I do hunt whitetail in the U.S.A. & Gecko is 100% right. i.m.h.o.

Gecko is right. Double standard.

If any of you honestly think That five slob hunters harvesting 20 + deer on a very tiny 20 acre plot of land (which isn't theirs by any means) in the middle of managed land, many of which were illegal and many were poached just outside of the 20 acres is exactly the same as just a couple of guys hunting well inside of 100 acres of there OWN land and only harvesting a few mature deer a year LEGALLY, then I strongly question your ethics as hunters and you too are probably in the slob category.

I'm not talking about hunting inside of a fence!!!! I'm talking about seperating one's land from slobs. In some instances it's the only way to protect your investments. Their are many ranches that don't high fence their enitire places, they just fences one or two sides to keep management in check. In some instances that is a good thing but, If they are cutting off landowners that have the same management strategies then it's just pure greed.

Some of you clearly have no idea of what slob hunters can do to a deer herd. I can tell you first hand, it can be as devaststating as a disease outbreak in your local herd.

If you think poaching is ok and breaking game laws are ok than your just another slob in my book.

Geeze, some just never learn....


Reloader

Just place yourself in a hypthetical situation where you purchased 1000 acres for 2 Million $$ in some of the most prime whitetail country around. You hunt it for several years following strategic management practices and your management practices are starting to pay off and your family is harvesting the healthy mature deer that you had strived for during the past few years of hard work.

THEN, A Neighbor (A Non-Hunter that doesn't understand anything about Management or Game Laws) grants permission to 30 guys to hunt on the property that borders your new property on two sides. These 30 guys guys place stands on your property lines and they begin the slaughter, they shoot every deer in sight from spotted fawns on up many of which were poached on your property but, you just couldn't catch them red handed.

After a few years your herd will be nill and you'll be about 2 mill in the hole, all down the tubes.

Now can you see why A High fence down two sides of your property can be very beneficial to your investment(Not the other sides because the owners have the same management practices as you). After all, you didn't hurt your neighboring land owner, he doesn't even hunt.


What I'm trying to say is that you can't be closed minded on the subject. There are times where fencing is needed.

I do agree that most High Fenced Operations are pathetic and done from pure greed alone. I do not hunt in such places nor do I find it ethical.

There are places that are fenced for good reasons. Until you've seen them, you really have no valid opinions on their effectiveness.


Reloader

This thread is about 'hunting behind high wire' and you stand to lose your 2m investment on your 1000 acre property, yet you make silly statements like the following:

quote:

I do think that most High fences are built w/ ill intentions.

Get real pal and protect what you think is your property - high fences and all!

Over and out.

quote:

I do agree that most High Fenced Operations are pathetic and done from pure greed alone.

Quite the opposite. How can installing high fence be greed when you are keeping the animals that you raised on your property? Greed is when you are harvesting more animals than your property produces.

For instance here is a example of greed posted by you

quote:

Another instance I know of that just ticks me off is where a good friend had 100 acres that had been in his family for years. Well, some rich butthole bought all of the land around his land and wanted his as well but, he wouldn't sell so the butthole put an 8' fences around my friends 100 acres and their hunting came to a screaching halt. I think that sort of thing should be illegal. My friends family weren't slob hunters at all but, they now own a useless piece of land in the middle of nowhere

Their hunting has come to a screaching halt? I wonder why? Is it because the slob hunters were shooting all their deer that were produced on "buttholes" property? Looks like "butthole" fenced the slobs out and I say more power to him. Why would they gripe. They can still shoot the deer produced on their property.

I have no problem at all with someone hunting on a high fenced operation so long as it is legal. Whether I choose to do it or not to do it is my business and my ethical decision, and I don't care to try to pound my ethical framework down anyone else's throat. If you don't think it is ethical or sportsmanlike, don't do it. Fairly simple, isn't it? Please don't think for a moment that because you believe something is unethical that your viewpoint should be the absolute last word. It isn't. Those who spend most of their time making value judgements about what others do couldn't stand such scrutiny themselves.

