This is a topic that I would like to discuss as a High Fence Ranch owner. The question is, is it easier or less ethical to hunt in a High Fence Area. I think it all depends on the circumstances and also how honest are outfitters that advertise free roaming hunting. My discussion specifically goes about hunting in Namibia. I think if you pick the outfitter carefully that you hunt with and you have facts about the propperty and the operation you're going to hunt with then you can expect just as a challenging and fair hunt as a free range hunt. I think one of the big problems is that a lot of hunters that has never been to Africa has an idea that it looks every where like the serengeti, vast open spaces with a lot of animals in it and the they get the idea that it will be like shooting in a Zoo, this is the comments I get from hunters who hunted with me as this is a topic that always seems to pop up around camp fire. I have hunters from all over the world and I've heard a lot of different views about hunting ethices from all the different countries. You get hunters especially a younger generation from the eastern block in Europe that when they come to hunt in Namibia all they want to do is shoot, from a ground squirrel to a Giraffe, there usually is not much hunting ethics with them and I've seen them come in groups, I sometimes get the idea that it is more a competition of who can shoot the most animals on the trip, and there is safari operators that cater for these guys because let's face it, it's high turn over and they usually spend well. These operators usually over stock their propperties becuase they have the demand for it, you will sit at a waterhole for example and the only thing you'll see coming in is trophy quality bulls. The other question is how big is that game camp where all the stock is in. I call them comercial outfits that push for 50 + hunters a year, and please don't understand me wrong I'm not putting these outfitters in a bad light and I'm also not saying that all the big operations with this magnitude of hunters operate this way, I'm talking in general and I'm trying to make a point, there must be outfitters like this because there is a market for it, if I agree with it or not. This is not my way of hunting and I limit my hunters to 20 hunters per year, my propperty is 25 000 acres in size and it is all game proof, thus my animals have quite a large area to roam and now I'm starting to get to the point that I would like to make. Anybody can look on my website and ask any of the references if they feel they had an easy and unfair hunt, some of the clients wounded animals that we tracked for two days and eventually there was no blood and no sign of the animal, we just simply couldn't find them. Yes that animal dissapeared in a High Fence Area. We've spotted good quality trophies from the vehicle in the bush or at waterholes and in a 14 day hunt we've never seen that specific trophy again and we litterally went looking for it. I have a very old Giraffe Bull here, last year we had good rain and I couldn't find that bull for a whole year, I thought he either died or he broke out, I saw him last year in December for the first time in a year, I honestly couldn't believe it myself that such a big animal could dissapear for a year. If you sit at a waterhole on my ranch you can see females come in to drink young males or you can see nothing depending on the wind and moon phase. If you stop the vehicle and just climb off and start to walk and hunt on foot you musn't expect to shoot 5 animals in 7 days, the area is simply to big with too much bush and grass, the animals have a massive advantage over you, it's just as challenging as a free range hunt. There is no place in this country where you will shoot Blue and Black Wildebeest, common Impala, Black Face Impala, Blesbok or Waterbuck free ranging. I know of a specific ranch up North and I know the owner and the ranch itself very well that advertise free ranging hunt no high fence, though you can shoot Blue & Black wildebeest, Springbuck and Burchell Zebra there. Non of these animals are free roaming in that area, he has a low fence where they are in because non of them are fence jumpers but when you look closely you will see that the fence have 15 plus wires in it, what would look to you as a normal cattle fence is a low stock proof fence, isn't it exactly the same as hunting in a high fence area. If you like to hunt Namibia and you only want to hunt on free ranging propperties then you must not expect to shoot species like Impala, Blesbok, Burchell's Zebra or any of the two Wildebeest, if you are happy with that then go for it.People think that if it's a high fence ranch nothing can come in or go out, Kudu's,eland and Waterbuck can jump these fences, I've seen on my own ranch how a Impala jumped through my fence from the neighbours side into my side without a sweat or difficulty, if a animal is under pressure they will go through. Kudu bulls are starting to go into rut now and I know they will jump the fences to get to the females. Most of the ranches in Namibia have standard high fences, our propperties are to big and it would be to expensive to Bonnox or mesh fences around our propperties.

