I'm not sure that I'd define hunting on a high fenced piece of property as a "canned hunt". I believe that a lot depends on the size of the fenced area. Would hunting on an area that covers 2500 acres and is surrounded only on it's perimeter constitute "canned"? To me the term "canned", means hunting an animal unfairly. I think the animal is being hunted fairly when he can bust off through 2500 acres of brush unhindered.

Clearly to me, using the term "canned" requires additional explanation when its used to define a hunt.

That being said, I believe that SCI is correct in classifying animals as estate vs. free ranging. Animals that are in a fenced area can be managed for health and genetics much more so then free-ranging animals. For that reason alone, I agree with the SCI trophy book distinction.

My small South Tx lease is a 600 ac ranch which is high fenced on three sides. The south boundary is state highway, and it divides us from 16,000 low-fenced acres to the south. So, are we high fenced or not? We have about 1.3 miles of low-fenced highway frontage. And, regardless of the high fenced sides, the feral hogs don't seem to have any problems coming to our feeders.

I agree with gsganzer, I think of a canned hunt as something totally un sports man like.

Many times a high fenced ranch is not only to keep the trophy animals the land owner has raised in but to keep nontrophy animals out.

I shot an eland cow at Camp Cooley on a DRSS hunt a few years ago in their high fenced area as did another member of the DRSS. On another DRSS hunt I was present when 2 other members shot eland cows.

We hunted them on foot fair chase. It was not a "SURE DEAL" AND WE HUNTED HARD. It was a lot of fun and the meat was very good.

I worked much harder for that eland than many of the animals I have taken in NA or Africa.

INMHO a high fenced hunt is what it is.
Your chance for a succussful kill may be higher, but so? Spending time in the field with your rifle and your buddies, what could be better.

If it has "High Fenced" in the sentence, "hunting" does NOT belong in that same sentence. I got the holy hell flamed out of me about 8 months ago on this board for my position, and I expect it again...so damn what. Dear God...who in the hell could call themselves a damn hunter after participating in a canned execution?

I feel the flames already headed my way from Texas....

Hank, you"re entitled to your opinion. I think that if it"s on private land, then no-one has the right to say what the owner and guests or clients should do, so long as it"s humane.
I shoot a lot of deer on a commercial deer farm inside 8" fences. It"s not even the same world as hunting, and i don"t even count the deer i have shot as "trophies" or "hunted".
Bear in mind, there may be hunters who are elderly or disabled, and a fenced hunt could tip the odds back in their favour.
I don"t want to hunt inside a fence myself, but i"m young and fit and it"s the challenge that makes me appreciate a deer when i do shoot one that"s truly wild. I certainly would"nt condemn anyone who did hunt within a fence, or landowners who uses their land in this way.
What"s the difference in raising Elk or raising beef? I bet there"s a lot more money in Elk!
good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by gsganzer:

That being said, I believe that SCI is correct in classifying animals as estate vs. free ranging. Animals that are in a fenced area can be managed for health and genetics much more so then free-ranging animals. For that reason alone, I agree with the SCI trophy book distinction.

I think that is an excellent point. This is an example how two groups can look at this single piece and have opposing views. Some look at having a SCI delineation between the two proves the point that the "Estate" classification is of less value. Your point, if I'm reading it correctly, is the oposite. The "Estate" class of trophies are of great value and it would be unfair to pit the "Free Range" catagory against it. Such as the delineation between coastal brown bears and interior bears.

Gary I agree that SCI has an excellent point. However, 99% of the time the guy that took the animal will claim time and again that his was a fair chase animal "just like your animal was". I know, I had this happen to me just this past year. I took a dang nice fair chase 6x6 elk in NM this past year. Got back and the guys at the local Archery shop were bragging on my elk, but then hammered him as well, saying "It's a shame your elk was not as big as (Name with held), now that was a monster!". Good ol' (name with held) just got back from his elk hunt in Colorado with a dandy 370" bull, as did his buddy. Mine was just a dang puny ol 320 bull. I politely told them that my damn 320 bull was fair chase, which the other two were NOT. Turns out that the buddy had a little too much to drink a few nights before and let the cat out of the bag...yep, it was a canned hunt. Told everyone the name of the operation, how big the enclosure was, etc...and added that his buddy would kill him if he found out he told their secret! Guy #1 was going around like he was damn Daniel Boone...bragging on his hunting prowess....

