How do you feel about high fenced hunting?

[fly]

I'm not 100% sure about the integrity of the US/Mexico fence, but basically every U.S. animal is "trapped" by water or fencing. Even if there are holes I don't think Panama allows deer to cross the canal.

[texastrophies]

taking game off of a high fence operation is not hunting, nor should it be considered hunting at all. I dont care if it is 20 acres or 2000 acres, it is still a joke.

How have you formed this opinion? Have you ever hunted inside a high fence? If so how big was it? If not, why do you think it is a joke? Is this what you were taught to think?

In your opinion what type of hunting is not a joke? Please be specific.

[okiedog]

I am tired of watching T.V. shows with high fenced hunting. I like what "Uncle Ted" does to promote our beliefs, but I am tired of watching fenced in hunting. I know he hunts free roaming game too.

Since you brought up Ted. Here is an interview done by a writer for Field and Stream with Ted on High Fence hunting.

Simply put, is high fence hunting, "hunting?

Of course, if all the factors of escape and stealth are in play. Terrain, size, layout,

balanced animal populations, the very conditions that determine quality hunting

anywhere determine the quality of the experience, fenced or unfenced. The easiest deer I've ever killed were whitetails in Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota, due to these universal truisms, but lack of hunting pressure. Conversely, the most difficult deer I have yet to kill are found on my own SpiritWild Ranch in central Texas where for the last 21 days, I haven't killed jack squat. Go figure.

Does high fence hunting degrade the heritage of American hunting and the notion of fair chase, and respect for wildlife and the quarry?

There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions. There are those small minded individuals, a lunatic fringe if you will, that think many forms of legal hunting "degrade the heritage of American hunting." To their way of thinking, in-line muzzleloaders degrade our reputation. They consider scopes on same, treestands, compound bows, crossbows, deer drives, women afield, ad nauseam, as unethical methodologies. I've heard some real doozies out there and don't know whether to laugh or cry, they are so divisive and unsophisticated. I pray they become educated.

Do you personally prefer to hunt in enclosures or in the wild?

I prefer to hunt, period, and shall more and more each year everyplace I possibly can. I am a hunter.

Does the ready availability, for a price, of "monster bucks" in high fences affect the experience of hunting in the wild for those who cannot pay, or would not, hunt a high fence preserve?

Does the "ready availability" of monster bucks on open ground in Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Washington, or wherever they clearly flourish, change the dynamic of the overall "real" hunting experience? Of course not. Does hiring a guide in Alaska to hunt the mighty grizzly bear affect the experience? It is simply how it is, and I cannot imagine finding fault with any of it. Supply and demand, free choice, private property rights, good old American capitalism and entrepreneurialism are beautiful things.

Is high fence hunting in places like Idaho, or Colorado, where there are lots of public hunting opportunities, inappropriate? What about if the high fences block wild big game migration corridors or where domestic big game pose a disease threat to wild game herds?

Private property rights, supply and demand, freedom of choice, sustained yield and individual preference are the guiding forces in the America where I come from. Everybody knows that CWD &bovine TB are a direct result of our all-knowing government bureaucrats messing things up way back in 1967 and beyond. No believable evidence has ever been produced linking these diseases to fences.

Why do you or people that you know choose to hunt enclosed big game animals, rather than hunting in the wild? Is there a difference? In perception? in reality? (I know that you do hunt in the wild a great deal).

I gotta tell ya, your questions are loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias, almost as if you represented ABC news and its hippie dope smoking antihunting "journalists." That is quite a letdown coming from what was once a highly respected American hunting family magazine. I guide and outfit and hunt with 100s of great American hunters each fall with my Sunrize Safaris operation, and I am absolutely confident when I share with you that my hunters hunt every imaginable legal hunting we can find. We truly love it all.

I know that hunters need to stand together in the face of the anti-hunting forces. But I also see that those anti-hunting forces are given a great deal of fuel by pointing to "canned hunting" as a reason to attacks us. Do high fence operations create a public perception that hunting is just about killing, not about the experience of hunting and the conservation of wild game and wild places?