If you know the size of your outfitter's operation, the size of his propperty and if he uses other propperties as well and you know what type of hunting style he conducts then you should get a pretty good idea if you will have a fair and ethical hunt or not even if it is high fenced.

This is only my view of hunting high fence since I've seen and heard a lot of comments on this subject.

Roy

There are lots of variables to consider in this question.

Being someone who has unsuccessfully tried to stalk self sustaining populations of target animals around a relatively small, high fenced area on foot, I would say more than fair chase.(The little so and so's beat me fair and square).

If the animals are pen raised, semi-tame, drugged, introduced, forced to a single watering point or shot from a vehicle, then definantly not fair chase.

Edit: Roy, rediscover the paragraph mate. It's a great tool when writing.

This is a very complex issue. For example 5000 acres is almost 8 square miles. If that property is brushy or has ravens then it could be more difficult to hunt than a free range property in the dry season with one watering hole.

Just wondering what ravens have to do with high fence hunting and if they even have ravens in Africa??? I know we have both ravens and crows here in New Mexico, not sure about Africa.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
This is a very complex issue. For example 5000 acres is almost 8 square miles. If that property is brushy or has ravens then it could be more difficult to hunt than a free range property in the dry season with one watering hole.

quote:

Just wondering what ravens have to do with high fence hunting

I do believe he meant ravine or gully.

quote:

If the animals are pen raised, semi-tame, drugged, introduced, forced to a single watering point or shot from a vehicle, then definantly not fair chase.

Too right!

I have not hunted a fenced area of any kind, but I hear it can be just as challenging as a “free Range area”

To put it simply, I think if the fenced area is half as much bigger than the animal’s natural territory example: Impala have a traditional home range of 198 – 445 acres and can over lap with other Impala herds as much as 31% so 667 acres’ would be fair and ethical to hunt an impala in.
Greater kudu herds have home ranges of up to 1284 acres with solitary bulls ranging up to 1717 acres, you can do the math.

In the areas I hunt there are no fences but we know that if there is a certain kudu that has been seen in an area we know he won’t be far and sometimes see him again, and if he is good enough and a client wants one we will go a work that area, and that is considered ethical and the area we will look in is smaller than many ranches.

animals that are raised in a stock yard and released when ready to shoot, Now that is a different story no matter how big the area.

I think he meant to say ravines.

Too early in the morning here when I first posted. I did mean ravine. Thanks for asking the question so that I could clarify.

I have hunted both and views can be very subjective depending on so many different factors.

Drugged, pen raised etc animals aside a high fence hunt can be just as challenging as a free range hunt and individual ethics has a large role to play.

It can be frighteningly easy to diesel stalk a herd of sable in a dambo in Zambia and not even take a step off the vehicle to collect your trophy and likewise you can hunt your arse off on foot for a trophy waterbuck bull behind a fence in SA and never get a decent chance.

mcdjph is pretty spot on with his post, in a lot of the big game areas some of the game is limited to specfic areas due to habitat/ecologocical reasons or water supply and fence or no fence that is where you will find them, or at least sign of them day after day.

I hunted a high fence in Namibia. I believe it was something like 18000acres on one side of the road at 5-7000 on the other. To me that is plenty of range for the animals to have a chance.

Nothing fundamentally unethical about hunting behind fences. Hunting (especially in Africa by non-Africans) is about dreams, emotions, money and limited opportunity, things that can lead a person into rationalising unethical actions. The nature of the shooting farm business does lend itself to accomodating unethical behavior more easily and consistantly than free range hunting. For me, potential unethical practices are only part of the problem with game fences. The other factor is that they can easily eliminate the wild bush experience that is a major part of what I'm after. Add in the fact that I'm not certain I can always tell the honest operators from the dodgy ones and I simply prefer to avoid fenced areas altogether. Too bad too, because I'd really like to support the game farmers who have been so important to conservation in southern Africa.