Thats what I have against the whole shebang...don't compare your zoo bull that took all of 5 minutes to shoot after you closed the fence gate with my bull that, if he wanted to, could be in the next zip code in minutes if spooked. Does SCI have a "zoo" classification too?

I voted for option#3. neither of the scenarios is a"hunt" and the reason I am so opposed to them is because a majority of people keep calling or referring to them as "hunts." They are no more of a "hunt" than the beef you buy in the store.
Was it "hunted?"
In my OPINION it was not, it was slaughtered.

I completely believe that people should be allowed to do whatever is legal on their own private property as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As it stands these types of activities are LEGAL.

I am also a supporter of making such activities illegal.

In my opinion their are two kinds of people with respect to wildlife: those who love wildlife and those who love wildlife as long as they can make a healthy profit from it.

IV

What someone else does with there money, that is legal, is there business. I choose to not do the "Canned Hunts" and like the Boone & Crockett Club's stand.
Just my opinion, Doug

What kind of animals are we talking about here - native or non-native or all?

I personally like the SCI definition for native animals, but I do believe that there is a place for high-fenced operations with "exotic" or non-native animals to accomodate those who could not financially or physically make a trip to some foreign lands. An example would be things like hunting elands, axis deer, european boar, etc. Not only does the fence keep the owners investment from running away, it also keeps these exotic species from escape and possible conflicts with the native wildlife.

For those with strong beliefs, I would ask if there is any difference between a 100,000 acre high fenced ranch and a 100,000 acre "unfenced" island in the Pacific - would one be considered hunting and the other not?

As for me - the day I have to compare the animals I shoot to anyone else's is the day I have lost a true appreciation for why I hunt.

quote:

Safari Club International "believes the management of non-domesticated wildlife within high fences has been practiced for centuries and remains legitimate activity . . .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."

Sounds to me like a good way for lazy rich pricks to get their name in on the big dick contest without putting forth the effort or time required to harvest a trophy animal.

MG

quote:

Originally posted by erict:

For those with strong beliefs, I would ask if there is any difference between a 100,000 acre high fenced ranch and a 100,000 acre "unfenced" island in the Pacific - would one be considered hunting and the other not?

In my OPINION, the island would be considered hunting (assuming we mean free ranging, native animals) and the fenced area would not; for the simple reason that the species on the island have evolved on the island and have defense mechanisms which may have been selected for.

Just my opine.......

IV

As of SCI's BoD meeting last week, here is the actual official position of SCI concerning "High Fenced" hunting:

The North American Hunting Preserves - Fair Chase Standards

May 2006
Recreational hunting and the concept of “fair chase†has been linked for as long as recreational hunting has existed. However, the terms and conditions of what constitutes “fair chase†when hunting is conducted within a high fenced area has never been fully or clearly defined.

SCI believes that the following conditions must be met, or exceeded, in order for the concept of “fair chase†to apply for hunting mammals within high fenced areas in North America:

* The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer.

* The hunting property shall provide escape cover that allows the animals to elude hunters for extended periods of time and multiple occurrences. Escape cover, in the form of rugged terrain or topography, and/or dense thickets or stands of woods, shall collectively comprise at least 50% of the property.

* The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property.

* The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.

* Animals that are to be hunted must exhibit their natural flight/survival instincts.
No zoo animals, exhibited animals or tame animals are to be hunted.

* No hunting or selling of hunting rights to a specified animal.

* Hunting methods employed cannot include driving, herding or chasing animals to awaiting hunters.

* Every effort must be made to utilize all meat commonly consumed from a taken animal.

The minimum amount of land necessary to meet these requirements varies by region, terrain and habitat type. Setting a standard minimum area is unlikely to be realistic. However, SCI recommends that state/provincial wildlife management agencies work with the operators and the hunting community within their area to establish specific regulations to guide the operation of hunting preserves.

The North American Fenced Hunting Operations - Operating Standards

While this regulatory authority may be shared with the state/provincial department of agriculture, SCI believes that it is imperative that the wildlife management agencies be involved in the oversight and regulation of this industry.