If I owned 100 acres and had been hunting with my family for generations, I would bet that the SOB with all fence around me would be very busy trying to repair all the holes in his fence. If I could not hunt deer, I would get involved in a New sport, like fence cutting. A SOB like that will never be happy with just 2 or 3 thousand acres- he wants all of it!! You know the SOB din't offer to join properties so everyone could share, all he wanted to do is buy them out. bill439

I don't know about Louisina but here in Teaxs you get caught cutting a fence & your in deep SHIT.

quote:

Quite the opposite. How can installing high fence be greed when you are keeping the animals that you raised on your property? Greed is when you are harvesting more animals than your property produces.

No my friend quite the opposite, When you fence out you're entire property even though neighboring property owners practice the same management practices, THAT'S Greed. That's saying that all of those animals are YOUR Property when in fact they are not. The animals are not yours, they are the State's. On the same note, most States want those animals managed to the best of their ability and that takes the work of the DNR as well as the Land Owners.

M16, I can't believe that you honestly think that a couple of guys that have SELECTIVELY (Very few) taken game off of 100 acres of their own family land for their lives as well as their Grandfathers and so on are GREEDY???? And calling them slobs!!! Quite the Contray. You are probably one of the guys that puts up high fences for YOUR deer that YOU own.

Fencing has it's +s and -s but, for the most part it is done from greed. These arguements will go on from now on.

It usually is the general concensus that the larger the property the more valid the high fence concept is as well as to keep slob hunters/poachers out.


Yeah Bill, I agree but, you just can't stoop to their level. It's sad to say that the Man w/ the most money almost always wins, been that way from the beginning.

I try to keep at least 3-4 locations going for deer hunting just incase problems arrise. We had trouble w/ two locations this year but, at least we had a good many years of hunting out of them. Life's all about change and it's sure hard for me to get that into my head but, it's true.

Have a Good One

Reloader

quote:

Why would they gripe. They can still shoot the deer produced on their property.

M16, I would agree w/ that statement if it were about Texas Brush Country but, it's just not that simple. The property is open and mostly hardwood which was a great feeding ground for the deer in that area. When the Fence was constructed they apparently flushed the deer out of the 100 acres for the most part hence the screaching halt. The Guy w/ the money is a known for being crooked, He got his money through absurd lawsuits if you get my drift. He fenced them out so he could bring in Northern Whitetail, ELk, Rams, and Buffalo which, backfired for the most part because of the culture shock to the animals. He did have a pretty succesful go w/ the Elk and Buffalo by raising them in enclosure before turning them out to shoot but, it's truely a joke. You can walk w/in 10' of most of the so called wild animals the Jerk has in captivity. He turns them out every now and then and charges astronomical amounts to take them which just makes me sick that someone would pay to hunt like that. I think that operations like that have given High Fencing the terrible name that most associate w/ it. When in fact it can be used in positive means under certain circumstances.

Reloader

quote:

Fencing has it's +s and -s but, for the most part it is done from greed.

Greed on whose part? The property next door that shoots more deer than they produce or the "greedy neighbor" that fences them out.

How about a situation where the neighbors don't control their population numbers. They only shoot bucks and not the reccomended amount of does. The neighbor next door wants to control his numbers but has to install a high fence in order to control the influx of deer from their property. Is that being greedy?

The bottom line is if I am doing a good job of management on my property I don't care if my neighbor fences me out or not. It will not effect my hunting one bit.

quote:

You are probably one of the guys that puts up high fences for YOUR deer that YOU own.

I don't own the deer I am just their caretaker. The state may own them but I control the access. And yes when the property next door was going to be divided and sold I put up six miles of high fence to prevent someone from destroying what I have worked hard to produce. If it happens on my other side I will high fence that as well. If that makes me "greedy" so be it.

M16,

I think we have some of the same views on the subject, not the same but, similar.

I think you are interpreting me to be saying that all high fence operations are a result of Greedy landowners when, I'm not meaning that at all but, A high percentage of them are from Land owners that think they Own all of the deer in the area and the want it all for themselves.

On the management issue you mentioned, I see your point and that's pretty much what I've been trying to say as well.

i think we could agree that if all of the neighbors could agree on good management practices (Including Doe Harvest), the fences wouldn't be needed.

Then you'll always have the landowners that get jealous because the neighbor shot a huge buck they had seen on their own place etc. etc.

Reloader

Reloader,
I guess if your buddy looked for the silver lining in the cloud of being "high fenced" on all four sides of his acreage he could deduce he had his property fenced for free! At $10,000 per mile for the labor and materials, he got a smoking deal!

