ethical fair chase hunt

on. How does he go about it making this decision in some

logical manner?



In a previous post I've indicated that the area should be

considered in terms of the number of typical impala home

ranges or territories. [Anyone who does not understand the

concept of a territory and how impala behavior is affected

by it is free to contact me for more information] Now

reference to information contained in Andrew McLaren

Safaris’ home page has indicated that the typical

size of impala territories range between 12 and 20 acres.

As the whole of the western Limpopo province, and

specifically Dwaalboom, and even more specifically the

Leeuwdoorns concession, is very good impala habitat, the

lower figure of 12 acres per territory will be used in

evaluating the size of this hunting area required for fair

chase hunting of impala.



Now if you imagine that the hunter was Fredric C. Selouse

in his younger days, i.e. at a time, when there were no

fences anywhere and he was hunting the same area as our

modern hunter would be brought to many years later.

Fredric spotted a nice specimen ram, just as the ram

started running away after it had seen the hunter. That ram

was free to run all the way to the Indian Ocean in the

east, or the Atlantic Ocean in the west, or all the way to

Gibraltar in the north, or to Cape Town in the south. The

ram could certainly quite easily have run to the Marico

River, something like 10 miles to the west or to the

Limpopo River some 45 miles to the east. But how far was

the ram likely to actually run, if one assumes that it was

in the middle of it’s 12 acre hexagonal shaped

territory at the start of his dash away from the hunter?

After running a bit more than 125 yards he is going to

cross into the territory of his territorial neighbor. You

must realize that the territorial neighbor will protect

his own from any other impala ram intruding thereon, even

if it means getting physical and fight to drive off the

intruder. So the ram is likely to run away from the hunter

for less than 100 yards to a dense bushy area within his

own territory to stand and watch the possible approach of

danger, now in the form of FC Selous, from there. Even of

the ram was busy patrolling his territorial perimeter at

the start of the encounter, he is likely to run away for

less than 250 yards in any one direction before entering

another ram's territory. And remember that during

the rut a ram getting into another ram's territory is

really looking for trouble. Because if he does, he will

definitely be severely attacked, not necessarily but

possibly violently, and even possibly killed by the ram

into whose territory he had ventured!. If Frederic

followed the spoor and came close to the ram, he would run

away again. But where to would he run this time? Chances

are that he would run away around the danger to somewhere

near the opposite side of his own territory, and there

stand again. Continued hunting by Fredric would cause the

ram to keep on running in circles, but mostly within his

own territory. Only under extreme pressure would the ram

run away through a neighboring territory, and the he is

likely to be chased right back as soon as the neighbor

becomes aware of the intruder. Now, fortunately for my

little story Fredric ran out of daylight and had to return

to his wagons before he could bag this particular ram,

which lived to sire many offspring. We have now

established that in the good old days before fences a

territorial impala ram will hardly run away for more than

100 to 200 or so yards before standing again.





