It sure looks like a High fence canned killing to me, sorry I just can't bring myself to call one of these a hunt. I have a friend that frequents these type places and has some great mounts in fact he just kiled a whitetail that scored 232 and an Elk that measured over 400. The real shame of taking game in this manner is that it shows no respect for the animal or yourseldf for that matter. The only good thing is that none of his ani,mals can be placed in the B&C or P&Y Books because they are not fair chase. I'm sorry I just think that guy's that go to these places are not hunters and give all us fair chase hunters a bad name. I appologize for getting on my soap box.
Posts: 223 | Location: Oklahoma | Registered: 11 July 2002
Definitely is a game farm, just exactly as they claim. However I disagree that this gives hunters a bad name. I prefer fair chase hunts myself but have done both free roaming and high fence, and have no problem with either as long as the high fence area is big. One of the high fence areas is 38000 acres in size. This is about 7 miles by 7 miles. The fence allows for genetic control, and poacher control. It is very nice to hunt this area and far from what I would call canned. Anyway, what I want to say is to each his own. I won�t cast a stone at high fence hunters as long as they don�t try to pass one thing off for another.
I got skunked bowhunting a highfenced area of less than 100 acres so it's no cakewalk either way. If deer in an enclosure know you're after them, they can really piss you off with their sneakiness.
Posts: 3167 | Location: out behind the barn | Registered: 22 May 2002
This whole trend of "antler mania" has just gone to far. Does anyone hunt for the thrill of the chase anymore? Soon we'll see Moose and Brown Bear behind fences.
Posts: 263 | Location: Where ever Bush sends me | Registered: 13 July 2003
I haven't hunted or even seen the Flees brother's operation. But, if their hunting operation is anything like their Whitetail deer breeding operation, then it is top rate.
Take a look at their breeding stock, that they sell semen and young animals from. They have some of the best bloodlines in the country, if not the best. They have two bucks in their breeding lineup that score over 300B&C.
I've only hunted behind high fences in Africa, on lands from 15,000 to 100,000 acres. That being said, I don't have a problem with high fenced operations, I don't care what their size. My opinion is "If you don't like it, don't do it." Just don't insist on some damn new law to stop it. This is supposed to be a free country. Stop whining and hunt the way you want to.
Posts: 802 | Location: Alabama, USA | Registered: 26 June 2003
One major result I see in fenced in hunting areas is the lack of nice heavy massed symetrical even racks. All the racks I see are nontypical freaky looking racks with antler growth sticking out in any and all directions. The few racks that are main frame eight, ten, or twelve point bucks are not symetrical side to side. That tells me no matter how large the fenced in enclosure is it shows in the racks the bucks produce. The most beautiful symetrical racks come from game animals who roam free with no high enclosure fences to restrict their movements. High enclosure fences reduce wild animals to nothing more semi domesticated animals bread for controlled harvest hunting. I have yet to see any wild animal restricted by fences produce a rack that can eclipse a free roaming animals head gear. The reason for enclosure hunting is simple, odds rise in the hunters favor and it is certain the hunter will pay dearly for the animal harvested depending on rack size. It all boils down dollars and cents to the owner of those fenced in enclosures. As for me, I choose to hunt free roaming wild creatures on private or public land. My reason is simple, I choose to pay as little as possible for my hunting rights. My hunting license, game tags and tress pass fees are already high enough, let alone paying a trophy fee for harvesting a pen raised animal.
Hunting in any enclosure is leagal depending on the laws of the stae their in and may be the only hunting any one may be able to do in the near future. Pen raised animals used specifically for controlled harvest hunts for pay. Any wild creature living inside an enclosure they can't escape from no matter what size it may be is a pen raised wild animal.
Seems the animals react and are under some stress factor since they are not able to roam completely free. The same is eveident with wild animals placed in theme parks used for entertainment purposes. Dolfins and Killer Whales show the same signs by the fins on top of their backs being bent over or look wilted. In the wild free roamimg animals of the same species do not exibit these traits. Their fins are straight and are not bent over or wilted looking.
Posts: 64 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 16 December 2003
I have 3 problems with the high fenced hunting "situation":
One is that, at least in most places in the US, the deer are still a public resource, and by restricting their movements with the fence, you limit my access to that resource. I don't have a problem with private landowners restricting my access to their property, mind you, only them restricting the ability of the deer that live on their property to move onto mine.
The second is one of public perception - no matter how large the enclosure is, the perception is that its easier to shoot deer behind the fence - that its not sporting. As a hunter, I understand the difficulties involved in the "chase", regardless of the size of the enclosure - but non-hunters (and I don't mean antis, either) don't understand this. I think that high-fenced hunting paints hunting overall in a negative light amongst the average non-hunter . . . and that bad publicity is something that hunting does not need.
My third concern regarding the hunting behind high fences is that hunting in this country has traditionally been available to everyone, regardless of income. This hunting tradition extends back to the days of the frontiersmen, etc, and stands in sharp contrast to the hunting tradition found in Europe in the 1700s - where all game was the property of the landed gentry. Simply put, I see the big high fenced hunting operation to be more akin to hunting for the elite than to be hunting for the "common man", and to be in some way "un-American".
