http://www.opednews.com
August 23, 2006 at 07:18:59


By Walter Brasch

Ralph A. Saggiomo is an affable sort of fellow, one you probably wouldn't mind having a couple of beers with, swap a few tales, and discuss just about anything.

He grew up in one of the most rural, most remote parts of the country, and considers himself to have the same values as the Colonials who lived in Pennsylvania more than two centuries earlier. But, he's also lived in urban America. He was a Philadelphia firefighter for 33 years, the last few in command positions.

After retirement, he moved back to his 75-acre family farm in Sayre, Pa., and continued his work in local civic organizations, becoming president of both the Greater Valley Emergency Medical Services and the Sayre Business Association. He's a member of the Pennsylvania Governor's Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing & Conservation; and was president of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, an association that claims about 20,000 members.

For 60 years, Ralph A. Saggiomo has proudly been killing fish and game, both small and large. Name a domestic species, and he's probably shot at it, wounded it, or killed it.

He says he was told one of his more recent kills was a Dall Sheep; more likely, it was a Texas Dall ram, a lucrative target because of its thick curly horns. The rams, a hybrid of Corsican and Mouflon sheep, are primarily bred to look like the Dall Sheep, native to the mountainous regions of Alaska and the northwest part of Canada. Dall sheep are a challenge to hunters because of their adept ability to escape into the steep mountainous slopes. Domesticated Texas Dall rams pose no such problems.

Whatever he killed-"dispatched" and "harvested" are the terms hunters euphemistically prefer-Saggiomo didn't have to go more than 3,000 miles to the subarctic mountains, he only had to go about 50 miles from his home to the Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve. Saggiomo's day of killing, a gift from his family, was in a fenced-in area.

"It was a wonderful experience," Saggiomo told the Pennsylvania House Game and Fisheries Committee, which was holding a hearing in equally remote Towanda, an hour's drive east of Tioga, away from the major media and in an area not likely to bring many protestors. The Committee was in Towanda to hear testimony about a bill to ban what has become known as a "canned hunt." For a few thousand dollars, Great White Hunters-complete with rented guides, dogs, and guns or bows-can go into a fenced-in area and shoot an exotic species. In most canned hunts, the animals have been bred to be killed, have little fear of humans, and are often lured to a feeding station or herded toward the hunter to allow a close-range kill. In some of the preserves-Tioga denies it ever used these techniques-animals are drugged or tied to stakes. Some of the "big cats," recorded by investigative undercover videos by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the Fund for Animals were declawed, placed in cages, and then released; the terrified and non-aggressive animals were then killed within a few yards of their prisons; some were killed while in their cages.

Canned hunts attract not only ethics-challenged pretend-hunters, but ethics-challenged celebrities as well. Among celebrities who have participated in canned hunts, and who mistakenly believe they are hunters and not cold-blooded killers, are Vice-President Dick Cheney, who has been on several hunts in which the kill was assured; and Troy Gentry of the country-rock duo, Montgomery Gentry.

In December 2003, Cheney and nine of his friends-including former Naval Academy and Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), and some Texas high-roller Republican party donors-went to the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier, Pa., about an hour's drive east of Pittsburgh. The owners of the country club, being the good hosts they were, released 500 domesticated and penned-up ring-necked pheasants in the morning. Bird Dog and Retriever News reports that about 40 percent of all domesticated pheasants, if not shot by pretend-hunters, either starve or are killed by predators within the first week of their release; about 75 percent die within a month.

At Ligonier, starvation wasn't a problem. A game keeper told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Cheney alone killed about 70 of the 417 killed that day. In the afternoon, having hardly raised a bead of sweat, the good ole boys slaughtered dozens, perhaps hundreds, of equally tame mallards that had been hand-raised and shoved in front of waiting shotguns for the massacre. No one kept score, but by the time Cheney flew out of the area, the mallards were plucked and vacuum-packed, according to the Post-Gazette, ready for flight aboard the taxpayer-funded Air Force 2. The pheasants the hunting party didn't keep, according to the Dallas (Texas) Morning News, were donated to a local food bank. However, no one involved indicated which food bank, nor did they acknowledge that preparing pheasant is cumbersome, and that such a donation, if it did occur, was probably more of a public relations ploy or a tax-deduction to justify their killing orgy than community service. Nor does any "donation" alleviate the reality that people in these non-challenging fenced-in grounds kill because they like the excitement of killing a live animal, often mixed with the sheer joy of watching their prey die. After awhile, the animals are seen only as things to be blasted, essentially living clay pigeons; it is an attitude that true sportsmen abhor.

The owners of the country club didn't say how much, if anything, the Cheney Pot-Shot Safari paid, but others who go to the exclusive country club/canned preserve pay for each bird or duck killed. It's in the financial interest of the owners to make sure there's easy prey.