Now imagine our modern hunter with a high powered and

telescoped rifle and assisted by a smartass young PH

[complete with .375 H&H, Rayban sunglasses and

wearing an elephant tail hair bangle which he bought at a

curio shop] hunting in the same area. As expected they are

likely to being seen by a many generations later

descendent of the ram that eluded Fredric Courtnay Selouse

way back before there were fences. Now this poor beast

cannot run away all the way to the ocean in any direction

any more. He cannot even run to the river, as his movement

is limited by the curse [or savior, depending on your

viewpoint] of all of South Africa's game: A 9 foot high

fence with 22 strand high tension wire, over which he

cannot jump and through which he can only escape with

possible severe injury. Assuming that this ram was in the

middle of his hexagonal shaped territory, and that his

territory was in the middle of a hexagonal shaped fenced

hunting concession area of x acres, how far do you think

this modern ram will run away?[He can only run about

z yards where z=Sqrt(x*4840*2.598) until he gets to the

fence] But how far will this modern fenced in ram actually

run? The answer is that he will still run away, but still

at all costs try to stay on his own territory. Not only is

he relatively safe from attack by other rams here, this is

also the area that he knows best: He knows exactly where

to stand in which thicket to see best in any direction

without being easy to be seen himself. He knows the game

paths in his territory well enough to be able to run along

them at full speed on a dark night. He knows the likely

wind direction at each time of the day, and the wind eddy

current behavior in this area very well. This is the only

place where he feels relatively safe! He is still only

going to run away at most into the periphery of the

neighboring territory! If he happens to be a little less

dominant/strong he may have a peripheral territory next to

the fence, then his options are a bit limited on with

direction to run away in, but he can still mostly elude a

hunter for days on end without ever getting to the dreaded

fence. The point is that the erection of fences does

restrict the movement or migration of animals, keeps some

out and some in and has played a major role in the

development of a viable game industry. But fences have not

changed the basic behavior of the impala, or any other

species, in any manner significant to a single hunter

hunting by walk and stalk method for a single trophy

animal.



Let us by way of illustration say that if there are 20

territorial rams to choose from, a good specimen can be

selected. If you now tell me that you cannot hunt an impala

ethically on a fenced area that comprises at least about 20

typical territories, or around 240 acres of prime impala

habitat, please motivate your objection. Obviously the 240

acres is not some magic number, and the example used above

is only an example with perfectly hexagonal territories,

but it does help me with rationalizing my evaluation of the

possibility of fair chase hunting being undertaken in a

fenced area of given size. Where the habitat for the

species is less than optimal a larger area is required for

each territory, and hence a larger area is required for

ethical hunting. Why the number of 20 territories? Well,

this is just about the number hexagonal territories

required to make sure that the middle one is at least two

territories removed from the fence. If you want to play it

safer, use 40, or about three territories before the middle

one gets to the fence. In marginal impala habitat 40

territories can be contained in 800 acres, which is still

far less than the typical game ranch size of 2500 acres.





I do hope this sets some minds at ease about having hunted

in a "smallish" fenced area.



Verewaaier.

I think the only answer to that is.....the area must be large enough that any animal inside (that you want to hunt) can act and inter-actwith other animals exactly the same as a similar animal outside the fence....obviously some animals will need larger areas than others.

A fenced area also must have more than one place for animals to water.

One can have an ethical hunt when the game has legitmate escape and the area is much larger than the species normal "home range". Animals imported only to shoot, even in large confines, is questionable ethically. The larger areas, 10000+Ha, are less likely to have this type of management and can economically function by harvesting recruitment surplus. The other factor about high fenced hunting areas is the usual high densities of game and exclusion of predators. Both of these definately differentiate high fenced hunting from natural hunting.

I was spoiled by having my first African hunting experience in Mozambique, near the mouth of the Zambezi. I later returned to hunt kudu, wildebeest, and impala on a high fenced 20000 ha game ranch. True, it was not a "put and take" operation, but certainly not natural. I have been back to Africa several times and will only hunt in natural situations, but that is my personal choice.



I believe most hunting experiences in Africa are good ones with ethical practices and each hunter must decide which experience they want for themselves.

Jim

Please edit your post!

Howdy Andrew,

Here is SCI's recently-announced policy from the SCI website. The policy recognizes fenced area hunting conducted by fair-chase methods, and advocates the developement of standards for size. The role of country or regional hunting organizations and the applicable governmental organizations are recognized too.