There are so many millions of acres of public hunting lands in the USA that don't require a "draw" that I have a problem with the "poor man's hunting problem" argument. Second, "public game", while technically correct, sounds too much like collectivism for this old libertarian. Lastly, the public pays absolutely no attention to this issue at all, IMHO. Not a personal attack, guy, just a difference of opinion. The whole "free range" thing is kind of a joke anyway because the definition (for B&C, anyway) is one continuous mile of open fence for game to cross between properties. That means if you and I each own 1000 acres and have a common open fence but the entire perimeter is in high fence we qualify as free ranging. On the other hand, if Joe owns 20,000 acres and high fences the whole thing he is disqualified. BS as far as the real world goes. Just me, though.
Posts: 11137 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
under our system (which I very much prefer over the Euro or African one), if the landowner invests money into feed, etc, then as far as I'm concerned, its a donation to the deer herd.
As far as I know, there is very little deer management going on to the north of us (in terms of feed, etc). Certainly, the Chihuahuan desert scrub is unsuitable for food plots, for example. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the erection of the high fence came as a complete surprise to my landowner friend. He didn't know about it until I told him it was going up. So the landowner to our north did not contact us about it.
I've asked around the area, and the landowner is absentee - "a rich Italian Lawyer" with "boocoos money" (not my words, quotes from a nearby landowner with long family history in the area).
And I know about public land in TX. Just got back from a late season squirrel/deer/hog hunt in the Angelina National Forest (15 bushy-tails and one hog). Yet the amount of public land in TX pales in comparison to what's available, say in NM . . .
What we have with the high fence (IMHO) is an easy "out" to a difficult people problem. The landowner to our north, for example, could have contacted the smaller landowners to the south and arranged some sort of cooperative arrangement (or I could have, to be fair - but I had only recently made arrangements to hunt there exclusively), but the landowner took the easier way out, since it was available to him with his "boocoos money".
I have no problem with controlling land access - that is an individuals right as a landowner. But in controlling land access with a posted sign, you do not control the movement of the deer. A high fence controls deer movement, however. That's where I draw the line.
I'm not sure that I understand why some feel that the deer belong to the private landowner. If this were so, then why do we have to have hunting licenses and why does the state set bag limits? If the deer belonged to the private landowner, what's to keep you from shooting every last one, and selling the meat on the open market?
Of course, that's the sort of "Dangerous Thinking" that led to the decimation of deer herds in the late 1800s and early 1900s, resulting in the "deer belong to the public" legal definitions, as well as hunting seasons and bag limits as we know them today.
Note also, that we are arguing a predominately Texas phenomenon (as applies to the US, not other countries). There are states which limit the amount of Trespass fee and landowner can charge hunters (after all, the game belongs to the people, not the specific landowner) and other states where, if one wants to erect a high fence, they have to make an effort to trap off and remove the native wildlife (deer).
Quote: I have no problem with controlling land access - that is an individuals right as a landowner.
As is the building of a high fence on one's own property < !--color-->
Quote: But in controlling land access with a posted sign, you do not control the movement of the deer. A high fence controls deer movement, however. That's where I draw the line.
And posting land controls PEOPLE movement, the same people that own the deer. If they have no access to hunt them, then what is the difference between a fence and posted land? The result is the same, they don't have access to the deer they own! < !--color-->
Quote: I'm not sure that I understand why some feel that the deer belong to the private landowner.
I don't, the wildlife belongs to the people. I'm just trying to point out that your thinking is flawed.....posting land restricts access to the "people's" deer just as much as a high fence does. Most of the land in Texas is posted, so, how can I hunt one of the "people's" deer if those "greedy" landowners won't let me on the land that the "people's" deer inhabit? It really sounds like you are upset because the rancher took away your access to some deer with his fence.....yet you don't have any problem with ranchers taking away my access to all the deer by posting their land? You can't have it both ways, either a landowner is free to post and fence his land, or he isn't.....either method keeps the people that "own" the deer from accessing them! I think it all boils down to landowner rights, it's his land and he should be able to fence it if he wants.......if that cuts into your hunting, well, those are the breaks!
Kind of puts you in the same boat as all those people that are "fenced" out by the posted signs that you don't have a problem with!< !--color-->
I'm playing devil's advocate here, I am a landowner, my land is not high fenced, but it is posted.......
Posts: 1499 | Location: NE Okla | Registered: 22 May 2002
At the risk of arguing in circles, I simply see a big difference in posting land (i.e. restricting people access) and erecting a high fence (i.e. restricting deer movement).
While not every deer makes dramatic cross-country movements during their lives, some do. Some deer disperse to new habitats (particularly young bucks) and some bucks travel extensively during the rut (particularly mature bucks). Cutting off these natural deer movements is what I have a problem with - NOT land control and restricting people's access. It may seem that I'm splitting hairs here, and perhaps there's some truth to that, yet that's how I feel about the situation.