In addition, operators of these facilities must meet or exceed the state and/or federal requirements for disease-testing, record keeping of all animals, and fencing requirements.

Advertisements that indicate a facility guarantees a kill; or specifically sells or references an individual animal are indicative of operations that do not adhere to the “fair chase†guidelines. SCI recommends that organizations and publications develop specific acceptable advertising guidelines for appropriate ads from fenced hunting operations.

Recommendations from the North American High Fenced ADHOC Committee

A survey will be done outside of SCI on the image of high fenced hunting.
Fenced operations should be regulated by the State Department of Natural Resources or regulated by both the State Department of Natural Resources and the State Department of Agriculture in joint venture.

SCI can delegate the authority to a specific individual or group to negotiate the best deal possible when pending legislation is being proposed at the state level.

Ads in SCI publications need to follow the guidelines that have been set forth on North American high fenced hunting (i.e.- no ads shall be accepted that say no kill-no pay; guaranteeing a kill or selling of an individual animal). The seller of the ad should lose their commission for that ad and this shall apply to marketing in any SCI show or publication.
All edible meat commonly consumed shall be used in a responsible manner.

SCI recommends operators of these facilities reach out to handicapped, disadvantaged, youth and terminally ill hunters.

SCI recommends that the operators of exotic animal hunting facilities, to the extent possible, link their operations to the conservation of wildlife in its natural habitat.

quote:

Originally posted by Hank H.:
If it has "High Fenced" in the sentence, "hunting" does NOT belong in that same sentence. I got the holy hell flamed out of me about 8 months ago on this board for my position, and I expect it again...so damn what. Dear God...who in the hell could call themselves a damn hunter after participating in a canned execution?

I feel the flames already headed my way from Texas....

Well "the flames" are here. Wow, you must have some VERY large genitalia to be talking like that. You are obviously one of those guys that wouldn't hunt inside a high fence if it was the size of Oklahoma. What a load of bullshit! Hey buddy, have you ever hunted on a sizeable, well managed high fenced property? I'd be willing to bet a dollar that you have NOT. I would really like to hear about your extensive experience on this subject. I'm assuming you don't have ANY and that would mean that you're just a narrow minded fool.

Let's just pretend for a minute that Oklahoma (or in your case, Georgia) is actually high fenced. Are you actually going to try and tell me that the deer that live in the middle of the state have ever even seen the damn fence? Give me a break! You should really get a little more experience on this subject before you condemn it. I would LOVE for you to come to Texas and go on an Aoudad hunt on a ranch that's about 2,000-3,000 acres with a healthy population of a couple hundred Aoudad. I guarantee you'd be bitching about how hard it was when you came home empty handed. I'd be happy to debate this a little more. PM me.

To everyone else:

I voted for choice #1. A high fenced hunt is NOT the same as a canned "hunt"! But I don't guess I'm going to waste anymore of my breath on this right now. It's getting late.

I booked a Bison bison hunt thru Cabela's at the Medicine Lodge Ranch in Dubois,ID they have 10,000 deeded acres and lease 240,000 more,Bison are free to roam and roam they did when I was there in Sept 04 they had 7 bulls who wandered into Montana since there are no fences west and north parts of the ranch.Free ranging and fair chase. <A HREF="http://www.medicinelodgeranch.com%5B/URL%5D" TARGET=_blank>http://www.medicinelodgeranch.com</A> Fences mean nothing to a Bison they'll jump them or just plow thru them on my hunt I observed barbed wire fences that hold cattle pushed down and a group of bison on the other side.

Your'r right Eland Slayer...you win your dollar...I have NOT ever hunted inside a fened operation and don't ever intend to. I also understand that whatever makes your propeller spin is fine by me as long as it is legal...which it is in Texas and other places. It just ain't for me and the starter of this thread asked for an opinion...and that is what I gave him. My opinion. You got yours too..got no problems with that.

