Austin paper this morning

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/O...amp;sk=E1ABD5CD

Wow. 18,000 acres.

Tell those dummies at PETA & HSUS to mind their own business.

I miss the old GM there, she didn’t play with slanted reporting, author did a disservice to his peice quoting and organization that hasn’t spent 1 dollar on habitat or conservation in general

It remains to be seen if national media outlets pick up the story and run with it. There's no question that Texas has become a unique place when it comes to hunting tactics.

New York Times is national media.

Very impressive ranch.

Missed that. Now it's just a matter of sit and wait to see what happens next.

They filmed an episode of "Naked and Afraid" on that ranch.

Who care what paper picks it up. What will happen is the more than run the article the better their business will be!
I want to go there and drive a tank and shoot a car!

Pretty amazing to me that leftists wish there were fewer of these animals. Without the hunting market, the herds on that ranch would not exist.

The owner is 34. I’ve really been slacking.

Exactly. The leftist hypocrisy is more than I can bear.

It doesn't matter what we or the leftists think about what happens on this ranch. What matters most is what those in the middle who constitute the non-hunting majority think and feel about it.

I agree with that. But a main point to be made to those people is this: without the hunting market, those herds of animals (including any endangered ones) would not exist. The hunting market not only funds the conservation, but is the only reason someone would/could spend the money to cultivate those herds.

Studies have shown the non-hunting majority have always looked favorably on hunting. However, my gut feeling is that their opinions are based on the traditional challenges of free chase methods. I'm not sure this will hold true once more people become aware that free chase has been often replaced with wait for something to show up and eat once a feeder goes off.

Studies do show hunting is looked favorable by the non-hunting public.
Studies shows that the grip and grin photo is bad, conservation truths and food to plate is good.

Method or methodology of method is actually on the low end of the scale, unless you are a fellow hunter that likes to berate and mock your hunting peers.

Tastefulness in how you tell the story goes a long ways. Josh bowmar would of had a completely different response had he taken the time and did his spear bear kill in a more tasteful journey and not mindless savage.

Ironically one of the studies out there found “population control” to be the worst agruement for hunting. Now if you add to it and explain hunting has legalities and regulations to support proper selected herd balance that insurer continued sustainably #’s for human consumption , they agruement starts to be viewed more favorable(even though the they same the same thing).... Key words/thoughts;. “Legal regulated” hunting leads to a “sustainable/ continued food source” for humans...

Studies show that time lapse videos of villagers on a elephant cracass leads most people to support elephant hunting, when the are told in conjunction, that elephant hunting is regulated to support sustainability and not a free for all.


No such thing as traditional free chase method it’s a farse.

'Serves no good purpose to let the media, especially the NYT, on your place. Owners let their egos get ahead of common sense.

Free range/fair chase vs. hunting confined animals is not a "method/methodology" debate.

If pens didn't exist, articles like this wouldn't be possible.

And saying fair chase is a farce i.e."There's no such thing as fair chase anyway, so everyone needs to just get OK with killing for killing's sake because they're all livestock anyway" is about the worst defense of hunting I've ever heard.

People have been hunting over bait for a long, long time. I don't think that's the real issue.

*If* these animals are basically penned-up livestock, that's a different issue.



I generally agree, but for this guy it may be good marketing.

I find this stuff very interesting. Does anyone know where any of these studies (or summaries/reports on them) can be found?

I think it's a very accurate description.

What's fair about hunting with a high powered rifle with a scope on it?

Articles like this not possible? meh......highly doubt these articles would stop regardless of the type of fence. Comparing 18,000 acres to a pen is ignorant.

I was stupid and decided to toggle this users post since I thought you might actually be able to contribute something meaning full.... i was wrong

Really. 90 perfect of those pics are of plains game. Rifle Hunting the American pronghorn antelope is so sporting?? Let’s not take into account that traditionally our forefathers killed meat to live... I’m sure they where all about “fair chase” or “free chase” making sure they and their kids ate.

We have pages of regulations and tag lotteries because killing animals is so hard.