Even easier prey was a black bear named Cubby. In October 2004, Troy Gentry, who had paid about $4,650 for the tame bear, killed it on a private "preserve" in Sandstone, Minn., and then tagged it as if the bear was killed in the wild. There was even an edited videotape of the "stalking" and killing by the singer who envisions himself to be an expert archer. There is no law against the murder of animals if done on private property. But, in August 2006, Gentry was in federal court to defend himself against a violation of the Lacey Act, which forbids the false tagging of any animal.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), with 10 co-sponsors, introduced a bill (S. 304) in February 2005 to ban the interstate transport of exotic animals for the purpose of them being killed on private preserves. "There is nothing sportsmanlike or skillful about shooting an animal that cannot escape," said Lautenberg at the time he introduced the bill, and emphasized, "In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in our society." That bill is buried in the Senate's Subcommittee on the Judiciary. A companion bill (HR 1688), introduced in the House of Representatives by Sam Farr (D-Calif.), with 39 co-sponsors, is buried in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Under the Republican-controlled Congress, neither bill is likely to emerge from committee.

For his part, President Bush wants to amend the Endangered Species Act to allow trophy-hunting Americans who kill endangered species in other countries to import them into the U.S. The proposal has roots in the Safari Club International; its political action committee has given about $800,000 in campaign contributions, mostly to Republican candidates, since 2000, according to an investigation by the Humane Society of the United States. The plan has the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose former deputy director was chief lobbyist for the Safari Club before his appointment by Bush. He is now with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Many of the animals on canned hunts are surplus animals bought from dealers who buy cast-off animals from zoos and circuses; the animals sold to the preserves are often aged and arthritic. Dozens of preserves have bought black bears, zebras, giraffes, lions, boars, and just about any species of animal the client could want, solely to be killed, photographed, and then skinned, stuffed, and mounted. Ralph Saggiomo's sheep may have come from a breeder in Missouri. The proprietors at Tioga, said Saggiomo, "were gracious, humane and helpful."

Those "humane" proprietors are the Gee family, which believes their "preserve" is really a private farm. Like ones that grow alfalfa and corn. A 1,550 acre private farm-with a fenced-in area of about 150 acres to make that "sure shot" more probable. And, while people "from all over the world" are killing animals at Tioga, the "farm" operation provides significant "economic benefits" to the community, according to Michael Gee. There are 14 Pennsylvania farms and about 1,000 in the nation that the proprietors believe are the poster children for the Chambers of Commerce and, most certainly, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.

This particular "farm," according to its website, "features high success rate hunting, youth hunts, hunts with dogs, guided hunts, trophy hunts, Sunday hunting . . . virtually any type of big game hunt you can imagine." Whatever "you can image" costs $70 a day for food and lodging, plus a kill fee and supplementary costs for skinning and mounting. Pay $595 and you can kill a Texas Dall ram, rocky mountain ram, or Corsican ram. Buffalo are at least $1,250. Elk bulls come for $2,000. And, just in case you have trouble killing one of the nation's 30 million white-tailed deer-1.6 million of them in Pennsylvania alone-during the bow, crossbow, muzzleloader, rifle, or shotgun seasons, just come to Tioga. For $1,000 "and up," you can get that elusive buck, with a 10-point rack suitable for mounting in your very own trophy room in suburban America. Tioga's rates are at the lower end of the scale. At other preserves, prices for white-tailed deer, with trophy-sized racks, can be more than $5,000. The costs for some of the exotic "trophy"-class animals, usually found only in sub-Saharan Africa, are well over $15,000.

Tioga, like most preserves, guarantees a kill. The clients are told they "may hunt as long as you wish until you get what you wish." No hunting licenses are required, there are no limits, Sunday hunting is permitted, and "kills are usually made from 25 to 100 yards." This "farm" even tells prospective clients, "Wild goat and sheep with large horns are numerous. Hunting them is great sport for the hunter." The rocky mountain ram, with "their big, sweeping, curled horns make a great trophy," the Gee family tells prospective clients. Of course, there are some restrictions. No one under the age of 10 is allowed to shoot.

Heidi Prescott, undoubtedly feeling like a peace activist in a convention of Army recruiters, was the only one at the House committee hearing who didn't fish, hunt, or had close ties to the hunting industry. Prescott is senior vice-president of the Humane Society of the United States, which has a membership of 9.5 million, more than three times that of the National Rifle Association. Prescott showed members of the committee news stories and a separate undercover videotape of canned hunts. Before the hearing, Michael Gee had told a local newspaper that animal rights groups "just try to bring up extreme cases to prove their point," and use it as a "stepping stone" to ban hunting. "If she says anything in that video is from Tioga, that's a lie," Pete Gee, Michael's father, retorted to the undercover investigation by Emmy-winning investigative reporter Melanie Alnwick of WTTG-TV (Fox News), Washington, D.C. The news story-but not the videotape of the brutal killing of a boar, probably at another game preserve in Pennsylvania-was filmed in early May 2006 at Tioga, according to Aaron Wische, WTTG's executive producer for special projects.