I believe that the majority of hunters agree with me though. Why are some hunt videos blaring that they are "fair chase", "hunted only in the wild" blah blah blah...cause folks want the REAL experience, and can spot otherwise easily. Watch a few of the fenced hunts on the TV...you can spot em a mile away...wide open woods, three foot browse line forever, 150-160 class bucks behind every tree, dumb as a brick. I actually saw one dude drawing on a monster buck from a ladder stand in the wide damn open woods and the monster buck walked (was driven?) right under his TEN-foot ladder...drawing back his bow and smacking him. This deer had no idea the guy was on planet Earth. Wanna bet he is bragging on that "wild" buck back home nowadays? Go get 'em Daniel Boone!

Go check out Jimmy Houston's latest debacle...its somewhere on the web...We are going to wonder what happend to our sport in a few years once the non-hunting public bitches and moans enough and succeeds in killing our sport. God I hope I am wrong.

SCIs position on "High Fenced Hunting" is a very good attempt to define a difficult problem. I would make some changes. Instead of 6 months from release date I would have used one complete breeding cycle. One year for whitetail deer. I don't understand how a drive is less sporting than shooting an animal at an artificial feeder.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
SCIs position on "High Fenced Hunting" is a very good attempt to define a difficult problem.......
465H&H

I agree 465H&H. I'm glad to see SCI working towards a fair chase standard in regards to their definition of "high-fenced hunting".

Thank you Mighty Joe for sharing the SCI update.

G

quote:

Originally posted by scr83jp:
I booked a Bison bison hunt thru Cabela's at the Medicine Lodge Ranch in Dubois,ID they have 10,000 deeded acres and lease 240,000 more,Bison are free to roam and roam they did when I was there in Sept 04 they had 7 bulls who wandered into Montana since there are no fences west and north parts of the ranch.Free ranging and fair chase. <A HREF="http://www.medicinelodgeranch.com%5B/URL%5D" TARGET=_blank>http://www.medicinelodgeranch.com</A>

I hope you don't mind but I changed your link. I could not make it work as above.

Try this:

http://www.medicinelodgeranch.com/

the only thing these high fence hunting farms are going to do is cause a disease that will infect the wild animals, i don't doubt that CWD probably came from something like this, all these a-holes feed thier animals growth hormones to promote antler growth. mark my words in the not so near future these farms will be the death of wild animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
I would really like to hear about your extensive experience on this subject. I'm assuming you don't have ANY and that would mean that you're just a narrow minded fool.

Let's just pretend for a minute that Oklahoma (or in your case, Georgia) is actually high fenced. Are you actually going to try and tell me that the deer that live in the middle of the state have ever even seen the damn fence? Give me a break! You should really get a little more experience on this subject before you condemn it.

Well, Eland Slayer, you seem to be the expert on the subject maybe with your years of experience you could help those of us who have "lesser" experience by answering a couple questions:

1) How is geneflow affected by the high fences? What are the allelic ranges and allelic frequencies of the included populations vs. the excluded populations? Are both populations conforming to the theory of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?

2) What selection pressures are present on the included populations that do not exist on the excluded? (and vice versa). What are the effects on the behavior, health, genetic structure and reproduction of the populations?

3) Could you explain the predator prey relationship within the enclosure as outlined by Rickers theory of predator prey dynamics and population cycles? Is their a cycle? Does it fit the theory put forth by Rickers?

4) How do the home ranges at varying scales differ between and within the included populations vs the excluded populations?

I would be interested to hear from someone with "extensive experience" on these questions.

IV

I'm against canned "hunts," high-fence "hunts," exotic big game species, AND all private ownership of big game animals. That said, I could live with it if all those things were only in Texas, just as prostitution is only legal in Nevada.

IdahoVandal,

You are taking what I said the wrong way. The issue I am refering to is the difference between fair chase high fenced hunting and "canned hunting". The health of animal populations is an entirely different subject.

However, I will try and answer a few of your very difficult questions, but I will use words that are a little easier to understand.