While some landowners, such as mentioned above, may use a high fence to keep out poachers, the main reason these are erected (and this is from published sources) is to control deer movement - both into and out of a property. High fences are used as a management tool to help better control numbers and age structure of a deer herd on the fenced property. While I'm sure a few deer will escape from the high fence over the years, particularly if its poorly maintained (I've seen plenty of deer outside the fenced sections of the YO along hwy 41, for example), these fences do restrict the movement of deer to a large degree. And because, legally, deer are a public resource, I don't feel that restricting the movement of a public resource ought to be allowed.
It all boils down to who's rights prevail and you are certainly entitled to complain that yours (as an owner of a public resource) ended up at the bottom of the to-do list. The State cares a lot about revenue and the sales tax on all those $5,000 to $25,000 fenced bucks carries a lot of weight. They get squat from you when you kill one. That revenue does a lot more for the "collective" than free ranging deer, too. Lastly, if chronic wasting disease breaks out here in a big way at least we can isolate some good, big herds and protect the resource.
Posts: 11137 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
I think you hit the nail on the head with the "it all boils down to money" argument. I don't have any hard facts about how much tax TPWD gets off high fence bucks, but the simple fact remains that landowners with the cashflow to put up a large fence have the money and political clout that a single individual earning $40K/year does not. However, I have seen some evidence that TPWD does listen when enough of the "little men" become vocal (writing letters, etc). In my experience, as with anything else, money talks unless enough "little men" make their voices heard.
It goes to the sales tax fund, not TPWD. TPWD get the lease license fee. There's also income taxes, like any other revenue. Here's a new thought. Did you introduce yourself to this landowner when you first started this enterprise? Did you approach him or his forman and tell them your hunting plan to see if it dovetailed with theirs or ask how you could contribute in your small way to the herd management? Did you offer to contribute anything in the way of feed if they are feeding? The thought counts, even if you can only spare a hundred bucks or so. Did you put up a feeder or blind within rifle range of the fence? Very bad manners if you did. Did you try to bait deer away from their propery with corn trails or otherwise suggest to these guys that you are a bad actor? How do they know who you are if you don't make an effort? Maybe the guy's a jerk and maybe not. Same can be said about you if he doesn't ever meet you. A lot of high fences are put up to keep bad neighbors from shooting the wrong deer, not any deer at all. Next time you get a chance like this, do some homework with the guy next door and you might not have such a crappy outcome.
Posts: 11137 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
I had a long post which I just erased. No, I never met the guy, but I never got the opportunity - all the landowners involved are absentee, and I live 7 hours away. I've already posted that I didn't get the opportunity to talk to anyone before the fence went up. I'm sure that he put the fence up for the reasons you suggest - I'm pretty sure that the landowners to my south shoot smaller deer than the ought to. As for stands, etc, being close to his fence - I'm guilty of that, but not for the reasons you suggest (bad manners) but rather due to the shape of the property I hunt - for much of its mile+ length, the property I hunt is 400 yards wide (800 yards at its widest). So, by necessity, I have to hunt in "rifle range" of the fence - its either that or not hunt the property at all.
But then I thought you and I were going to agree to disagree?
Yeah, I should have just stayed out but I think there is value in all of this for others who may find themselves with an opportunity like you had. They are seeing two sides of a difficult coin. I am trying to represent some of what landowners go through when surrounded by small pieces of land that they have no control over. As I said before, you seem like a reasonable guy in general and I am taking sides in the general argument, not against your specific case. Sorry of it seems too personal. It is not my intent. And I was stating that the effect is the same as bad manners, not suggesting you have them. A lot of these problems are, as I am so poorly implying, bad communication issues and can be avoided by making whatever effort it takes to resolve them. In a vacum, people will almost always asume the worst case. To illustrate another human nature point: I bet if he included your 500 acre exclusive hunting hideaway within the high fence and left the propert line open, we would not be having this little chat, huh? (That one was a little personal but its worth thinking about.)
Posts: 11137 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
As much as I wish for better management on the properties to my south, I'm not sure I'd want to hunt behind a fence because it violates what my concept of fair chase hunting for whitetails is. Part of "fair chase" to me is that the deer roam where the will, and sometimes that means somebody else shoots the deer I'm after. So be it, that's part of hunting.
Even for hunting exotics, I have questions about the quality of the hunting experience, for me personally. Case in point - last year we were on a lease that had Blackbuck Antelope on it. We would have had to pay extra to shoot one, and we weren't financially in a position to shoot to do so. However, at the start of the season I was really dreaming about knocking over one of those rascals! "If only I had the money", I thought. As the season wore on, I realized - "these things won't jump the fence!" - shooting one of them on the 1500 acres I had leased, with its sheep and goat proof (and blackbuck proof) fence would have been too easy, because they just couldn't get away, and after awhile I knew exactly where to find them.
I can't disagree with you there. We have everything from Black Buck to Eland where I hunt and I just can't get excited about them. Too much like livestock. However, when the populations need thinning, I seem to have no problem shooting them as long as I think in terms of "harvesting for meat" instead of "hunting experience". Not an ethics issue so much as they just don't turn my crank. Compartmentalization, I guess. I am glad, however that most exotic species are fenced beacuse I've seen how they can pressure native game.
Posts: 11137 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
