I have never seen that either. Not that I care, but I've not heard that there is a minimum.

Let me throw into the mix the statements on P&Y website about high fence:
" Beyond the Club’s position that game-proof fenced enclosures are not fair chase because the animals are not free-ranging, these canned shoot situations present further concerns impacting the future of bowhunting, weaken the public acceptance of legitimate fair chase bowhunting, provide possibilities for transmitting diseases, and corrupt the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Animals held, or bred and raised for the purpose of trophy harvest, in these facilities are not wildlife, rather, are privately owned livestock. The killing of these animals is not managed by the authority of a wildlife management agency. And the killing, itself, is devoid of any values embodied by legitimate hunting.

The Pope and Young Club does not accept into its Records Program any animal taken under any captive scenarios."

Here is B&C statement off their website:
"Artificial barriers and escape-proof fences typically mean that the animals confined within are managed by private individuals and are not free-ranging. Including data in the records books on such animals undermines the usefulness of the data to wildlife managers who are charged with overseeing the health and regulated hunting of free-ranging animals.
In addition, game species and their habitat within an enclosure can be managed or manipulated in a way that is not possible under free-range conditions. Often such manipulation is for the purpose of growing the largest antler and horn sets possible in the shortest amount of time. The Club has determined that including data on animals taken from enclosures creates a greater possibility of unnaturally grown or genetically-manipulated specimens skews the data, making it worthless to game managers.
For these reasons the Club has chosen to exclude game harvested behind an artificial barrier or escape-proof fence from its records program. (Click here for the Club’s Position Statement on Genetic Manipulation)."
Here is a link to the page if interested: https://www.boone-crockett.org/about/pos...p;se=1&te=1

Mr. T.

I think you are missing the base question ..you are posting about "fair chase" and we are talking about a VERY specific scenario.

The scenario was hunting on Military Bases that have security fences and whether or not a deer legally killed there could qualify for B&C. The answer was "yes" because there are areas where the deer can go through or under the fence. And several deer in B&C come from such installations. Then someone posted that B&C requires that at least 1 mile be low fence. And no where in B&C do I see anything about this one mile requirement. What is discussed is fair chase....and that the animals are free to move back and forth. The same poster asked if B&C would treat a private landowner (with security fencing) the same as a Military or Government installation. I have not asked my friend that question yet.

So my place even though there are none that would make the book and they seem to jump in and out of my 74" fence would qualify even though I have none that would qualify. True?

I'm afraid we've ignored a very basic premise on this subject for pages and pages... It's OUGHT, not aught!!! (I couldn't stand it any longer.)

Don,

I am not the expert here .. if you read the thread my comment was about Military bases and if deer killed in them can be entered into B&C. Key to allowing B&C entry seemed to be the ability of the animals to move freely via breaks in the fence or going under the fence.

While I have no doubt deer can/will jump a 74" fence, I do not know where B&C draws the line on what fence height is acceptable. I suspect they'd say no to your place since the fence is intended to contain the animals so you can manage them (even though the primary animals are the ibex and rams and not the native deer...and many of the deer can jump the fence).

Thank you Creek!

Tony, I may be mistaken on B&C specifically stating "at least one mile of low fence". I hunted for 15 years on a 12,000 acre ranch in La Salle County. The ranch was high-fenced except for one mile of low fence, and B&C accepted numerous deer from the ranch during the years it was commercially hunted.

The Loz Cazadores Deer Contest in Pearsall, TX also requires at least one mile of low fence to be considered a low-fence animal.

I'm certainly not trying to add to a debate on fences. Just get clarification on why deer from military bases with small escape gaps are accepted by B&C. By that logic, I could dig a few holes under our 1,803 acre high-fenced pasture and qualify as low-fenced, since deer could move freely in and out of those gaps. I know that isn't the case and I know a ranch with 27 square miles of high fence and one mile of low fence has many big deer in the book. That's why I'm a bit confused.

27 miles of HF and one mile of LF seems particularly strange to me.

Why, Nogalus? The man did it intentionally so his deer could book. He built the fence in 1974 and is one of the fathers of modern day deer management in S TX. Along with Red Nunley, Roy Hindes, Bill Carter, Hefner Appling, Gary Machen and several others.

There's a man in Montana with B&C by the name of Jack Reno. A biologist friend who is affiliated with B&C, SCI is going to contact Mr. Reno next week and get clarification. My buddy could not find the one mile rule on B&C's website, either.