Now all he has to do is stock it and he is in business! If they only shoot one or two deer a year, he can grow them as big as he wants.

Not perfect, but when life gives you lemons...

bwanamrm,

I need the name of your fence builder. I had three bids and with a little simple dozer and maintainer work they all came out at roughly $17,000 per mile.

quote:

I think we have some of the same views on the subject, not the same but, similar.

That we can agree on. I have some other property where landowners have joined together in forming a Co-op to help manage the deer. Unfortunately owning property doesn't come with management skills.

quote:

bwanamrm,

I need the name of your fence builder. I had three bids and with a little simple dozer and maintainer work they all came out at roughly $17,000 per mile.

Even better for the guy who got fenced out...I mean fenced in, um er...you know what I mean!

M16, I just finished some dozer work on our ranch...ouch, those fuel surcharges hurt.

Reloader, I agree with you on a number of points, but point I was making was that the rich guy wanted to cut them out because they wanted to keep family land. Land that had been open until said jerk showed up. If you want to try to adopt a standard of some kind, try and involve your neighbors. And yes If I lived in TEXAS and some SOB did that to me YES he would be very busy fixing his fence. Bill439

quote:

And yes If I lived in TEXAS and some SOB did that to me YES he would be very busy fixing his fence.

It's a good thing you don't live in Texas cause if you started cutting fences you wouldn't "live" in Texas very long.

Gecko,
Think what you want, but the facts are the facts. High fence of whitetails is far different then high fencing and turning loose game for hunting purposes. So how many "Wildlife" auctions have you attended in the RSA? Go buy your animal, turn it loose on a high fence ranch, then shoot it and post the pics on here and tell us all what a great thrill it was.

If you don't understand the migration patterns of most of the wild big game animals in the USA then I feel sorry for you. Holding an elk or mule deer in an enclosure of 20 square miles (5 miles by 4 miles) is 12,800 acres. A wild elk can move that far in a night. High fence hunting is not fair chase for MOST big game species (barring except whitetails on a large enough ranch).

I stand behind my comments:

quote:

It sure seems like the majority of High-Fence supporters are from East of Colorado and West of Nevada. The game in those areas rarely migrate and are mainly whitetails and small game. Most of the supporters of High-Fence are not all that familiar (intimately) with wild herds of most species shot behind high-fences.

Whitetails have a small home range. But elk, mule deer, antelope, and most African species are wanderers, migrating and moving. To confine them to any area unnatural boundary is simply holding them in for the purpose of man, to kill them or control them.

Anyone who thinks that confining a bull elk to 200,000 acres is plain wrong. In many places a bull elk may move 20 miles between rubbing his velvet and the rut. He may move 50 miles to winter. A mulie buck might move 100 miles to his traditional winter range. African animals seem to be always on the move. (At least that is what National Geographic said Smiler )

So to all those supporters of highfences, go enjoy your shoots. Tip your guides. But please don't compare your kill to the animals frotunate enough to live outside of high fence boundaries. And don't call it hunting. "Fair Chase", high fences are not.

M16

MC wrote:

quote:

Gecko,
Think what you want, but the facts are the facts. High fence of whitetails is far different then high fencing and turning loose game for hunting purposes. So how many "Wildlife" auctions have you attended in the RSA? Go buy your animal, turn it loose on a high fence ranch, then shoot it and post the pics on here and tell us all what a great thrill it was.

Not a single "wildlife" auction in either of Botswana, RSA or Namibia - see reasons below your next quote.

quote:

If you don't understand the migration patterns of most of the wild big game animals in the USA then I feel sorry for you. Holding an elk or mule deer in an enclosure of 20 square miles (5 miles by 4 miles) is 12,800 acres. A wild elk can move that far in a night. High fence hunting is not fair chase for MOST big game species (barring except whitetails on a large enough ranch).

Your 20 square miles or 12 800 acres equals roughly 5 457 hectares which is roughly 7.8% of the total area we are managing and farming in the Botswana - RSA - Namibia regions.
Our Botswana cattle ranch is just over 40 000 hectares - wild animal migration does take place on this area alone due to its size.
Although there are lots of game on this property no local or foreign hunters are allowed here since it is a cattle ranch. As owners we do hunt for our own use.
Our RSA farms totalling within a few hectares 10 000, are situated on the Botswana border with a land-link to our Botswana ranch.
All fenced in high simply because we protect our properties agains cattle thiefs, game poachers and what next!
Namibian land totals just over 20 000 hectares - some fenced in high and some not.