Most "kills" on the "farms" are from animals bleeding out. Animals suffer minutes to hours, says Prescott. Canned hunting, says Prescott, "is about as sporting as shooting a puppy in pet store window." Most sportsmen agree with her. The concept of the "fair chase" is embedded into hunter culture. The Boone & Crockett Club and the Pope and Young Club (bowhunters), two of the three primary organizations that rate trophy kills, refuse to accept applications from persons who bagged their "trophy" on a canned hunt. The Safari Club does allow persons to seek recognition, but only under limitations that most preserves can't meet.

Members of the committee weren't convinced that canned hunts need to be banned. Rep. Tina Puckett (R-Towanda) told a reporter before the hearing she believed banning the canned hunt "could be the beginning of an attempt to say 'no preserve hunting,'" which then leads to no hunting." She said she wouldn't favor the bill "because of those down-the-road concerns." Rep. Thomas Corrigan (D-Bucks County) says he submitted the bill, which carries 38 cosponsors, for consideration because canned hunts are "unsporting, cruel, and tarnish the image of all hunters."

The House committee kept throwing pointed questions to Prescott; she adeptly batted them back.

The bill that prohibits canned hunting would also be the first step to eliminating all hunting. Not so, said Prescott. Of the 22 states that already ban such practices, "the hunting culture is still strong." She pointed to Montana, which has one of the nation's strongest hunting cultures. In 2000, following a hunter-led initiative, it became the first state to ban canned hunts, reinforcing the values that true sportsmen believe in fair chase.

The state's 900 deer and elk farms would be banned. The bill specifically excludes deer, elk, and all other cervidae.

The bill would prohibit farmers or butchers from killing livestock for food. "No judge in his right mind would interpret it that way," retorted Prescott, who said the Humane Society "would be happy to work with representatives to amend it if members were truly concerned about it."

Ralph Saggiomo, according to his official biography published by the Governor's Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing & Conservation, has a "love for the outdoors," and has "spent the greater part of his life enjoying the outdoors and has been able to pass his passion on to all of his children, who have become successful hunters, fishermen, and trappers. His grandchildren are now carrying on the tradition, which his father and grandfather passed on to him." Although still active in the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, if Saggiomo was a sportsman, he wouldn't have shot a domesticated animal that was lured into his sights and had no way to escape. If he truly understood the beauty and grandeur of the outdoors, he would have allowed animals to live their lives without the intrusion of people who kill not for food or clothing but because their hormones are infused with the ecstasy they get from the kill and the resultant "trophy," which he says now hangs in his den.


www.walterbrasch.com

Walter Brasch is an award-winning journalist and university professor. His current books are America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights, and 'Unacceptable': The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, both available at amazon.com, borders.com and most major on-line bookstores.

I agree that canned "hunts" arent hunting at all and are simply pathetic, as are those who equate it to hunting. But to me that article wreaks of anti-hunting sentiment.

I agree, the article fairly drips with anti-hunter sentemant and slant. Pen raised quail and phesant can be just as hard to hunt as their wild counterparts if properly raised and flight trained...did that get mentioned, just for example? Mortality rates seem exaggerated too...

Yeah, shooting in pens and while tied to a stake is reprehensable, but done correctly many exotic hunts are just as challenging...

Hello the camp:

What exactly was the point in the above quoted article? Kathi is listed as "one of us' meaning that she has posted several times before. I aonder if this is her sentement, or is she reporting another strike at hunting in general?
I have not taken part in hunts behind fences, and do not intend to. I do know there are fences and there are fences. A sheep in a 2 acre clear cut lot is one thing, in a 200 acre wooded or brushey enclosure is something else. I generally hunt on 200 acres of wooded hills that has a 3 strand barbed wire fence around it. I will take 1-3 whitetails each season and do not feel as if it is canned. Thee are a lot of easy and hard hunts around that are not "canned". Each of us has his or her own ethics as to what is fair chase.

That said, shooting an animal in a pen is to me no better or worse than killing a beef or a hog or a chicken to eat. It is not sport, but it happens because people will pay for it.

Next time someone sits down to a steak dinner, or picks up a leather purse, or eats a hot dog, remember that animal is just as dead as if it were shot in a pen for its horns. The trophy is what it means to the individual, not how it was taken. Shooting a penned cat would not mean anything to me. Shooting one in the wild would.

Just my humble opinion, for what it is worth.

Judge Sharpe

The article is just anti hunting propoganda.

I am sorry that I read it. Even sorry that it was posted in the first place.

I sense that anti-hunters are going use "ban canned hunting" as their catch phrase. Trouble is, what will be defined as a "canned hunt". Will baiting for deer or bear become a canned hunt? Using food plots? Will duck/goose hunting next to corn be considered canned? Or hunting hay meadows for mule deer?

I've done my share of fair chase on four continents. I also do a "canned" pheasant shoot every year or two with pals. When my son was in college and only home over Christmas break, we twice went on a day long "canned" hunt on 200 acres for boar and fallow deer. It was a great day afield together and we made it as sporting as possible.