With all due respect, you don't know anyone who connects with a more or wider cross section of America in a public forum than I do each year. With my dedication to take the battle to the enemies' own trenches, I've conducted literally thousands of media interviews annually for more than 40 years; talkradio, newsradio, rock, sports, humor, everything from the BBC, Larry King and Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern and Bob and Tom, cooking wildgame with Dana Carvey and John Ritter on Conan O'Brian and David

Letterman. In these unprecedented mass media arenas the dialog and communication has been over-the-top positive in every instance because I don't back down nor compromise my absolutist stand on hunting, fishing, trapping and the 2nd Amendment. The antis are clearly a lunatic fringe that represent the laughing stock to ma &pa America. They are out to ban all hunting, and to be gullible and unsophisticated enough to think that giving up or joining them in condemning any single hunting methodology is pathetically out of touch. I implore you to ignore them. I consider the Troy Gentry/Cubby the Bear shooting incident an anomaly, but anti-hunters will love it. Does it indicate that somewhere, high fence hunting needs to develop some standards? The embarrassing Gentry incident is remembered by no one, except Troy. I read nearly all the reports back when it happened. Not only were "fences" not mentioned, the entire incident didn't even quality as a blip on the radar. A big zero.

Is there a high fence hunting experience that you personally would feel is objectionable? A place too small? Animals too tame? Where do we draw the lines? One of my best interviews concerns the "meeting place between livestock and hunting" Any thoughts on this?

Personally objectionable, yes. Too small -- of course. Too tame -- of course. Again, I repeat, though the word "tame" has never come into play, the calmest animals I have ever hunted were free ranging whitetails in Illinois where there was near zero hunting pressure. Would I do that again? **** yeah!

Do you feel that the many high fence operations in existence now, and the growing numbers of them, represent a "privatization" of the hunting experience, as in Europe, and does that pose a threat to the "public resource" idea of wild big game that is a cornerstone of the unique American model of wildlife restoration and conservation?

Nope. All private hunting in America whether fenced or nonfenced is controlled by private landowners. America is blessed with vast public grounds, and I do wish the hunting industry and community would put forth the proper effort to open up every square inch of majestic big game country currently owned by "we the people" instead of the vulgar anti-American corruption currently in place where soulless bureaucrats

continue to charge American tax payers to hire killers of our game where we are not allowed to utilize it properly. That should be Job One for F&S and every sporting concern in America right now.

Is this controversy over high fence hunting operations going to have a negative effect on American hunting? Will more high fence operations make hunting in the wild less attractive? Make conservation of wild lands and habitat seem less important? Will it become the norm (it seems far more accepted now than it used to be)? What are the implications of that?

No. The powerful heart of the American hunter and adventurer is alive and well in this great land. Recruitment of this instinct in our young people is the most important guarantee for the future of conservation and the environment. My own Ted Nugent Kamp for Kids and its amazing volunteers have been doing just that for 20-plus years. SCI, NRA, NWTF, RMEF, DU, Delta Waterfowl, FNAWS, 4H, FFA, National Archery in Schools programs, NSSF, NFAA, and every sporting org out there are upgrading their mentorship programs and finally reaching out to more and more young Americans outside our sporting community. It is thrilling to note that my various TV productions, Surviving Nugent, Wanted Ted Or Alive, SuperGroup, and Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild have all achieved top ratings on not only OLN, CMT, and The Outdoor Channel, but wonderfully top-rated on the anti's networks of VH1 and MTV, every show celebrating, defending my gungho hunting, fishing,trapping, shooting lifestyle.

Edited January 16, 2009 by okiedog

[texastrophies]

I'm not 100% sure about the integrity of the US/Mexico fence, but basically every U.S. animal is "trapped" by water or fencing. Even if there are holes I don't think Panama allows deer to cross the canal.

So what you are trying to say is that every big game animal in North America is confined and, therefore, shouldn't be considered fair chase????? :D:D

I new those 40000 acre high fence operations were really just pens. Fish in a barrel. :D:D

[wtnhunt]

So what you are trying to say is that every big game animal in North America is confined and, therefore, shouldn't be considered fair chase????? :D:D

I new those 40000 acre high fence operations were really just pens. Fish in a barrel. :D:D

LOL.:D:D Good point, guess maybe Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett may have some clearing out of their books to do.:eek::D:D

[buckee]

I dont think it's a major issue with enough acreage (how many acres is enough is anyone's opinion). One term, however i do get tired of is "fair chase". I think it's one of those feel-good terms that people throw out there to make themselves feel good about that buck they just bought. As to a fence, what's the difference in it and some trophy ranch in texas that is totally sourounded by other ranches of the same caliber? Or giles island in the mississippi river? Their all about the same to me.