The Kerr Wildlife Management Area has done an extensive study over the past several decades regarding inbreeding with Whitetail Deer. If I remember correctly, in 1974 they created a 16 acre breeding facility that consisted of six 2/3 acre breedingpens, three 4 acre rearing pens, and the rest was used up by chutes, alleys and other things. The original breeding pens had 7 native Texas bucks (6 spikes) and 5-7 native Texas does per pen. After 1974, no deer were added to the program and they have maintained a perfectly healthy population since and have observed no problems with inbreeding. Here is a quote from the Texas Parks & Wildlife website regarding the subject:

"Dr. Honeycutt investigated the genetic variability or heterozygosity, of deer herds across the state. Kerr Area deer pen data was compared to the results obtained from free-ranging deer. It was found that the KWMA penned deer exhibited a higher degree of genetic variability than some free-ranging herds in East Texas even after 20+ years of breeding trials."

In most high fenced operations, they try and kill most of the natural predators. This is because we, as humans, can do a better job of selecting the best animals to be taken out of the herd than a non-discriminant coyote or mountain lion. You have to remember, humans are predators too, we're just a little more sophisticated.

I know we'll never all agree, but I think it is better to have an intelligent discussion rather than a name calling/dick measuring/pissing contest. Wouldn't you agree?

I say there should be another poll asking how many of you that condemn high fenced hunting have actually hunted on or even been to a proper high fenced hunting ranch (not a canned hunting facility). Yes, there is a difference.

Here is how I see it: A "proper" high fenced hunting property is one that has a substantial amount of land as well as cover for the number of animlas in it. It should have natural breeding populations and they should NOT be conditioned to people. This type of property could be 500 acres or 5,000 acres, it doesn't matter. If it is properly managed, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference in hunting on a high fenced property and hunting in free range conditions (except for the overall health, number, and quality of the animals). There are also plenty of well managed places that also have exotics which are born on the property and learn to be just as affraid of humans as any free range Whitetail.

Then, there are the infamous "canned hunt" facilities which give all high fenced hunting (and hunting in general) a bad name. These are usually very small (there is one near our deer lease in the Hill Country that is only 35 acres). They usually buy exotics at auctions and then have someone pay to come out and shoot them within a couple of weeks or so. Sometimes they even measure the animals before they are released. This way, they can "guarantee" the "hunter" the size trophy he will get. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS TYPE OF "HUNTING". It is not hunting, but more like shopping for trophies out of a catalog. Hopefully everyone here can understand the difference in these two VERY different types of operations. I wish everone knew the differences in them, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

Any more questions? I'm sure there are.

I would not participate in a canned hunt.

High fence hunting is OK as long as there is room enough for the animal to elude hunters for a day or two. The area should also be big enough that I could get lost on it. Even better, it would be nice if it was big enough or with rough enough terrain that it would take me at least a day to walk from one end to the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
I would not participate in a canned hunt.

High fence hunting is OK as long as there is room enough for the animal to elude hunters for a day or two. The area should also be big enough that I could get lost on it. Even better, it would be nice if it was big enough or with rough enough terrain that it would take me at least a day to walk from one end to the other.

That's my point exactly. I don't believe that the term "canned hunt" should be used to classify ALL "high fenced" hunting.

If someone took a pen raised lion (or any other game animal) that had blunted natural flight and attack responses or lacked fear of humans, released it on the Kalahari and had a tracker keep tabs on it until the "hunter" arrived, THATS A CANNED HUNT!!! And guess what, no fence was involved.

Don't get me wrong, nor assume that I think ALL high fenced hunting is ethical. There are surely some idiots that deserve to have their hunting licenses revoked for not abiding by "fair chase". To me, the lack of fair chase is what defines a hunting practice as "canned". NOT whether or not the animals live in a controlled area via high fences.

What about feeding animals in the wild, and then shooting them from a seat overlooking the feed? I"ve done it myself, but i don"t consider it "fair chase".
If fenced hunting is done in a big enough area, then it could be more sporting than some practises which are used in the wild.
It"s more about the perception of fenced hunting than the actual practise.
good shooting

quote:

Here is how I see it: A "proper" high fenced hunting property is one that has a substantial amount of land as well as cover for the number of animlas in it. It should have natural breeding populations and they should NOT be conditioned to people. This type of property could be 500 acres or 5,000 acres, it doesn't matter. If it is properly managed, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference in hunting on a high fenced property and hunting in free range conditions (except for the overall health, number, and quality of the animals). There are also plenty of well managed places that also have exotics which are born on the property and learn to be just as affraid of humans as any free range Whitetail.