So if you don't want to spend a day hunting pigs on private property or do a tower shoot for pheasants, then fine, don't. But be careful siding with the anti's on this issue.

A true canned hunt is wrong -- pure and simple. And "hunters" do not participate in such. But to include all high-fenced operations under the same umbrella is equally wrong.

Here in Texas, there are many high-fenced ranches, and a number of them are over 100,000 acres. The fence is never an issue on these large ranches, and the game is just as wild and wary as any other area. In fact, a couple of years ago, a "writer" had booked an unguided hunt with a ranch in the southwest portion of the state. I was given this information in confidence, so I won't mention any names. But as this happened a couple of years ago, I don't think it can hurt to share the basic details of the debacle. So here it goes...

This is rough and rugged country -- unforgiving at times -- where cactus and catclaw carve up the unknowing, where rattlers can turn a dream hunt into a nightmare and where water is always in short supply. But his client asked no questions about the terrain, wanted no guiding assistance and was non-chalant about the entire affair.

The ranch manager had read his work before and knew that he had taken a couple of cheap shots at high-fenced operations in the past (this ranch was high-fenced and just over 20,000 acres). So he decided to have a little fun with him. Just after daybreak, he dropped off the writer near the center of the ranch near a bluff overlooking some promising hunting areas -- albeit in the most rugged and remote part of the ranch. He said "I'll pick you up at the gate 30 minutes after sunset. But if you get lost, just get to the fence and follow it back."

To make a long story short, the "writer" was not at the designated pickup point. Within minutes, the ranch headquarters phone rang, and a deseprate voice on the other end admitted he was hopelessly lost since around 3 p.m. and could not find his way to the gate OR EVEN TO THE FENCE!

I am not certain, but I do believe this "writer" visits AR on occasion, and if he wants to chime in, I'd like to know if his opinion of high-fenced ranches has changed. And for the record, he didn't bag anything while hunting alone; on the 4th day, with the added services of a guide, he did manage to tag a decent buck.

But back to my point: high-fencing 2 acres amounts to shooting fish in a barrel. But the fence is never an issue on large tracts of land, where the game roams freely and is just as challenging to hunt as on any low-fenced operation. So be judicious in your assessment of the "canned hunt" topic as some would prefer to have all hunts listd as "canned," even those take take place on tens of thousands of acres.

I would not participate in a canned hunt but...what is the moral difference in killing a tame bear and killing a domesticated cow or chicken?

I agree with Grumulkin I think that if some one is foolish enough to pay thousands of dollars for a farmed raised critter that is their trouble.

I see no differants in this shooting then killing any other farm raised critter.

Most of the anti can hunt laws are around about laws to get at all hunting.

I always suspect %'s quoted by the Humane Soceity. I think there are many people in their ranks who sincerely want to stop abuse/neglect of animals....but I beleive that the upper echeleon has their aims at bigger targets. I think the author has obvious biases that make me suspect everyhting he says.

Their agenda is not only to stop "inhumane treatment of all animals" but I truly believe they would include all animals in their long range goals and all treatment that is not what makes them fell warm and fuzzy inside...say buy to your pork, chickens, fish, beef and turkeys and hello to Tofu and soy milk.

Morally a dead animal is a dead animal....just don't say that you "hunted" when you shot a whitetail or a elk in a 50 acre enclosure. You may have shot it, but IN MY MIND, an animal needs to have a pretty good chance at escape to make it truly hunted. This probably means different things for differnt species....I can see where a high fenced are in the hill country of Texas could have 500+ acres and it would truly be a hunt.....

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeSharpe:
Hello the camp:

What exactly was the point in the above quoted article? Kathi is listed as "one of us' meaning that she has posted several times before. I aonder if this is her sentement, or is she reporting another strike at hunting in general?

Kathi justs posts stories she thinks we may want to read -- she is not anti-hunting and is a travel agent who specializes in getting hunters to Africa. She is most definitely pro-hunting in my book.

Canned hunt is an oxymoron. Hunting requires fair chase.

I object more to the use of the term "hunting" in this context than to the practice. Killing a sheep in a pen isn't any different that killing a cow in a slaughterhouse.

The article is trying to usurp the use of the word HUNTING by redefining it with a negative meaning.

If the fat cats want to spend their money shooting livestock, more wild game to hunt for me. Just stick with "collecting" or "harvesting", if you don't like to use "blowing away".

Then, leave the hunting to the rest of us. JMO, Dutch.

Canned hunts are cool with me. Anyone can do whatever they want as long as its legal. Just don't think for one second that your trophy bull should get recognized in any of the same record books as my free ranging trophy, no matter how big the enclosure.

This is exactly why I hate fenced operations as well. Go ahead and flame me if you want...I am a big boy. But, the general non-hunting public DOES equate fenced hunting with canned hunts...sorry, but that is reality in 99% of the cases.

Gentlemen, Kathi was simply makeing you aware of what is being written in the press today. She is a booking agent for hunts in Africa, and many other places like Alaska as well.