No that IS NOT hunting. Just because this is your operation though does not mean that all others are the same. I would assume that many high fence operations are large enough that the the deer on those properties not only never see a fence, but probably might also not see any people outside of scouting and hunting bumps or encounters. In all fairness you might look outside your own experience with a bit of an open mind. What is the difference in a high fence operation and a high fenced government or private owned property that is opened to a limited number of hunters, or is there any difference aside of the obvious that most operations are managed for deer quality?

Not all "high-fenced" hunting areas are created equal. My attitude toward them varies according to the size. There are some that fall under the category of canned hunts. These are little tiny operations where the animals are semi tame, and the size of the enclosure is such that high percentage shooting opportunities are guaranteed. There are also high fenced operations that are so large that many of the animals never see a fence. The fences are more designed to keep out poachers and unauthorized hunters than to keep game in. That all does make a difference in how I view the fair chase aspect of the hunt.

There is another aspect of high fence hunting operations that I find a bit troubling, and that is that it seems to be a trend in hunting. More and more land is being locked up with these kinds of ventures. I believe that the average hunter is going to become more and more sensitive to that fact as hunting land continues to be gobbled up by development and gets fenced in by the increasingly lucrative business of "pay-to-hunt" enterprises. Yes, it is all legal, but I don't have to like it. We continue to watch hunting activity trending downward, and these kinds of operations are not helping that situation one bit.

What can we do about it? .......... Nothing! As long as we believe in the sanctity of private land ownership (which I do), there is absolutely nothing that can be done to turn all this back. In fact we can expect it all to accelerate until hunting in this country begins to resemble the European style hunting experience. It will become an activity of the rich. So that land that is not consumed for development will eventually become private, money-making hunting and recreational resorts for a comparatively few.

No, it's not just the fences that will cause this. There are attitudinal changes within the hunting community that will continue to stress guaranteed hunts and guaranteed trophies that will continue to push up the costs and profits of this accelerating business. As the emphasis continues to emphasize heavy racked trophies, and the TV programs continue to glorify trophy hunting as the only legitimate measure of success, The demand for highly managed, fenced in habitat will grow to the point where that will eventually be the way to hunt.

So while many might be against high-fence hunting based on fair-chase principles, there are other reasons to watch these fenced enterprises with a heavy dose of suspicion and dread.

Doc

I agree with all these statements and a few more.

Heck, I've hunted many small islands around here that are pretty dang small acreage-wise, compared to some large High-fence operations. The water surrounding these islands acts just like a fence.

[SwampDawg]

to answer the previous questions: I have not hunted in a high fence nor do I intend to do so due to my personal opinions and beliefs on what hunting is. If that is what someone wants to do then fine, that's thier prerogative. I personally dont believe in it. I was not "taught" to think this way whatsoever, once again, just my opinion.

As far as size of land that is fenced in, its irrelevant. Fenced in land is fenced in land, the game that is in there is confined to that fence, and bottom line is that they cant get out. Not my idea of "fair chase" no matter what sort of game it is. I am not trying to ruffle feathers here, just offering my .02 cents.

[Gator]

to answer the previous questions: I have not hunted in a high fence nor do I intend to do so due to my personal opinions and beliefs on what hunting is. If that is what someone wants to do then fine, that's thier prerogative. I personally dont believe in it. I was not "taught" to think this way whatsoever, once again, just my opinion.

As far as size of land that is fenced in, its irrelevant. Fenced in land is fenced in land, the game that is in there is confined to that fence, and bottom line is that they cant get out. Not my idea of "fair chase" no matter what sort of game it is. I am not trying to ruffle feathers here, just offering my .02 cents.

So if I draw a hunt at a military installation that IS fenced, that is not fair chase?

[SwampDawg]

i am not going to nit pick, high fence vs. military fence vs. island hunting. We could all argue until we are blue in the face, each having our own opinions. I stated my thoughts and opinions to a thread that asked for such.

[okiedog]

So if I draw a hunt at a military installation that IS fenced, that is not fair chase?

Havn't you been paying attention? Your a poor excuse for a "hunter"!:p:D Kind of like those big catfish you catch. You are not a "TRUE" fisherman.... those fish are contained in the water by those dang banks!:p:D:D:D

[Gator]

i am not going to nit pick, high fence vs. military fence vs. island hunting. We could all argue until we are blue in the face, each having our own opinions. I stated my thoughts and opinions to a thread that asked for such.