Y'all have a good weekend. I'll report back what Mr. Reno says next week.

NP
I have been told that some places intentionally leave a portion of the ranch unfenced so that "the animals can move freely on and off the ranch" and it allows the ranch to register animals. I believe that is what David Morris did on his ranch.

fouzman,
I know you are not trying to stir the pot on a new debate. I just never heard of nor could I find the "1 mile" mentioned anywhere on the B&C website.

Thanks, bud. I can't find it on B&C either. My confusion may be the result of Los Cazadores and the fact that the ranch I hunted outside Cotulla for 15 years has many deer in the book. I'd still be hunting there if Eagle Ford shale was never exploited. Fortunately for my friend and his family, they struck black gold all over his ranch and his wife's 10k ac. ranch. They no longer need the headache of a commercial hunting operation, though they still lease the 10k ac. place to a large group of hunters.

So I wonder if it has to be 1 mile of outside perimeter fence or if one could have 1 mile of interior low fence and just not quite happen to mention that fact?

I figured that's what is was for. It seems strange to me to "push the envelope" in such a way. I'll just leave it there.

Per B&C with highlights provided by me. Just a thought....So I see the words "managed by private individuals" and "species and their habitat within an enclosure can be managed or manipulated." So maybe in the case of the Military and Gov't installations the enclosure is (1) not privately owned (2) the fence was not erected primarily to confine the animals and (3) the animals in the military installation are not being "managed or manipulated." And to a degree the animals can move freely on and off via gaps in the fence or going under the fence.



"IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;

As stated above, the Club’s records program is a gauge of the success or failure of conservation and game management policies and programs. Data kept by the Club’s records is the measurement of antler and horn growth, which is considered as an indicator of age and habitat conditions. Wildlife managers use these data to make game management decisions. As such, the scientific purity of this data is of utmost importance to managers and Club.

Artificial barriers and escape-proof fences typically mean that the animals confined within are managed by private individuals and are not free-ranging. Including data in the records books on such animals undermines the usefulness of the data to wildlife managers who are charged with overseeing the health and regulated hunting of free-ranging animals.

In addition, game species and their habitat within an enclosure can be managed or manipulated in a way that is not possible under free-range conditions. Often such manipulation is for the purpose of growing the largest antler and horn sets possible in the shortest amount of time. The Club has determined that including data on animals taken from enclosures creates a greater possibility of unnaturally grown or genetically-manipulated specimens skews the data, making it worthless to game managers.

For these reasons the Club has chosen to exclude game harvested behind an artificial barrier or escape-proof fence from its records program. (Click here for the Club’s Position Statement on Genetic Manipulation)."

This wouldn't be the Maltsburger ranch you are referring to it is?

Tis me again the lowfer ... Since never been around HF hunting land what does it have ta offer that the LF areas that have hunted over the years doesn't have...

that was a short debate.

I agree.

Rex Dacus is true Hunter.

And who's not, and why?

And who gets to decide that for anyone else?

Nobody gets to decide it.

But folks are allowed to have opinions about HF just like anything else.
Everybody on the THF has opinions on everything from broadheads to bullets to politics to what restaurant is the best.
You are one of the most opinionated guys on here - on a variety of subjects from TPWD to game wardens to JFF.

But when the subject is HF anybody with a different opinion is the devil or has a screw loose just because you don't like their opinions. And the personal attacks begin. A lot on here are like that when it comes to HF.

It's crazy.

Truthfully, I'm jealous of the people that can afford to pay for high-fence hunts. I hunt low fence-- not because of some super hunter ethic, but because that is what I can afford. After all, how many low fence hunters still shoot deer over corn? Or maybe on a trail between cover and the food plot they planted? There isn't that much room to complain about ethics between HF & LF. On the other hand, those of you who spend all day stalking a mule deer or climbing mountains get my full and complete respect. I can't do either due to my health, but I would've liked to try. Unfortunately, I didn't have the money to pay for that when I was physically able to do it, either. It's amazing how expensive it is to raise daughters!

Why does everyone seem to get their drawers in a bunch on this, anyway?

He made a statement that a person was a "true" hunter. I asked him a couple of questions. His is that a personal attack. You are the one who has stated over and over that high fences reduce animals to livestock and what happens behind them is not hunting. And you go even further stating you want to have them outlawed.

I have no qualms and have never attacked anyone for their chosen method of hunting. I will always defend my and others methods.