Dean

Dean I respect your point but I must say that you'll be surprized by how many free ranging ranches are involved in unethical hunting, I really don't believe that a low fence cattle farm will be less unethical then a high fence one, I rather think when it comes down to unethical practises it leans more to the outfitter then the ranch also not all ranches that's high fenced go only for hunting a lot of them have cattle inside as well.I think the ranches that push the maximum amount of hunters through there place in a year are more likely to qualify as shooting farms. Some of these guys will book three different groups at a time just not to loose out on bussiness and that is where the problems start.

Roy

Roy makes a good point. Fences are only one part of the equation. At a certain small size, the fence itself leads to an unethical situation. But for the most part, the outfitter and hunting methods have far more to do with whether the hunt in unethical or not. Just because you are on an unfenced propperty does not make the hunt ethical. You must look at all the factors effecting the hunt.

My preference, more from a romantic perspective, is to hunt large, unfenced properties. But in this modern world, even without fences, concession have boundaries, sometimes they are even smaller than a fenced property. The thought of roaming unfettered for days on end is a nice romantic vision, but rarely does reality allow this.

I have hunted fenced properties in RSA, Namibia, and Zim. I did hunt Roy's property a few years ago. It is thick enough and hilly ehough that game has a fair chance at escaping, and reproducing naturally. These last two factors are especially important to me.

I'm sure I'll hunt high fenced properties again. I also will expect to hunt unfenced concessions. Each have their charms. Understand the whole picture, including the outfitters methods, and make the best decision for you at the time.

Bill

If I have the choice, I will always select the non-high fenced property.

465H&H

Roy,

I agree with everything you posted and think I need to explain my position better. First off, I am talking about probabilities, not absolutes. Trying to avoid high fenced operations reduces the odds of me getting into something I don't like, but doesn't eliminate the possibility. For example, I want nothing to do with put and take operations and am not sure I can spot them reliably. High fenced properties that push a lot of hunters through are the obvious ones for me to avoid. Still, it is possible for operators offering free ranging animals to stock their hunting ground with store bought animals in advance of a hunt. However, this in more risky to the operator than doing it on a fenced propery and thus less likely to occur. BTW, I think cattle on a property can be a good sign simply because the owner of the land isn't trying to generate their entire income from hunting and so may be less likely to cheat.

I fully agree that the operator is more important than the area they hunt. Unethical or illegal practices can occur anywhere. The best defense seems to be doing your homework before you book and then remembering that it is your hunt once you get there and not letting yourself get talked into something you wouldn't be proud of later. If you talk the operator into doing something unethical, then you are the problem, not the operator. I don't consider shooting from a vehicle hunting, though don't think it is always the wrong thing to do. While I've never had to explain it like this to a PH, I consider the suggestion that I shoot from a vehicle a tip divider. Say it once and no problem, I'll state my point of view again (I'll already have done that before booking)and we'll carry on with no fuss. Say it again and it'll start costing you money.

All the best,
Dean

It all comes down to the ethics of the operation. As far as the fence goes...come on people. The Save is fenced (for the most part) and so is Kruger. Kruger is what some would consider "put and take," and in reality, who wouldn't want to hunt in there??? I for one would. An operator who started his business 20 years ago and loaded it with animals which now roam and breed freely is no different than what most of the national parks are doing. An operator who pushes 1000 people through the operation every year and has to replenish his stock of kudu every year is entirely different. This is a valid question for any client to ask before booking. I would hope that most would tell you the truth. I, in fact beleive that most follow the path that I mentioned earlier, where they stocked up 20 years ago, but have been allowing population dynamics to control since then. I'm involved with an operation just like that, and know of many more. I, however, dont know of ANY that strictly "put and take" as so many people on here believe exists so wildly. That's probably because I would never book an operation that hunted extremely small plots of land. Just use common sense and ask questions before booking. If you're thinking about booking an operation of 500 hectres, you're probably making a mistake. Most properties that are 10k or more acres have no need to "put and take."