And I am just confused as to your stance here. Is hunting the scenario I gave in fact a "high fence" scenario that some are so against?

And yeah, them poor little catfish just didn't stand a chance, all trapped up in that cove like they were!!!:D:D

[SwampDawg]

the answer to your question is yes in my opinion. i have never been to or seen a military fence setup so I can only go off of what you have said. If there is a fence confining game to an area, then it certainly is a "high fence".

[fly]

It may not be for everyone in every situation but if it's legal why crticize anyone for it.

Good point Frank, why criticize?

Hey SwampDog everyone has their opinion which we all respect here on the forums. Be careful with saying things like "it is still a joke". This can easily be taken as criticizing.

[SwampDawg]

Flyerla,

I couldnt agree with you more about everyone being entiltled to thier own opinions and I completely respect that. If my first comment came across as criticizing to anyone, than I apologize, that is not how i meant it. Hunting in general is very dear to me as I have grown up around all aspects of it my entire life and I have very strong convictions about our heritage. I have been in these very same debates on other forums, and truth be told I really dont like even getting involved in them, but for some reason I feel compelled to voice my opinion. Once again, i am not trashing fellow hunters for hunting high fence, it is just not my cup of tea.

[Doc]

Well, I guess we all have our own opinions as to what constitutes fair hunting conditions, and the results of the many hunting practices that take place around the country, and that isn't necessarily all bad. I'm glad that hunters still debate such things. It shows that the attitude of "hunting success at any cost" is still not mainstream thinking. Obviously we are not going to all agree, but let's at least be thankful that we still think about what's right and wrong in hunting and still have a desire to discuss it.

Doc

[Gator]

I am tired of watching T.V. shows with high fenced hunting.

Can't believe this wasn't mentioned. CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great thing about living in a free country, NOONE makes you watch anything, well, unless your married of course!!! LOL!!!!

[goodnottygy]

By the way, Gator.... I do change the channel! I expect more from celebrities on TV hunting these places .... oh well, I have said enough about this! LOL! I will try to be quiet and listen for a while! I might learn something! LOL!

[GWSmith]

Friends dont leave out the Popcorn...here you go goodnottygy:D

IMHO...In esscence this discussion revolves around peoples understanding of and what constitutes "Fair Chase".

The definition from Websters dictionary is:

Fair: 1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality

Chase: 1: the hunting of wild animals

Wild:1: living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated

So what constitutes a "State of Nature"?

How long does it take for a Hog, who's entire life has previously been inside an enclosure, to become wild?

Would it not depend on how big of an area the animal lived it's life in after it no longer knows it's in captivity?

What if the area it now lives in is 1000x1000acres, 10,000x10,000 acres, or 100,000x100,000 acres?

What if the borders are natural such as high mountains or rivers and the area inside of that is the area the animal now lives in?

[GWSmith]

Ooops...forgot to add...

Rifle hunters are looked upon by some Muzzleoader hunters as being unfair.

Muzzleloaders are looked upon by some Compound Bow users as being unfair.

Compound Bow users are looked upon by some Traditional Bow users as being unfair.

Traditional Bow users are looked upon by some Spear Chucker as being unfair.

Spear Chuckers are looked upon by some BB-Gun users as being unfair.

BB-Gun users are looked upon by some Slingshot users as being unfair.

...and just about everyone seemingly hates CrossBows:rolleyes:

"State of Nature" is the debate...is it "Natural" enough for you?...then kill something in it.

...and dont let me leave out the important factor here:

Hunting: 1: the act of one that hunts ; specifically : the pursuit of game

Pursuit: 1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat.

Edited January 20, 2009 by GWSmith

[Doc]

Not so easy to come up with an iron-clad set of ethics is it? Most of what we settle on involves a whole lot of personal opinion and reflects heavily what you grew up with, and in a lot of cases, what part of the country you are from. Stir all that together and you find that no two people have exactly the same total code of hunting ethics. It's almost like a fingerprint. So how do we ever hope to convince others that our code of ethics is the only correct one??? ...........CAN'T BE DONE!!!

You can explain what your feelings are and then move on, because you are never going to convince anyone that you're right and they're wrong. How the heck laws ever get passed involving such things, I'll never understand. I suspect that most of them get passed when nobody is paying attention.....lol.

Doc