These articles are STRAWMAN articles,and you don't win if you agree with them, or dissagree with them. They are written, as facts, by antis to draw you into down gradeing other hunters, and you guys bit hook line and sinker. You say you hate the Antis, but in fact this discussion helps them with their agenda!

No hunter would particapate in a true canned "HUNT", that goes without saying. However,not all hunting places with high fences are anything close to being canned hunts, in fact, most are not even close.

Simply saying,"because the public doesn't understand what a Canned hunt is, then we shouldn't participate in hunts they consider to be canned hunts", is yealding to the anti's agenda. The hunter's agenda should be to educate the public, not yeald to missguided opinion, given them by the antis! For instance it is illegal to release animals on your land in RSA, with out a game proof fence. This was necessary because of the fact that the RSA was denuded of wildlife in tha late 1800s, and all the animals there now were brought back in by land owners. and many of those animals would be extinct today if they had not been put behind fence. This applies even more the species found on game ranches in the USA. Many of the animals are extinct in their native lands, where they were found only in the wild. These places manage the populations so there is a harvestable number to be utilized, without endangering the species at all. Many of the fenced ranches in RSA are in the millions of acres behind fence, and are far in excess of the natural range of the animals there. These are the ranches the antis are trying to give to misinformed the iopinion that they are CANNED, simply because of the fence. Even they know the if the public knew these places were simply natural habitat that has a fence around it,and that the animals are not "TIED TO A STAKE" , and have everything they need to survive, only people are fenced OUT unless they have permission to be there, the public wouldn't believer the anti's crap. SOOOOOOoooooooooo they get hunters to down grade these opperation for them, by devideing them amoung themselves!

Years ago the anti's cry was if you were real hunters, you would hunt with a bow & arrows, so the animals has a chance. this put a rift between the rifle hunters and the archers. Now that they have that they change ad attack the archer with the rifle hunter's help. They start things like muzzleloaders against each other one side with the scoped in-lines, and the other with the buckskinner's flint locks. Now we have hunters with the "fence makes the antis think an opperation is a canned hunt,so we shouldn't hunt there" mentality. That same mentality says now we shouldn't use a scope on or rifles "because the antis think that gives the hunter an unfair advantage". I say BS tell the antis to get bent, and tell everyone you see that their statements are lies, but you can't tell them of the lies unless you read them for your self, in articles like the one Kathi posted.

TRUE canned hunts are as rare as hen's teeth, but when you see one raise hell, but simply yealding to the opinion of antis, and the general public, and not dooing anything they don't like is not the way, because to them all hunting is canned and they want all hunting outlawed ! All I'm saying is, don't help them by attacking other hunters, so they will leave you kind alone, because when, with you help, they get those guys, your next gentlemen!

I agree with Hank H entirely. While WE may recognize the difference between shooting an animal in a 50 acre enclosure and a 20,000 acre enclosure with no internal fences, the non-hunting public, that is to say, the vast majority of voters in this country and people on the planet, don't see a distinction. Before you espouse the position of "as long as it's legal, it's ok" bear that in mind. The non-hunting majority could very well decide to make hunting behind a fence-- and all other hunting as well-- illegal because we defended a practice they can't see as ethical. (Even most non-hunters see fair chase hunting-- "where the animal stands a chance"-- as ethical.)

OK. So for the holier than thou types that have a direct line to the source of all ethics, there shall be no "canned hunting." But the issue is not so black and white as they would like you to believe. To wit, some examples:

1. Hunter A goes on a hunt in the Republic of South Africa and takes a nice waterbuck on a ranch of some 2500 acres. There is a perimeter fence around the ranch. Is this a canned hunt?

2. Hunter B goes to Texas and hunts on a ranch of some 50,000 acres around which is a perimeter fence about four feet high. Nobody but paying guests can hunt on this ranch, and "B" takes a 170 class whitetail, paying over $6,000 for the privilege. Is this a canned hunt?

3. Hunter C goes to a shooting preserve in Pennsylvania and goes pheasant hunting. The hunt takes place on a "farm" that is posted as a hunting preserve and closed to all except those who pay for the privilege of hunting there. That morning, thirty birds are released for him and his buddies. A handler with a dog is supplied for them. They shoot twenty pheasants in half a day hunting. Is this a canned hunt.

4. Hunter D goes to Utah for an elk hunt on a private ranch consisting of over 30,000 acres. On this ranch, the number of bull elk taken is strictly limited, and elk are far more numerous than on surrounding public land. Hunter D pays over $8,000 for the privilege of harvesting a bull elk scoring over 350 B&C inches. Is this a canned hunt?

5. Hunter E goes to a whitetail operation in Michigan that takes place on an area of five square miles that is enclosed in high fence. He takes a whitetail buck that scores 190 B&C inches. Was this a canned hunt?