Why not just domesticate them and get it over with?

quote:

In most high fenced operations, they try and kill most of the natural predators. This is because we, as humans, can do a better job of selecting the best animals to be taken out of the herd than a non-discriminant coyote or mountain lion. You have to remember, humans are predators too, we're just a little more sophisticated.

Any other wonderful words of wisdom???

MG

Very controversial subject. The individual has to decided what they enjoy.

I personally choose to hunt free ranging animals.

My biggest, concern is the animal health issue created (ie CWD) by canned and high fenced areas.

My second concern is the habituation that takes place in some of these restricted enclosures. I wouldn't feel that I am hunting wildlife, only semi-domesticated animals.

I did hunt javelinas in a high fence pastures down in Texas, but as far as I could tell, the fences were not a restriction. They just went under or through them.

There is absolutely no way you will ever be able to convince me that canned hunts are hunts at all. More a shooting excercise as far as I am concerned.

Isn't it funny how all those who support HighFence Shooting refer to 100,000 acre enclosures. Or as was stated above, you wouldn't hunt Oklahoma if it was high fenced. BS. How many 100,000+ acre ranches are there which are high fenced?? 5? 10? Most of these ranches are only a few hundred to a few thousand acres. Having been a rancher for my whole life, here in the West, I can tell you it wouldn't take much to hunt those animals in such a small enclosure,

When some BigRick comes in for a 2 day hunt he feels that the 1,000 acre high fence is ample for the game to roam. If he spent a few more days there then he would know what a joke he was really dealing with. High Fences suck. Now maybe if that 100,000 acre ranch encompassed the animal's summer/winter/transitional ranges and didn't alter the genetic trends then maybe it could be ok, but not otherwise.

By the way, SCI is a joke anwyays. Wanna-bes

I see as of 61 cast votes that position #3, those opposed to 1-"high-fenced hunts" and 2-"canned hunts" and find them unethical, has 61% of the vote which is nearly double of that cast in support of SCI defined "high-fence hunts".

Though not scientific, it is clearly a divided issue amongst hunters on this board. I suspect that if this issue was voted on by the public at large, it would be as divided w/ even less support for the SCI position.

I don't want to make any conclusions but I can see several different general issues that may individually or in combination cause concern to those who have expressed opinions against "high-fence" operations:

- even if the hunted animal is truly wild, concerns that the overall concept of fencing them in and manipulating their food/cover gives an unfair advantage to the hunter and crosses the line of being fair-chase.

- fencing in a herd, manipulating their food/cover, selective breeding, etc. adds enough artificiality and/or domestication that it crosses the line regardless the size of the operation.

- Having fenced operations growing herds of deer may pose risks to the wildlife population both beyond as well as within the fenced boundaries. CWD, natural predator-prey balance, restricting the movement of wildlife to needed habitat, etc.

- Having a controversial issue involving the legality of "high-fenced hunting" go to the ballot box and have the general public vote to restrict hunting rights.

I do appreciate the input and I do find it informative.

G

Amen MC.

Folks are still not addressing a most important issue.....we can't deny that we, as hunters, make up a minority of the general population now. That "general population" is what makes the laws we have to live by...By any stretch of the imagination, no sane person can think that those folks will react to fences favorably. Regardless if we "fence in Oklahoma" they will subconciously think "trapped animal with no escape" and you can't change that perception. The fence folks and the conservation groups that condone this will be the downfall of hunters if something is not done.
Remember the old saying: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers". These are the people that will vote our sport our of existance one day.

blah blah blah, its like shooting fish in a barrel. Even if you got a really big barrel it is what it is.

But Schmaus, what if we fenced off all of British Columbia....naw, never mind.

I hunted on a high fenced ranch for seven years and enjoyed the experience. It was a 5000 acre ranch with about 95% covered in dense brush. Since then I've hunted low fence or partial high fence ranches. In all honesty there is not one bit of difference whether the fence surrounding the property is high or low. So anybody that says anything surrounded by a high fence is a "canned hunt" is full of sh+t in my opinion. It depends on the size of the enclosure and the amount of cover.