As a Board member I voted to approve this policy.

jim dodd


SCI Board Passes Policy On Fenced Wildlife Operations
�
During the January Board of Directors meeting, the board passed an official policy regarding fenced wildlife operations. The text of that policy is:
�
SCI First for Hunters (SCI) and its sister organization SCI Foundation (SCIF) were formed by hunters to represent hunters and their concerns about wildlife conservation and management issues. SCI advocates to protect the freedom to hunt and for wildlife conservation and management based on wildlife science. SCIF supports and manages wildlife conservation programs world wide and promotes sound scientifically based management of wildlife through conservation hunting programs. With 211 chapters and over 43,000 members around the world, SCI hunter conservationists are dedicated to conservation of natural resources and advocacy for the hunting community.
�
This policy addresses SCI first for Hunters' issues worldwide regarding hunting operations utilizing high fences as a wildlife management tool.
�
"Commercial demand for hunting and for sale of live wildlife and their products has prompted the growth of a commercial industry that raises non-domesticated native ungulates within managed properties." (Demaris et al 2002:1).� The industry also includes those properties that raise exotic wildlife. With the advent of Chronic Wasting Disease, confinement of wildlife and related activities have emerged as major conservation issues in North America and has ramifications to hunting-based businesses throughout the world. SCI has a strong interest in the status of the commercial hunting industry worldwide, reflected in the recognition of trophies from these types of facilities in its record books.
�
Man's relationship with various wildlife species has evolved over time, with some species becoming domesticated while attempts were made to eradicate some species because of threats to life and personal property. These relationships are not static in time, as some domesticated animals have returned to "wild" status while other species such as large carnivores have gone from pest to protected status and have been recovered to viable populations. Additionally, a host of species have come to be recognized as "game species" because of their elusiveness, cunning, appearance or other attribute which ensure that their pursuit will be challenging when practices of fair chase are observed. The growth of the commercial hunting industry in confined wildlife reflects a desire by the public to have an opportunity to pursue rare species or mature specimens of common species while experiencing the challenge of the hunt.
�
Landowners have the right, under property law, to manage their lands for their own interests so long as those management practices are allowed under governmental laws and regulations. The erection of high fences to control animal movements is a legitimate wildlife management practice so long as the presence of the fence does not interfere with free-ranging animal movements to critical habitats. However, landowners have an obligation to ensure that their management practices do not threaten the population status of publicly owned wildlife in their area.
�
The use of high fences to contain wildlife can be a legitimate tool for wildlife management, wildlife conservation and for hunting programs worldwide when applied under appropriate conditions. Thus SCI First for Hunters advocates the following:
�
1. The state or country hunting industry shall have industry approved standards based on the specific conditions of that region including types of species, terrain, habitats and weather as well as such factors as cultural history of hunting practices and current regulations;
2. Management programs must include adequate practices to effectively address disease issues including a testing program, record keeping of animals that have been moved and any other preventative practices that are considered appropriate for the region and species involved;
3. Hunting programs conducted behind high fences must be conducted under fair chase principles. It is recognized that there is difficulty in defining fair chase principles for different species and habitat conditions but the hunting programs must have a reasonable set of standards that address the issue with a minimum standard which provides that all hunted animals have an opportunity to escape into adequate cover and to retain a natural flight response;
4. Management programs must address the well-being of the animals involved in all phases of the programs and must provide adequate food, water and cover within the fenced area;
5. Standards for high fence facilities should be of high quality with regular checks to maintain the integrity of the fences on the facility and a process to deal effectively with escaped animals;
6. Management programs must be conducted in such a manner that they will not shed a negative light on the sport of hunting.
�
High fence hunting operations worldwide can offer unique hunting experiences to many types of hunters, including beginning hunters, advanced trophy hunters, elderly hunters, and special needs hunters. However, we also recognize that some of these facilities can provide opportunities to take animals in a manner that does not meet the ethical standards of fair chase. Property managers must conscientiously avoid any situation which casts a negative light on sport hunting. SCI knows many industry operations can provide high quality experiences and will work with the industry to promote fair chase within high fence facilities.
�
SCI believes the management of non-domesticated wildlife within high fences has been practiced for centuries and remains legitimate activity.� However, this legitimate activity must be balanced with the potential risks associated with enclosed wildlife.� Because of these concerns, SCI recognizes the rational for reasonable regulatory oversight of this industry by appropriate governmental agencies.