I know that know one has questioned Roy's ethics.That is not a problem here.I have hunted with him and will again. His ranch is not put and take. I took my teenage boys hunting there and left with a list of animals that we did not harvest. Had nothing to do with trophy quality, had to do with not getting a good shot. The animals had plenty of places to hide and they new it. We did shoot great trophies, and had a great time hunting with him. If you are looking for a fun, family friendly place to hunt you should give him a try.

quote:

Originally posted by mcdjph:

quote:

If the animals are pen raised, semi-tame, drugged, introduced, forced to a single watering point or shot from a vehicle, then definantly not fair chase.

Too right!

I have not hunted a fenced area of any kind, but I hear it can be just as challenging as a “free Range area”

To put it simply, I think if the fenced area is half as much bigger than the animal’s natural territory example: Impala have a traditional home range of 198 – 445 acres and can over lap with other Impala herds as much as 31% so 667 acres’ would be fair and ethical to hunt an impala in.
Greater kudu herds have home ranges of up to 1284 acres with solitary bulls ranging up to 1717 acres, you can do the math.

In the areas I hunt there are no fences but we know that if there is a certain kudu that has been seen in an area we know he won’t be far and sometimes see him again, and if he is good enough and a client wants one we will go a work that area, and that is considered ethical and the area we will look in is smaller than many ranches.

animals that are raised in a stock yard and released when ready to shoot, Now that is a different story no matter how big the area.

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by mcdjph:
the animal’s natural territory example: Impala have a traditional home range of 198 – 445 acres and can over lap with other Impala herds as much as 31% so 667 acres’ would be fair and ethical to hunt an impala in.
Greater kudu herds have home ranges of up to 1284 acres with solitary bulls ranging up to 1717 acres

mcdjph,

Where might I find that sort of information? Just the thing to evaluate a fenced operation with. Besides, I think it's interesting.

Dean

I'm OK with Maki's point of view. I think many of us equate hunting with how we started hunting. Being 63 I hunted many years before there were extensive high-fence operations. I won't change my opinion. If I have to drive through a high-fence gate, the experience no longer equates to real hunting, for me. If I was 23 and brought up on high fence hunting it wouldn't matter to me probably.

Eventually, before hunting is outlawed entirely, I suspect high-fence will be the only hunting available. You'll probably check-in and pick-up your assigned weapon and a handful of bullets, because you won't own your own, and can't fly them any longer as check-in luggage if you were allowed to own them.

I did hunt high fence in RSA one time for Oryx. The experience was not "hunting" to me. I knew it was just a matter of time. They couldn't evade us indefinitely. That kept the excitement level and urgency at a much lower level for me. When I'm hunting I like that thrill of needing to make decisions quickly in order to outwit the prey. That is hunting.

In the case with high-fence it is like flipping a coin. When you flip "heads" you win. You might flip "tails" five times in a row, but you are hunting in a pen, maybe a big one, but if you keep flipping the coin (moving), you will flip "heads".

The only ethical question is do you mis-represent the animal as being shot while hunting free-range. If you do, you're not a hunter by my definition; you're a liar.

By the way, I can think of few things worse than hunting high-fence and having to admit I was unsuccessful. You're hunting in a pen, and you can neither find nor kill your game. That's a scary thought! That would be the day I quit.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
This is a very complex issue. For example 5000 acres is almost 8 square miles. If that property is brushy or has ravens then it could be more difficult to hunt than a free range property in the dry season with one watering hole.

The issue is not at all complex. High fence usually implies, in the US, chemically enhanced whitetail deer bred for massive horns and to be shot in small areas. Small is defined as 640 acres or less. In Namibia, there is virtually no high fenced areas. If a ranch is 6000 acres and is fences, it is considered small there but in reality, it is not a high fenced operation as there is no selective breeding of animals. In RSA, I hunted on one high fenced area but quit in 15 minutes - 400 acres with 120 Red Lechwe running around in front of the truck. That is high fenced.