RSA and Namibian properties are hunted from time to time as our management plans allow it to control numbers of game depending largely on rainfall and available grazing.
If you don't know most of these regions we are farming on is known as low rainfall areas requiring a very stringent management program to be successful in whatever you are doing.

High fences make all this management possible, my friend!
For that reason I thought you guys could benefit from this info re the use of high fences. Your choice to use to your own benefit or not to use and lose!!!

quote:

quote:
And yes If I lived in TEXAS and some SOB did that to me YES he would be very busy fixing his fence.


It's a good thing you don't live in Texas cause if you started cutting fences you wouldn't "live" in Texas very long.

------------------------------

M16,
If Ole Bill gets caught cutting fences in Louisiana or in Mississippi his little ass wont hold water either. You want to talk about "slob assed bastard hunters"? Look at a fence cutter and there you have it.

Hey, Billy Boy? Jump on the St. Francisville ferry or use the old bridge, cross the river and bring your wire cutters and bolt cutters over to Pointe Coupee. Your gimpy ass might not see East Baton Rouge for a spell so kiss all of your dear ones goodbye. Of course, a fella like you probably does his best work at night, I'd guess and brag about it in the daytime.

Regards,
The Louisiana/Wyoming Coonass Dungbeetle

Dungbettle, where in Pointe Coupee is there a high fence? must be a very small operation if one exist there. I guess that's where you hunted when in Louisiana behind the wire enclosure where you can kill them with a stick. I guess this would be your version of a hard hunt- just like the guy on tv this morning shooting blackbuck and sheep on some ranch in TEXAS. it was like shooting a bunch of dumb cows!!!!and the whole time he was talking about hunting???hey, if you want to fence in your property, raise deer, kill them and call it hunting, I guess your version of hunting is different than mine.

A couple of things about high fences in South Texas:

They keep OUT poachers.

They keep OUT wet-back drug smugglers and wet-back vandals. The days of the benign wet-back just traveling cross-country are long gone.

They stop the local guy on the 40 acre adjoining plot from setting up a day-hunting gig and running 200 hunters a season, all told they can shoot over the fence if they hurry "and don't leave the guts over there; it pisses them off".

Texas game ranches have saved several exotic species from making the endangered list because we value the animal more than the country of origin.

An animal born on a fenced ranch is not a "victim" because it can't travel 20 miles in one night. It has everything it needs (even pussy) without wearing its ass out every night looking for new range. Next you'll want trauma counselors for fenced elk?

All commercial hunting operations have to buy a "lease license" over and above any hunting license the hunters need to have. This pays the state a royalty on the native game species hunted on that operation so the greedy operator is paying his share back to the public good.

I gotta agree with M16; the deer may be "ours" but the land is "MINE" and you better see me first before I see you if you're there uninvited. In Texas we have the right to shoot first and ask questions later after dark for the protection of life or property and that provision get exercised pretty often.

I guess when all the guys that bitch about greedy landowners fencing them out put up signs on their own land that say "Free Deer Hunting, Come One Come All!", then I'll have more respect for that train of thought.

I seriously think that if you want a high fence around your property, and my high fence I mean one that can hold game including elk and moose. You should first have to get rid off all wild game on your property. As this wildlife is public property. Once this is done go buy all the animals you want and manage them to your hearts content. If you want to charge people to hunt go right ahead as the game is yours.

By that logic, all public lands should be high fenced and all native game on private property should be trapped and sent to the public "reservation".

What difference does it make to you if you can't go on a low-fenced ranch without an invitation anyway? The deer are still inaccesible to you, fence or not. And the numbers of game enclosed on private property in no way effect the numbers of game available to you in the wild. Environment dictates that. Sorry but I always have a hard time with the principal that because game is public, the public has an inalienable right to it where ever it be found.

The water flowing on my property belongs to the public but you don't have any right to come onto me to utilise it nor prevent me from building a dam for my cattle if I get the right permits. The "lease license" I described is like that permit for the damn; I pay an extra fee to the state in compensation for the right to control a portion of the state game. You benefit as hunter because that money goes into the pot that manages the game you hunt elsewhere.