Now, before you answer this, each one of these examples is perfectly legal in the jurisdictions in which they occur. In addition, unless I miss my guess, each would be within SCI's code of ethics, but the trophies taken on some of the hunts would not qualify for entry in B&C's record book. Additionally, as per some posters on these boards, each of the above could be defined as a "canned hunt."

Have at it, and consider your answers wisely, or shoot from the hip without thinking. Whichever suits you best.

Aw gosh, I feel compelled to add the hunt participated in by hunter C. He goes on a baited bear hunt in Alberta. He takes a nice black bear that comes in to a barrel bait filled with smoked oats. Is this a canned hunt?

Montana Sportsmen had the forethought and ethics to outlaw this kind of thing when they passed I-143 a few years ago. I simply can't understand the thought process of people who believe shooting of tame and penned game is anything resembling fair chase hunting. I think about this kind of thing alot and I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. States that have allowed this kind of enterprise to perpetuate have simply allowed personal profit to triumph over the North American wildlife conservation model that restored game populations here while keeping hunting available to all citizens regardless of wealth and class. Put and take pheasant shooting, high fence shooting operations, etc are two of the "thousand cuts" that, if not resisted, will eventually make the rest of the US look like Europe or much of Texas.

Patrkyhntr--When we begin to think of wildlife as something we can own, its over. High fences="ownership", and the operators of these things profit from the sale of these animals to shooters. Market hunting is shat wiped out game in the US near the turn of the Century and has made the public hunting opportunities we have here in most of the US greater than anywhere else in the world. The fact that its "legal"just means that true Sportsmen havn't yet stepped up and doen something about it yet. They should.

quote:

Originally posted by snowcat:
Montana Sportsmen had the forethought and ethics to outlaw this kind of thing when they passed I-143 a few years ago. I simply can't understand the thought process of people who believe shooting of tame and penned game is anything resembling fair chase hunting.

Snowcat, this statement above assumes the animals on all these places are TAME, and PENNED And on small places where the animals have been hand fed, and handled by people all their lives I agree wholeheartedly!

I have lived in the Texas ranch country all my life, and have been on many of these opperations. I can assure you, on the ranches I've been on the animals are certainly not tame, and even with a high fence around the outside the place you are certainly no going to have an easy time getting a shot from less that 200 yds, on things like Black Buck,or a Auhdad (spl), besides where else would you hunt black buck, except on a game ranch? They were hunted out in their home by 90 yrs ago! In fact, ten Texas Ranchers went together,un silicited, and sent 100 head of Black Buck antilope to the Indian government, free of charge, so they might start a seed herd of them back in their origenal home land. These Black Buck were taken from ten herds so the gene pool would be viable! I'm sure some will find a way to to make something other than concern for the species, out of that! How do you think that the outside of a ranch haveing a fence, automaticlly makes the animals inside tame?

When you live in one of the states like Montana where you have thousands of acres of public land to hunt, then the quote above makes sence, when you have thousands of square miles of public land, it's easy to cut down those who must hunt on leases. Since you seem to like to make an example of Texas, let me say, the state of Texas, is 99% privately owned, and I am 70 yrs old, and have lived most of my life in Texas. Hunting here has always been on private land, because there is nothing else to hunt, and hasn't been since the early 1800s. Back in the 1800s the cattlemen got a law passed, in Texas, that had nothing to do with hunting! That law let the Rancher do what is called "Checker boarding" of free grassland (public land). What they do is lease every other section of the land,in a checker board pattern, and because they surround all the public land, they control, and graze it all, and can deny access to that land.

There are 252 counties in Texas, that covers 365 thousand square miles of the land in Texas, and the only public land that is available to the hunter is that which he leases, or pays a trespass fee to hunt! That is the whole state, regardless of the highth of the fences. You want to hunt in Texas you pay, PERIOD! The only ranches that are high fence are the ones who own exotic animals, and there is no difference between owning them, than the cattle on their ranch, which are not any more indiginous to the USA, than the exotics.

Just like their cattle, they sell the right to hunt these animals, on their land, then a trophy fee when you kill or wound one, and it is no different than the cow they sold, so you could eat your last beef steak, and someone else killed that for you.


I'd bet my next retirement check you have never even been to Texas, or inside any high fence hunting ranch anyplace, and you are simply voicing opinion, fostered by the media, and the Anti's propaganda. All I'm saying is you can't paint with the broad brush, and remain believable, that is the tactic of the anti-hunting people.

If there is an opperation that is to small, and with no cover, and selling pet animals, I'll be right beside you in the protest, but just like fishing a small pond doesn't mean you are going to catch a trophy fish you know is there, anymore than you will shoot a trophy animal on a ranch you have never seen' or hunted, but you say simply because it has a fence YOU know it is not hunting! I hunted an Island in SouthEast Alaska that is smaller than some H/F ranches in Texas, and the blacktail deer, and the very large coastal Brown bears there seemed to be able to avoid you quite well.