What is the answer? Hunt where you can and enjoy it but be sure it is hunting and not just shooting.

When you drive thru a high fence gate and then drive another hour to get to the area you are going to hunt. Oh yea the truck is in good working order. I just can't find any way one could worry about fair chase based on high fencing alone as the criteria of FC.

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
By the way, I can think of few things worse than hunting high-fence and having to admit I was unsuccessful. You're hunting in a pen, and you can neither find nor kill your game. That's a scary thought! That would be the day I quit.

In my opinion.....a very ignorant thing to say.

I tend to agree with Eland Slayer. The hunt is entirely on how it is conducted. Recent data posted here seems to indicate that the only real way to tell a pen-raised Lion from a wild one is whether or not he has a nice mane. If he does, it's almost guaranteed he came from a pen.

KENSCO; is using a PH or motorized transportation to the hunting area within your definition of fair chase? Is Electricity unfair? How about lodge hunting or even a tent camp? Toilets or showers? Using a tracker? Are guided hunts, by their definition, even fair chase?


IMHO, it depends on the size of the enclosed area, and how much interaction the owner has with the game. If a PH "knows" an area where you will find trophy animals, how much different is that from a large (over 5000H) fenced ranch? Most animals do not cover a large area, buffalo aside. Where does hunting from a waterhole or blind come in.

In the end, each hunter must decide what limits he will place on fair chase. Is using a PH a canned hunt? I would describe my 2009 Elk Hunt here in Idaho as coming closest. I went alone, no GPS, no vehicles past the road.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by Otjandaue Hunting Safaris:
The question is, is it easier or less ethical to hunt in a High Fence Area.

In a word, yes.

Depends on the size of the enclosure, variety of habitat and the degree of mental disease of the person you're asking.

……………………………………….High fence, is it fairchase?

The question always seems to come up when the existence of a high game fence is involved on a hunting property. The answer they are seeking is, is this a fair chase hunt, or is it a canned hunt. When this question is asked, there are always very simplistic answers posted to answer the question in favor with their own opinion. Most who get really passionate about the subject state opinion as fact. I find most who answer passionately one way or the other rarely have any experience with hunting behind high fence, and some have little experience hunting under any condition at all.
Having said that the question is not the simple thing most think it to be.
The fence is only one part of any property that is used as a hunting area. In fact the fence is a very minor part in the overall scheme of things needed to make a parcel of land fair chase or not.
The second thing the debaters want to know is how large is the land involved, with the idea one size being OK, and anything smaller in acreage being not fair chase. This too is a simplistic question asking for a simplistic answer.
Then they ask if the animals are tame, and this one does have some validity. All other things involved are negated by the presence of tame animals, fence or no fence.
Then they think because the owner of the place has pictures of animals on his place means that you pick the one you want, and it is delivered up for your shooting. This is not the case in my experience, but the folks who own the place can set up video, or still cameras and show pictures of many of the animals on their property. This is no different than a guy scouting where he will hunt next season filming animals in that area. Because that animal was caught on film doesn’t mean he will be there when the hunter is. Simply because you know he is on the property, doesn't man you can find him.

First let’s answer how the fence impacts the animals inside that fence. First, and foremost the fence is designed to keep things out, more than to keep things in. When the landowner culls the inferior animals out of his land, and reduces the population on his land to the available habitat to best support the animals he has on his property. Things like inferior deer getting in, effect the blood line, and wild feral hogs getting in can destroy not only the fence, but the total habitat, and let in things like coyotes, and wild dogs which are the bane of deer, or exotics.

The size of the property behind the fence is the next question I most often here asked. The answer to this question is very nebulous one! What I mean by that is, two exactly same size properties may actually be very different in actual size. An example I like to use to answer this question is for purposes of ease of display are exactly one square mile (640 acres) and both are perfectly square according the border fence lines. One would think if one is too small the other would be also. This is the slippery slope one gets into when he wants a law that a property needs to be a certain minimum acreage to be fair chase. Again a very simplistic answer to a very complex question.