The predator/prey relationship is the same as a high fence does not stop coyotes and bobcats from entering. I have shot predators from a helicopter on a lot of ranches and the high fence places had just as many if not more coyotes than the low fenced ones. It all depended on mother nature and how effective the ranch's predator control program was.

A real eye opener is the use of trail cameras and how many bucks are not seen during an entire season or only during the rut but were captured by the camera.

The bottom line is I prefer to hunt low fence but wouldn't hesitate to hunt a high fence place if it meets "my" criteria of fair chase.
A lot of people wouldn't be such "purist" if they could afford to hunt a well managed high fence ranch.

High fenced "hunting" or whatever you want to call it to make you feel good about yourself, will be the the knife that cuts the throat of hunting and hunters in this country.

It is not about the wildlife, nature, or experiences on these operations.

It is about money, greed, fast-food trophies, lazyness, and convienence.

quote:

A lot of people wouldn't be such "purist" if they could afford to hunt a well managed high fence ranch.

I would rather spend my money hunting an animal that lived it's life being able to eat, move, breed, and live as it sees fit. Not by some dumbass who controls the locks on the gates.

MG

I have always taken issue with the whole idea of trophy hunting.... I come from a long line of hunters that are far more pragmatic about success/failure when hunting.

Ancestors that I can remember as living breathing individuals (not distant past) hunted to literally keep their families (including my mother and her brothers and sisters) from skipping meals, so antlers never seemed very important to them (and I could hardly be blamed for adopting a similar attitude)

Of course listening to some people you'd think
that their hat or penis size grows in proportion (an inch for each point on the antlers?) to the size of the antlers on the deer they are fortunate enough to have trip over them while hunting....

but the superior attitude many of these "hunters"
(in quotes because I want to say: "Elitist dilatante") cop, because their kill has spectacular antlers is unbelievable....

Like my grandfather said: "Antlers? why give a sh!t, you can't eat'em?..."

And truth be told the quest for antlers is a MAJOR point the Anti's use against hunting in general, and being honest they have an excellent point

To me bragging about antler size makes as much sense as gloating over the number of raisins in your morning bran muffin....

So the entire industry of game ranches, fenced enclosures
and canned hunts created to make some yahoo happy with the antlers on his kill are merely extensions of an nteresting mental disorder I like to call antlerphilia....(and anti hunters
would probably call something worse)

Please notice that the Anti's really can't say much about hunting to regulate deer numbers or hunting for meat to fill freezers (or stew pots)

I won't hunt somewhere where I can't bring the meat back
with me, I prefer to DRIVE to where I'm going hunting
so that I don't run into issues with "baggage restrictions"

I'm not beyond going to the local Sams or Walmart and buying a chest freezer and bringing it home in the back of my pickuptruck or U-haul trailer (and plugging it in at whatever motel I stay at each night)

Ignoring the rest of the animal that are cut into steaks, chops and roasts an adult moose yields well over 200lb of ground meat, imagine transporting that home on an airplane... and I simply cannot comprehend leaving any of the edible animal behind... to take home a set of antlers
home on the airplane?

what's worse is the guys who "talk down" at "meat
hunters" like there is something repugnant about shooting Spikes, Buttons or GASP!) Does... and talk trash about the attitude of people who in their words "simply want to fill their tag"..... Elitist snobbery at it's finest.

'Nuff said. I'm hungry. I'm gonna go dig something I've killed out of one of my freezers... ya'll can go gnaw on one of your sets of antlers if that' what turns you on...

Think of this post more of "stirring the pot"
than as an outright endictment of trophy hunting.

I think we ALL need to be far more aware of how
non-hunters regard us, because politically we ARE our image whatever that image happens to be.
the reality is nearly irrelevant compared to the perception that other hold of us....

AllanD

Allan,

I wouldn't call people hunting for deer with large antlers a mental disorder. I think the reason we seek out animals with large antlers or horns is because we want to have some sort of goal to make it more challenging and to make the actual hunt last longer. I mean, let's be honest, it wouldn't be hard to fill your tags (in most areas) if you just shot the first 5 deer you saw (that's how many we can shoot in Texas). I am definitely a trophy hunter, as well as my family, but we also eat everything we shoot (except for predators and maybe some REALLY big boar hogs). We also shoot plenty of does. The reason we don't shoot button bucks is because they could someday turn into a trophy buck. I will also shoot spikes if they are at least 2.5 years old. I'm certainly not against meat hunters either. In fact, I'm looking at going to a ranch in S. TX to shoot a Nilgai cow this fall for the freezer.