It costs thousands to hunt this island, that is naturally fenced by very heavy currents, and deep salt water, but there are those who hunt there, and pay the price, yet out of the other side of their mouths they say a bigger place with a high fence, and far more cover, and escape routes, is not hunting, though they have never been there! Hypocrisy runs deep in some folks, and anything they do is OK, but the other guy is somehow always wrong,if he does the same thing in a different place.

I was born on a Hill country ranch in the top end of the Texas hill country, and we hunted on our own ranch till it was sold by my mother after my grand parents died. From that time on I have had to pay rediculous prices to hunt out of state,some of it in Montana,and wyoming, but mostly in New Mexico,Alaska, and Africa, while the folks who lived in the states I hunted paid little, and I was told by locals I was hunting THEIR game, while hunting on public land, so much for your modern game management leaving all the hunting to all the people, equally.

I can guarentee you,Montana ranchers are not going to let me hunt on thier deeded land unless I pay them to hunt the game that you say belongs to us all. That, my friend, is the same as owning the public game that is on his property, and that is without benefite of high fence. I see nothing wrong in his chargeing me to trespass on his private property, to hunt! I believe it is the American way for a land owner to have final say as to what happens on his property! What I do have a problem with is, the state chargeing me ten times what they charge a resident to hunt goverment public land like BLM land, and national forests, that belongs to us all, for the game, you say also belongs to us all. That non resident fee to hunt on government land for publicly owned game is a far higher fence than any wire in Texas.

I agree with you, true Canned Hunts should be stopped, but the fact there is a fence doesn't automaticlly make a ranch hunt a canned hunt. True canned hunts west of the Mississippi River, are as scarce as hen's teeth! There are far more things involved in CANNED HUNTING than a fence, and most of the true canned hunts are in the heavily populated Eastern USA, on little 50 acre pens! The antis are gaining, mainly because of two reasons! They are the ignorant, speaking from info they got from the media, and the other is closed minded hunter who thinks he is the only one who should make the rules for the rest of us!

quote:

Originally posted by snowcat:
Montana Sportsmen had the forethought and ethics to outlaw this kind of thing when they passed I-143 a few years ago. I simply can't understand the thought process of people who believe shooting of tame and penned game is anything resembling fair chase hunting. I think about this kind of thing alot and I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. States that have allowed this kind of enterprise to perpetuate have simply allowed personal profit to triumph over the North American wildlife conservation model that restored game populations here while keeping hunting available to all citizens regardless of wealth and class. Put and take pheasant shooting, high fence shooting operations, etc are two of the "thousand cuts" that, if not resisted, will eventually make the rest of the US look like Europe or much of Texas.

Patrkyhntr--When we begin to think of wildlife as something we can own, its over. High fences="ownership", and the operators of these things profit from the sale of these animals to shooters. Market hunting is shat wiped out game in the US near the turn of the Century and has made the public hunting opportunities we have here in most of the US greater than anywhere else in the world. The fact that its "legal"just means that true Sportsmen havn't yet stepped up and doen something about it yet. They should.

Do I take it from your reply that you believe all of the examples I mentioned should be outlawed? Or are you just speaking in glittering generalities?

Mac, you're mistaken on a couple counts. Montana has been working for decades to maintain free sportsman access to private land through the "Block Management" program. Currently over 1250 landowners participate and 8.5 MILLION private acres are open to free public hunting every fall as a result. Many millions more private acres are open by the landowners who choose to allow public hunting without participating formally in the program. The State works with landowners to manage public use of their lands through permitting, enforcing vehicular access, and generally running the hunts in a way that minimize headaches for the landowners. In addition to this facilitation, the State can use negotiatiating grazing leases on state lands as an incentive to encourage public access, help with weed control, etc. Money to support the program comes primarily from liscense sales. No one is forced to participate. What makes it work is MT has a tradition of allowing free sportsman access to private land and that there are disincentives in place to turn public wildlife in to private profit.

MT is seeing increased leased, excluclusive access lands, especially in SE MT. Some big operations have begun buying up leases and "outfitting" exclusive hunts on these lands. I hate the practice but the difference is that these lands are not fenced. I don't care how big the spread is, when you fence in a way that does not allow the animal off the property, you, in effect, own that animal. Charging to hunt that fenced property is, therefore, selling that animal. As the place gets bigger it gets easier for clients to convince themselves that the hunt isn't canned but if there is no chance that the animal can leave because the owner has fenced the entire property, the hunt is canned in my mind. These kind of things snowball (as they have in TX) because if the practice is legal, there is a financial incentive for the neighboring property owners to do the same thing, to get their piece of the action. In MT, the courts have continually upheld I-143 which removes this incentive--if the land is high fenced, you can't charge to shoot "game" there.

Your example of the rare small island habitat sounds good but is not equivalent--first, how often does this occur? Second, the only way it would be equal is if it were completely privately held and the owners charged for access. When it is public land, with all in-state sportsmen having an equal chance of drawing a permit to hunt there, then it is simply a game management issue. Some hunts are easier than others, fact. It's the presumption of ownership of wildlife, in many people's view, that makes a hunt canned, and which is the single greatest threat to our public hunting heritage 3, 4, 5 generations into the future.