Lets take one of those square miles that is perfectly flat, with no vegetation higher than two foot high grass. The only way an animal can hide from a hunter is to lie in the grass and not move. A skilled shooter can hit any animal on the property from a position in the exact center of this property, or at least that is what shooters claim to be able to do!

Now lets take the other square mile exactly square along the fence lines still holding what is legally 640 acres (one square mile) , but on this property there are gullies, creaks, brush, and trees, hills, and rock outcroppings, and briar thickets. The land has water in many places, and a multitude of mast and grass to feed the animals.

Both places are actually one square mile in border measurement, right? Wrong! The first one is exactly one square mile in surface area, but the second one, if ironed out flat, would be almost twice the size of the first one. Not only that but in any place in the property all the animal has to do is take a few steps to be out of sight, and once out of sight, one can only guess which way he went after that. This land hunted on foot, providing the animals are not tame is more than fair chase. The animal has the advantage of escape, and knowing his habitat far better than the hunter does, leaving the hunter to try to find him again.

Now! Very few high fence properties are only 640 acres, and most are in the thousands of acres, and if the hunter is only allowed to hunt on foot, even having taken to the middle of the property by vehicle, to start his hunt. This hunter may take an animal, but that in no way lets him use a shopping list of selections. He is no more guaranteed a certain animal than if he was on foot in the Serengeti!

All I’m saying is, The fact that there is a fence around a property, doesn’t make it an unfair advantage for a hunter!

(Stirring) I hunt an enclosed area here in Australia. It's called a continent and is surrounded by water. At only 7,692,024 sq kms. my quarry aren't going to get away from me.

Mac, you described it very well Thank You, I respect every hunters choice of how he would like and prefer to hunt,I was trying to tell hunters that if you want to hunt Africa and Tanzania and some of these places are out of your reach or you might only be able to afford to go to Africa once or twice in your lifetime and there is certain animals you really want then you will have to shoot them in a fenced area, some species is just not that easily available free roaming unless you have a lot of money and can hunt a few African countries that presents those those animals.

MJines ( Mike) believes it is easier, I disagree, on a put and take propperty yes, I will guarantee you will shoot a Eland Bull easier in the North where they are free roaming then on my propperty. I have hunted the North many times and know the populations that roam there and also on some propperties there you will shoot a Hartebeest easier then on my prooperty.

Mike if you're ever in Namibia again and you have a day to spare, let me know and you're welcome to come and spent a night for free on my ranch, I will take you through the ranch although a day isn't merely enough but it will give you a good idea, then you can tell me afterwards if you still think it's a closed case if you want a specific animal.

Roy

quote:

Originally posted by Otjandaue Hunting Safaris:
certain animals you really want then you will have to shoot them in a fenced area, some species is just not that easily available free roaming unless you have a lot of money and can hunt a few African countries that presents those those animals.

For some people the hunt and process are more important than the end result even if they come back emply handed on a hunt for that prized.......they always dreamed about. Not everyone has to win. Sometimes playing the game well is enough. Just a thought.

Brett

Eland Slayer a very stupid comment to make.

Idaho Sharpshooter, your opinion is no better than anyone else's and doesn't invalidate mine. I don't feel the need to define anything for you. I suspect you can justify high-fence hunting, to yourself. I prefer not to spend my money behind a locked gate and high fence.

You know, I've never hunted a high fence area -
but also have never "bitched" about someone who chooses to!

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
You know, I've never hunted a high fence area -
but also have never "bitched" about someone who chooses to!

Right on, Ray!