If HF private land wasn’t fenced we wouldn’t have animals like that to write about and agrue about

End of the day showing it went in your tummy and was completely utilized trumps you meathod mindset. A dead animal is a dead animal, key is full utilization

People are very aware of high power scoped rifle’s capabilities,

we need to do a better job presenting more then just a mount, and grip and grin photo.

Yes I can send some to you, I will have to do some digging, Lots of content

They actually did a really good article on Jason Harrison(kuiu) sheep tag. I’m not sure how much he is paying his new media/digital firm but they are very very very good.

My earlier comments are based on information that appears in a TPWD video that was given to me for use in teaching the Hunter Education course. It's the same video that speaks strongly on how hunters should take into account the attitudes of the non-hunting majority by being careful with photos taken and shared with others, and how hunters present themselves in public. Of course, some have scoffed at such sentiments as well. I will see if it's one of those the department makes available on YouTube.

It also stated that studies have shown the majority of kids today do not look favorably on hunting. Obviously, that's not a good thing.

I bet if someone offered enough money he would let that giraffe be hunted in a heartbeat.

I need a giraffe.

I keep telling my wife the same thing, along with a kangaroo......

Anti-hunters, PETA, et al, would be writing (bellyaching) about any type of hunting.

& Nobody needs to "defend hunting". It's private property with privately owned animals. If PETA, HSUS, or anyone else doesn't like it, that's a shame. that's the beauty of private property, in particular HF private property.

Mistreat livestock or pets on your private property and you may learn differently.

That's my concern as I look into the future, game animals being given the same rights and protection as domestic animals.

Irrelevant. PETA and HSUS stated back when the cite tag law suit was going on for scimitar oryx and addax that they would rather them go extinct then end up as table fare.

Toss that into the general public’s eyes and see how that works out... it didn’t thus why the return of the cites program.

General public actually doesn’t have an overwhelming support for peta and hsus. They having actually conserved any thing and well know for thier puppy death chambers.

Bottom line it's a passive aggressive article. What happens is people assume this is what hunting is. I think the world could do without articles like this personally.

What a cool place though. It truly looks like Africa. I'm so in when the offer hog hunts with the Sherman tanks...how crazy would that be:)

do you think people spend hundreds of thousands (or more) on animals, just to mistreat tthem? The few people that I know that spend all their money, time, & livelihood on their animals & their property take excellent care of them, better than "real life mother nature" is to animals, that's pretty much their lives.

Exactly. But some of us don't think those herds should exist in the middle of Texas. The biggest problem I have with folks creating their own zoo is that those zoo animals inevitably get out, populate, and compete with the native animals.

That’s a legitimate and actual real argument. Im on the fence with it because we now have native NA animals that are in areas they never existed before also, but we don’t complain about increase species opportunity... but ecological it’s not suppose to be a good thing

If it makes ya'll feel better my sons will shoot anything that escapes and shows up at their feeders.

I would too!!! Variety is the spice of life,

Ha, I'm not losing sleep over it, but it's a legit concern.

Just had a funny thought...are giraffes and zebras and all manor of antelope the pigs of the future? Only kidding...kind of

There was a thread a while back about someone shooting an escaped HF ostrich.....I'm still laughing thinking about seeing one come running through my shooting lane.

If you read the CWD threads then you would be correct. Will be only thing left.

Had an emu show up on our game trail camera. They used to be farmed in Texas, and there are pockets of feral ones still around. Apparently there are some in our area.

Awesome!

I'll take a drum stick!

If it cant jump the fence and leave.. It's caged. Whether you agree or not. That is the truth.

Yes, but there are different size cages. Using your logic: Fish can't escape the ocean, so I guess they are caged. All low fence animals are "caged" on the NA Continent.

Typical short answer.

Jumping fences is an evolutionary process.

Lots of pronghorns and antelope species haven’t figured it out jumping 5’ fences, but then again they didn’t grow up jumping fallen trees either.

Then there are the russian roulette Fences such as I-35 and I-10

Not going to start a war here. I just don't agree. Its not how i was taught. I just hate the money game. If you harvest it you should earn it with time spent in the woods and outsmarting the animal. Not pay a fee and drive to a location and be put in a high odds stand that you will most likely get the buck of a lifetime that was grown by human feeding and genetic blending. I see these 3yr olds that are 170 plus... That does not happen in an uncontrolled environment. Times have changed. I guess i am not about showing off antlers that have been grown this way. Peace to all.