This you must decide for yourself, and whatever you decide is right for you...I can walk a man to death in 5000 hectares of African bush, and we may or may not kill something...and it may or may not be easier to shoot an animal on a million acres in the wide open spaces..I have seen this many times in my life of hunting....

I had a deer lease in So. Texas at one time that was 500 acres, and it took days, sometimes weeks of hunting to kill a buck on that place and it had plenty of deer on it and by the same token on the 3 strand barbwire fenced, 100,000 acre ranch I was raised on I could kill any day in 20 minutes max...

I like SCIs report on the subject, makes since to me...

I have a lot o trouble believing a herd of impala could find enough feed on 12 acres of dry scrub.

What would this be a carrying rate of 1 animal per acre?

Not to mention all sorts of other native game as well.



PS Can the other poster please EDIT his post!

NitroX,

I think you are confusing the territorial ram with the herd ram. The territorial ram's territory has very little to do with being big enough for food for him alone. It is really his own private sex-pad.

The herd ram [another possition for which rams compete] keeps with the ewes, even while there is no females ready to mate. The herd of about 20 to as many as 100 females and the ram also occupy a totally independent "home range" of something like 200 to 450 acres. This home range is superimposed over the territories of something like 10 to 40 different individual territorial rams.

The game ranchers in my area have a rule of thumb that you can stock 1 impala on every 2.5 acres of good habitat. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this figure, but it seems to be about the size that an impala may need.

I sent you a separate PM with more info on the social structure of impala herds.

Verewaaier.

OK Thanks for that. That makes sense.

Yes please PM me the structure details. It would be interesting. Thanks.

First, why is this page so wide? It makes it hard to read.

I personally do not like the idea of high-fence and would prefer local wildlife management cooperatives. However, that is not to say I wouldn't hunt inside a high-fence. I would personally put the lower limit on 1000 ha (approx. 2400 acres for those of us here in the U S of A.), given that there would only be one or two parties hunting the area at a time, with 5000 ha, I wouldn't even bat an eye.

Also, at the recent Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting where the plenary topic was "Wildlife Privatization: Who Owns Wildlife?" (for native game in the U.S. it is "the people") a very good point was made by one of the debators in quoting a So. Texas rancher. He said that the rancher asked him why he was so concerned that he was high fencing his 1500 acres, but probably wouldn't have been had he plowed up the 1500 acres to plant onions. Thus the speaker has decided that it is better to do any sort of wildlife management, even utilizing high fence, than to have the land turned over to some other use.

The way it was explained to me in RSA is that the fence denotes ownership bounderies. The game within the fence is the property of the land owner. If the game moves to a different parcel unless there is absolute proof (ie. Ear tag or electronic microtag) that animal is now part of the other owners property. as it was told to me, it is more from the poaching point view than pure ownership although I am not naive enought to fully believe that last statement. There was conversations going on with the landowner next to the property that I hunted about a bull giraffe that pushed through a common fence and he had a hunter and was trying to get the bull but did not have a definate tatto or tag.

The whole idea of game fences is different that here in the states as the concept of game management is at a totally different level.

I hunted a 2500 acre ranch and from a bowhunters point of view the fence makes no difference as thick cover is thick cover.

I will add though that a 200 or 400 acre parcel to me as a general rule is not enough space but over 1000 acreas with no interior fencing to funnel is adifferent story.

My 2 cents

It looks like it is so frickin wide because of the boxes in the post by jhaney above, they force the page wider.

I would feel that if the space is large enough that the animals can escape pursuit, has multiple watering holes etc. it would be fine. Isn't kruger fenced? And they have huge herds of elephant traversing the park with plenty of space. If the area is big enough the fence won't make a difference.

Now, dropping an animal into a spot and then releasing the hunter is a different matter. I think it is important to hunt an animal in its own home, where it is familiar. Part of the excitement of hunting for me (thus far unsuccessfully to boot) is the fact that I am meeting the quarry on their turf, going into their house so to speak, and must match wits against them. A California black tail in 1 square mile he knows well can be a damn hard fellow to nab.

Red