I would rather hunt the open areas of Zambia for my part in hunting, but I have done two culling hunts in a high fenced property. I hunt these things with an iron sighted double rifle, and on foot. I can assure anyone who wants to know, that certainly you will shoot something if that is all you want to do. However, if you are looking for a particular species of animal, and a good one and you hunt on foot, you will earn the meat you take home! Camp Cooley has only 2000 acres behind high fence, and if you drive through it you will see lots of animals, but if you get out of the car, and hit the very thick Yaupon holly thickets, you will be lucky to do more than hear them leaving the country.
Still it is not like hunting the Luangwa Valley, even by car, but it is not the difficulty of the hunt that is compromised, but the mideset of the guy doing the hunting that makes the hunt different. The fence is on his mind, even if the hunt it's self may be harder behaind the fence.
There are many people who will never be able to hunt even real open land in the USA, much less Africa. For those people the imported exotics may be the closest thing they can come by.
Certainly it is not for everyone, and is not my cup of tea any more than anyone else here, but to say that because of a fence, any animal taken within, is a laundery list of a simple sniping exercise, or that it has to be a certain size to be fair chase, is the simply result of a closed mind, IMO!

..............Hunt how you want! It is your coin!

For me it is not fenced vs. unfenced it is more a matter of naturally occurring and self sustaining. I'm not interested in shooting a Sable in Texas. I won't shoot one a half hour from Windhoek.

Your mileage may vary!!

Aw, hell.

I thought the insult-a-fellow-AR member-because-of-how-he-chooses-to-hunt phase ended with the CB/ISS silliness some months ago. Apparently not.

This time around, I cannot see how to fault ISS's reasoning.

AGAIN: Hunt the way you like to hunt, so long as it's legal. Have a great time. Post your adventure here on AR, with plenty of photos. As to how others choose to hunt, STFU.

quote:

Originally posted by mauser93:
Hunt the way you like to hunt, so long as it's legal. Have a great time. Post your adventure here on AR, with plenty of photos. As to how others choose to hunt, STFU.

AMEN to that.....

I've read this entire thread and thoughfully, here's my analysis.

I believe this issue is one more of the natural evolution of the hunters desires rather than the right or wrongs of concession hunting itself.

I started in RSA, did three hunts there and have no regrets, It was fun exciting and gave me the appetite for Africa. I still have many friends there and still visit on my way in and out to other more "classic" safari destinations.

I have a VERY difficult time believing that most if not all concession operators don't paticipate in "put and take". I've been to the auctions and seen the inside of that whole deal. Still no regrets and I still think that RSA is a good first safari destination.

I just don't see how a 5K acre concession can creat a naturally sustaining herd, I feel it to be impossible, but if I saw proof I could be convinced as I am not a game biologist. I have seen the average kudu trophy size stats from PHASA, it has gone from 51 5-8 years ago to 48 (I think) a year or two ago. That and the auction prices for a mature (not trophy)kudu bull last conversation I had with a pal of mine in Steenbokpan was 1,800-2,000 US dollars. The numbers just don't add up.

Ethics? a personal matter. shooting from the truck, bullshit IMHO, again legal but ethical?

Nganga

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
I just don't see how a 5K acre concession can creat a naturally sustaining herd, I feel it to be impossible

Nganga

Yes, you absolutely can have self-sustaining herds of animals on 5,000 acres.....in fact, much less than that. I have been to many game ranches here in the states that are 500-1,000 acres with self-sustaining whitetail herds and some with exotics as well. The properties I am referring to are high fenced and may have bought some animals in the beginning to stock the property, but after that the animals were allowed to reproduce naturally with no human intervention whatsoever. I have also visited "put & take" places, but the two types are VERY different and easily distinguishable.

I hunted Eland on a 1,000 acre ranch here in Texas that had a very large self-sustaining herd on it. The Eland were purchased in the 1960's and since then were allowed to reproduce and form social groups just like they would in the wild. On the sixth day of hunting, I finally shot my big old bull out of a bachelor herd of 4 bulls. He was old and I don't believe he was a breeding animal anymore.

I have no problem with hunting inside a fence,as long as it is a BIG area, and the animals have a change to get away from you, but I just prefer hunting free range. I might check out one of those Texas eland hunts someday, bet that would be some good eating.