Madgoat,

You saying that high fenced hunting is only about money, greed, "fast-food" trophies, lazyness, and convenience is only showing your ignorance of the subject. There are some operations that are like you say, but the majority are hard-working people that just want a good place to hunt with their families and greatly improve the wildlife on their property. The only reason most of the places sell hunts is to cover the expenses of running the ranch. Very few actually make any real money.

My long-term goal in life is to own at least around 5,000 acres here in Texas that will be high fenced. The place will be for myself and family to hunt on and we will also sell some hunts to help cover costs. We will also donate lots of hunts to the Hunt of a Lifetime program and other organizations like that. The bottom line is that I don't give a damn about what you think my priorities are. You are welcome to your opinion, even if it is misinformed and incorrect.

I voted "Other" in the poll.
The only high fenced ranch I've ever taken a rifle on was in far West Texas near the town of Van Horn. Dunno how many acres under the fence, but was told the fence was 85 miles long - however many sections that would be in a rough circle, surrounded the small mountain range out side Van Horn to the east, and fronted I-10. I know for a fact the owner could not trap or exterminate all the auodad sheep he wanted to remove, because he later sold the ranch when it would not qualify for the TP&W Desert Big Horn restoration project back in the mid 80's - aoudad can pass diseases from domestic sheep to Big Horn's and the high fence was the only way to restrict access from the outside by domestic sheep or other aoudad.
We put 15 guns on the ranch and were told to knock down ALL the aoudads or domestic sheep we saw...and I was the only one to see any...at any distance. I found out how far my 270 would not shoot that day when I had a herd of about 15 Rams and ewes walk into me, stopping about 300 yards out before busting back across a half mile wide canyon. We also were given the opportunity to take a Mule Deer buck by our host as a gift for helping in his busines and of the 15 of us from the firearms industry I'd say 12 or 13 were better than the average shooter, and we took 13 heads in two days and saw only about 30-35 muleys total foot hunting. The average pasture assignment for each of us was about 3500-6000 acres based on the low interior cross fencing, and we only had access to about a third/less than half of the ranch.

Under this size operation and the field conditions I experienced, the term "shooting fish in a barrel" or "canned hunt" is ludicrous to say the least and I would dare anyone to hunt under these conditions and say otherwise. These animals were hunted on foot, with no feeders or food plots, yes there were manmade watering holes in every pasture as part of the improvements needed to support all wildlife and supplemental feeding had been done to support the cattle that had been in the pastures prior to our arrival - the cattle had been moved to a lower pasture for the winter when we got there -so I'm sure the deer also fed off of the cattle supplements, but by and large I felt it was more like hunting was supposed to be where you never saw anyone else or heard anything except the wind until you got to the edge of the property near I-10. I could see from the western most several hundred feet tall bluffs of my pasture the lights of El Paso, or Boqullias? Mexico over 100 miles away on the horizon.
Rope burns on the critters...I don't think so. I would be willing to bet that most of the Mulies I saw had never seen a human being before based on their reaction to me.
So before you rant and rave about statements that one size fits all ...realize that there are other places than a feedlot, planted food plot, or other agricultural operation - like the former World Record WhiteTail was killed off of in Canada after being chased from one farm to another by a pile of shooters, or sitting in tower blind watching a sendero or a corn feeder go off, someplace that is not overun with orange clad public draw hunters that disrespect any/everyone else and cut off your access to the drainage you worked all morning to get to the top of.
This is why I voted "Other".
ron

Interesting discussion. Surprised there hasn't been any death threats yet.

Let's look at things in a reasonable manner ...

If you don't want to hunt a fenced area (no matter it's size) then I think you shouldn't. Nobody will make you, especially since it is usually expensive to do so.

I support hunting in any reasonably ethical manner (saying a 20 acre pen is ethical hunting is not reasonable). Extreme views of ethics are just that ... extreme, in either direction.

Extremeist are usually not reasonable people.