The money game? What’s a lease cost on the nuley chitman or King or Callahan?

No such thing as an uncontrolled environment. Any Game animal that has regulations in place is being controlled. I don’t agree with the deer breeding industry in general but breeders and HF ranches aren’t the same. Also an 18000 acre hill country ranch is hardly a pasture, that’s 28 square miles. That’s larger then most of Texas’s WMA’s

Oh, and please - for the luvva Mike - learn the difference between “then” and “than”. Geez.

You still don’t get it, I’m not bashing you, I’m simply drawing parallels to your comments and attacks on others. You criticize others yet refuse to knowledge or even hint the similarities in the hunts you are bashing.

I’ve aleady Archery hunted three states and 5 species(OTC non guided) this year with one hunt still coming(it’s guided and draw tag). I’m not real worried about what you think of my above and below tree line adventures.

Hypocrisy and credibility that interesting, so there isn’t 28 million people affecting, crowding, disturbing, etc the habitat of 2 million deer?

I don’t think anything about your “adventures” one way or the other. I couldn’t care less about them.

I do know my own. So when you make up stuff about them and post it as fact, I point it out. No more, no less.

Quit doing that and we’ll have a lot fewer problems.

Please again you are putting yourself on a pedestal above reproach and above others.
It’s ok for you to mock others but when someone calls out the disparity in your actions you get butt hurt.

Revolving circle with you.

Whatever else you think I am or do, at least I don’t make up lies about others just to try and deflect or “save face” in an internet discussion.

So there’s that.

Im just curious what inaccurate information was published in the article?

I can certainly understand how the non-hunting community would think exactly as the author.

If you want to hunt such a place, good for you, get after it.

Ive only killed 6 deer in my life and none were wall worthy. Yet I turn down free high fence hunts every year. Just not for me. I dont care if its 100 acres or 18,000 acres, Im not gonna do it. Not in anyway saying its too easy, or all of the animals are tame, etc. I just think HF hunting in general makes hunters look bad.

Not everyone understands that if you are hunting 18,000 acres its not much different than hunting unfenced property. It just sounds bad and I couldnt be proud of any animal I shot inside of a HF.

But if its your thing, get after it.

It actually wasn’t that bad of an article. Posted the facts, took quotes from those with two viewpoints about it, and left it for the reader to decide what they thought.

Certainly not a slash and burn job.

What lies? That you have attacked High fence hunts on this forum or your AZ sheep tag was in a unit that’s over almost 99% historical success average. Which should be noted that’s higher success then HF chapperal WMA whitetail hunts. Or you don’t hunt OTC sheep(because they are non existent- your words), yet very rarely do those quota not get filled as a whole. Again you’re not above reproach. Like I said revolving circle with you.

Or topic wise that 18k acres is 28 sections or that there is 2 million deer in Texas and only 28 million people, that I’m sure all 28 mill of us have no effect on them or their travel or thier habitat

Dam, it's early. Come on guys.

I just don't understand hunters that hate HF hunting. I think alot of it is envy. There's many types of huntng that I don't like, but I'm not gonna run down any type of legal hunting in Texas.

You can rationalize it all you want, it's still people on private property hunting in their own little world. To me it's awesome, even though I've never done it & could never afford it myself. I say "Good for them".

I understand very small HF acreage is not really "hunting". But these large tracts of HF that are so well managed as to have consistent herds of exotic or otherwise extinct animals, that do actually require a little bit of hunting, offer up terrific opportunities for thousands of people a year in Texas that otherwise not have the chance to hunt.

The place in the article sounds extremely nice, & I wish I could afford to hunt there. I don't begrudge the wealthy people that can afford it, hunting & capitalism are 2 of my favorite things in life.

Let's toast to hunting and capitalism!

Here are just a few sponsors of the “Hunt Right: Hunt Fair Chase.” movement sponsored by the Boone and Crockett Club. Just in case some of you want to boycott these radical, divisive idiots.

If you don't mind, I would be interested to read whatever you have to share also.