I hear both sides of the argument in your post--on the one hand you seem to be defending the practice of leased shooting preserves, on the other you complain about the lack of public access and high costs. I just think there is a better way, MT and several other Western states are working hard to find it.

And yes, I have been to TX (west, worked in Big Bend) and have tried to educate myself on the TX model of game mgt. and public hunting. I truely believe that it is a poor model for the rest of the country (if you value the public hunting tradition) and will work hard to see that my home state doesn't slip in that direction.

For anyone interested, here's an article that gives a pretty concise legal background of US wildlife management law:

WL Management history

First off Snowcat I don't hunt these places,except for wild boar, and no fense in the world will hold wild Russians for long, but there is no way a fence, no matter how high, constitutes a CANNED hunt, as long as the animals have enough cover, escape routes,multiple sources of water, and food, and the place is larger than the species's natural range! Muledeer do migrate a considerable distance, Elk even more, but whitetail lives and dies within one mile of his place of birth. This fence complaint came up a few years ago, so an experiement was set up on Aberdeen army base, where a large population of whitetail deer lived. 18 acres of woods was fenced off, and 12 buck whitetail were released in that tiny enclosier, and given three months to learn every stump, and briar patch in the PEN! After that 3 months, 12 hunter were give a camera each, and given one week to get pictures of as many of these bucks as they could. The deer were marked with colored tags/numbers on both ears for identity. These picture had to have a killing shot available in the picture of it would be disqualified.

At the end of this test, only four hunter got pictures of six deer, and of the 12 hunters, three of the deer were on several of the pictures. what this proves is, there were three deer in this group, that were a little dimwitted more than the others, and would have been shot, by several of these hunters, and only three of the deer filmed were seen only once in 7 days of hunting from just before sunrise to just after sundown, in only 18 acres. Even I would say an 18 acre paddock wouldn't have been fair chase, but with whitetail it proved the deer were at very little disadvantage. When you multiply that 18 acres by several huntred or thousand, your fence is not a henderance to whitetail.

As to the fence around that Island in Alaska, it is controled by an indian reservation, and all hunting on that island is by permit from the tribe, and it is not cheap, and it is fenced by nature! In fact what states are doing by chargeing very high out of state license fees, they are saying we own the game here, even on nation public land, because they are within our borders. Same thing only on a larger scale!

Actually the game on the H/F ranches in Texas are populated by privately owned animals, not public animals, even if the same species as the wildlife outside, they weren't taken from the wild, but were raised from seed stock, bought from very large breeding farms,to start a herd, then managed for quality, and culled the management deer to maintain good gene pool, on the ranch they are sold to. The high fence is not to keep the animals in as much as to keep inferior blood line out, for indigenous animals, of course the exotics are certainly owned, and the herds were established the same way as the whitetails. Most deer lease ranches in Texas are simply cattle fenced, and the local whitetail are free to go any place they please. They don't but they can! On my Grand father's ranch, where I was born, we had one old buck that I'd see from time to time, and I hunted that old moss horn for five years in a row, and never got a shot at him, on or 60 section ranch, and the next spring after that last hunt for him My father found his skull, and horns in a plumb thicked where he'd died, the winter before. We did not have high fence, but we never ever saw him off our place.

I am glad your state is takeing a pro-active attitude as to public hunting, but that doesn't make a fence, or lack of, the decideing factor to be called a Canned operation, there are many factors that are more important than a fence, in that deffinition! The example given in another post here, "IS" a canned hunt, and the things that make it CANNED, are not the fence, because that animal wouldn't leave the oat ben if there were no fence at all! Look at the minue, and pick the animal by his NAME, and he is turned out for the big city SHOOTER! By your definition, if we put a high fence all the way round TEXAS,about 7 thousand miles, with no cross fencing, any hunt in Texas would be CANNED. I say you are wrong, the fence is only a factor if the place is too small, and the needs of the animals are not available, and they are tame!

As I said I don't hunt on these places, but I/m not arrogant enough to put some els down who does, We only hunt Wild Boar, and those are simply something most ranchers want to get rid of, sort of like 200 lb praire dogs,or Gorundhogs, with big teeth!

To top this off we hunt these on foot, and with Iron sighted double rifles, chambered for Nitro express cartridges, for fun, and practice for Africa. I can guarentee, you will be dragging you tracks out with your butt after a day or two on the place where we hunt them, if you don't get bit by a rattler, or Boar in the process. The part of Texas where you worked in Big Bend,is Sanoran Desert, and not like most of Texas at all, and is all sheep country, with sheep wire fenceing, but it certainly doesn't stop Javalina, they hit a sheep wire fence at 30 miles per hour, and go right through it!


We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because you are not going to make me believe a fence automaticlly makes a canned hunt, when you have cover that would stall an elephant, and let him avoid you for a week of hard hunting!
GOOD DAY SIR!