It's as fair as a situation can be when the natural conflict of private property and public property exist in the same space and time.

Tiggertate,

I do see where you are coming from. But what I hate is that when some rich guy buys a whole bunch of land or an orginization buys a bunch of land, then they put a huge fence around it and call all the animals theirs. Then they close off access and allow their friends or start up a guiding outfitt. Some will even bitch that elk get into their haystacks and ask for compensation when they allow no hunting.

your first statement "By that logic, all public lands should be high fenced and all native game on private property should be trapped and sent to the public "reservation".

Could you imangine how that would seriosly benifit wild game and screw over ranchers. Their would no longer be any grazing leases which would benifit the wildlife as no cows or sheep would have eaten all the grass.Elk and deer wouldn't have to migrate into private land to get the food in winter. The landowner would only be able to have as many cows as his own land could support and they could no longer keep the public off grazing leases.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

They keep OUT wet-back drug smugglers and wet-back vandals.

Hey! Easy on the Vandals.....

IV

Hey, that was vandals with a little "v"!

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Templer:
Tiggertate,

I do see where you are coming from. But what I hate is that when some rich guy buys a whole bunch of land or an orginization buys a bunch of land, then they put a huge fence around it and call all the animals theirs. Then they close off access and allow their friends or start up a guiding outfitt. Some will even bitch that elk get into their haystacks and ask for compensation when they allow no hunting.

your first statement "By that logic, all public lands should be high fenced and all native game on private property should be trapped and sent to the public "reservation".

Could you imangine how that would seriosly benifit wild game and screw over ranchers. Their would no longer be any grazing leases which would benifit the wildlife as no cows or sheep would have eaten all the grass.Elk and deer wouldn't have to migrate into private land to get the food in winter. The landowner would only be able to have as many cows as his own land could support and they could no longer keep the public off grazing leases.

You'll have to educate me as to what a grazing lease is; that term is unfamiliar in the states. I guess my other question is from whom was this land bought? Some poor guy who needed money? Was hunting allowed on that same piece before some rich guy bought it? Maybe so, I wouldn't know but if it was privately held I would guess it was by invitation or permission only and that changes as old owners pass on and new ones inherit or buy anyway.

If Canada is selling public lands to some rich guy that is another matter. Would you have his number?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Hey, that was vandals with a little "v"!

Glad we got that straight.

Those Vandal helments look kinda Star-Warsy. Do they have lights?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Those Vandal helments look kinda Star-Warsy. Do they have lights?

They are as historically accurate as I could come up with on short notice.

I will try to do better next time.

Grazing lease is crown land that the rancher leases from the goverment so they can literaly graze livestock. This land is public land. The rancher has to have his cows out of the lease by aprox October. They do have some responsabilities such as stewardship of the lease.eg. certain # of animals on lease. Now since the rancher is paying for grazing I have no problem him controling motorized vechicle access, but not foot access.

We have something similar in the West but I don't know the particulars. I am surprised the Canadian government is actually selling land. I guess they are poor after all and need money?

I would agree with you more in that case unless he is paying the government (in reality YOU) some additional compensation for control of the hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Hey, that was vandals with a little "v"!

Glad we got that straight.

I don't think those are the Idaho Vandals. At least IdahoVandal hasn't claimed kinship yet. Looks to me like the Hollywood branch of the family!

They are not actually selling it but they are leasing for grazing purposes. It still is crown owned. Also the grazing lease holder also get oil royalties for any drilling that happens on the lease

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I don't think those are the Idaho Vandals. At least IdahoVandal hasn't claimed kinship yet. Looks to me like the Hollywood branch of the family!

These are guys who think they look like the Vandals for whom the Idaho Vandals are named. The Holywood guys are better funded, if usually historically inexact.

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Templer:
Grazing lease is crown land that the rancher leases from the goverment so they can literaly graze livestock.

Another dumb Texan question; does "Crown Land" refer to land owned by the government of Cananda or land owned by the Crown family? The reason I ask is because the Crown family owns enormous tracts of land in Great Britain separate from any holding the soverign states therein might hold. Most of it is leased out for farming.

quote:

These are guys who think they look like the Vandals for whom the Idaho Vandals are named. The Holywood guys are better funded, if usually historically inexact.

I'm surprised the ethnic Silesians in Idaho aren't protesting the demeaning nature of the team mascot!