Thanks

Do you think they are solely sponsors of hunt right/free chase? or are they just in support of hunting/outdoors in general?

The website is the stand-alone "Hunt Right:Hunt Fair Chase" website. (huntfairchase.com) It's clear what they are supporting.

I encourage folks to check it out.

You will have to sort through Hours of content. Shane Mahoney(conservation matters), meat eater pod casts, Mark Kenyon’s wired to hunt, Journal of the Mountain hunter, And gritty bowmen has a little content on matter but it’s mostly perception thoughts.

I also get a bunch of ES/conservative focused email articles. I watch the the sage grouse ES saga closely , since my ranch falls with the in the current Tristate lesser Prairie-Chicken Conservation plan.

So none of those sponsors sponsor any other hunting that might involve HF, feeders, or anything else not considered wrong or unfair chase? I'm not saying they do, I'm just asking, I wouldn't doubt for a second that leupold has x million to spend on sponsorship and they just throw some here and some there etc.

What I know is this: they sponsor and support a cause/website solely devoted to fair chase hunting. IDK where all 8-10 companies' advertising $$$ go.

I can assure you they are not gonna tell me they don't want my business if my chosen legal method of hunting doesn't meet their definition of fair chase hunting.

The negative comments I hear most often from non-hunters are very negative views of trophy hunting as the reason for hunting, followed by concern for the animals not suffering.

High fence vs low fence usually is a debate among those who hunt.

The tone of the article that started the thread really focused on raising exotics for trophy hunting more than the fence being the focus.

Concur most Complaints I hear are trophy hunting(sole grip and grin view) and that most think it’s a free for all and don’t know it’s regulated via a sustainability model.

HF/LF is not debated too much outside Texas. Primarily because it’s a pretty settled issue amongst others - most don’t support it. To the extent it’s even discussed on national forums it’s mostly a short “me too” type discussion. The discourse is solidly against it - which has been reflected in many states banning the practice and practically all states (including Texas) banning imports across state lines.

Movements like huntfairchase.com simply reflect the growing willingness of most of the hunting community to be more vocal/take a clear stand on the issue.

The tide has turned solidly against the practice - certainly nationally and even more and more even in Texas. The market and actions of TPWD board members and department as a whole reflect this.

The “grip and grin”/poor TV portrayal discourse seen these days is just a part of the continued evolution of the discourse of hunters being more aware of how we portray ourselves to non-hunters.

The old “if it’s legal it’s ethical” mantra so often heard amongst hunters in the past is being relegated to the trash heap - right where it belongs.

So NP, according to your line of reasoning, can ANY HF hunting be fair chase? 1,000 acres? 10,000 acres? If you hunted 10,000 acres of HF & didn't see an animal, is that fair chase?

Conversely, can any form of legal LF hunting be considered unethical?

I'm just trying to set a baseline for what you consider ethical. When other people start throwing that word around, I need to know where they draw these lines........

& for the record, I think your way off base. Like, completely different thinking from anyone I ever talk hunting with.

nogalus: interesting website. Never heard of it before. I looked around a little and didn’t find anything I disagree with. Also didn’t find an absolute condemnation of high fences. Yes, they condemned “canned hunts” where the animals have no chance to escape and/or where hunting success is 100%.

But I thought this quote is telling:

“Have you ever been in a debate with someone who prefers to hunt on the ground and who thinks tree stands are not fair? The second thing that happens is we play right into the anti-hunters’ hands”.

And regarding technology, this quote:

“Beyond what is legal, it is ultimately up to each person to choose how they hunt, including whether using a specific hunting technology is necessary and will still provide the type of experience they seek. Individual choices also reflect on hunters and hunting as a whole.”

In summary, although I could not find a definition of fair chase, they seemed to imply that the critical parameters are that the animals have a reasonable chance to escape and the hunt is not canned ( i.e., guaranteed kill). That to me seems to leave open the high fence argument to the size of the pen, and it certainly says that there are more parameters that define fair chance than the existence of a HF.

My guess is ------- the liberal Austin paper published that so the big deal liberals will see it and start harassing the ranch with frivolous law suits and "rules and regulations" they have violated and try to put them out of business. The only other choice is that they did it because they liked the concept ----- I doubt it. I think the ranch was very naive to cooperate with the reporters.

The HF issue is about much, much more than “easy” or “hard” - though in most HF operations the fence was put up for one reason: to make it easy to kill a big deer.

The “side effects” of negative hunter perception, easier disease transmission, restricted animal movement of all kinds, effects on neighboring tracts, and others just came along with them.

I disagree that they are growing more numerous (as they were only a few years ago). I believe the opposite to be the case and that the trend will only accelerate.

B&C may share some of the blame for establishing the most widely used record keeping system, but the organization has fought the misappropriation of their system to glorify the ego of hunters (such as by the use of “gross” score only and its use in non-fair chase environments) since its inception.

One of the biggest ironies is that canned hunt/HF operations use the B&C scoring system to tout animals that can never be entered into the B&C records. They point that out constantly.

You post the website of an organization supposedly opposed to HFs which was wrong.

Now you are stating “facts” (to wit: “most HF operations the fence is put up for one reason...). Do you have any data to support that “fact”? There are more than one reason to put up a HF.

Fixed it for you NP.

Their rules speak for themselves on the issue: no animal taken in a HF enclosure is eligible for entry into the B&C records.

That’s just silly. I could shoot the biggest bucks on any HF place in the country. I would consider it throwing my money down the sewer.

That's what's great about the USA You can choose to spend your money however you want as long as it's legal. And what's just as sweet is you don't get to tell anybody else how they can legally spend their money!

Now you’re deliberately mixing/confusing B&C rules with your vaunted huntfairchase website.

Plus, you’re ignoring the fact that your favorite website says:

“Have you ever been in a debate with someone who prefers to hunt on the ground and who thinks tree stands are not fair? The second thing that happens is we play right into the anti-hunters’ hands”.

So, I guess you’re happy playing right into the anti hunter hands.

I don't begrudge people hunting HF. To me, personally, I love wild things and wild places. Fencing in the deer ruins that for me.

There's some slippery slope where you manage the population so carefully that you turn wild things into livestock. That line is subjective, but personally I wouldn't go very far down that line. Baiting in an open environment doesn't bother me. People have been baiting all kinds of animals forever, even though it's not my favorite way to hunt.

B&C created the hunt fair chase website. Fair chase is their platfform and it does not include high fence.

"FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals."

Mr Bass, I have no argument with what you say. My only disagreement is with those who contend ALL HFs are bad, all HFs are unfair, no matter what the size of the area enclosed, or reason for construction That’s just narrow minded, ignorant and counter productive, IMHO.

This is an interesting point, too.

We have free ranging exotics in our western corner of the hill country. We've had axis and blackbuck for many decades. They've co-existed with whitetail well, although sometimes we have to hit the axis pretty hard if the herd gets out of hand.

I don't think having them coexist with the native wildlife is worse (and, generally, is easier) than having livestock coexist with the native wildlife. But it probably depends on the precise nature of the exotics at issue.

Wow NP, that's some real hate for HF.

Can you answer the questions I specifically asked?

I would say that I completely disagree with everything you posted.

You say a HF is only used for 1 reason. That "fact" alone of yours is easily & quantifiably incorrect, as are most of your other "facts".

I think HF hunting can be extremely challenging. Most deer I've hunted on large low fence ranches never would've hit the fence anyway. My understanding of HF is that it is more to keep other deer out so that you can control feed, genetics, etc. So, my questions about are not fair chase issues (unless it was some sort of tiny pen).

I have no argument with their definition of fair chase. I do disagree with their archaic position on high fences, which I think does not recognize the reality of the situation today. But it doesn’t affect me personally, because I have no interest in have my trophies in some book somewhere.

Man I was watching a UA sponsored hunt, should of seen the Mulies they smoked driving around in a high rack. Cool stuff. Slow rolled them


I have no issue with B&C’s ideology although I think it’s kind of silly what is and what isn’t.

well...... glad I posted that article. I just thought it was interesting and presented in an unusual manner.

I could care less if someone wants to hunt LF OR HF - that is their decision. I do get a little uncomfortable with the production of 400-500 inch deer by use of steroids, etc. At some point it has to max out.

What does difficulty have to do with right and wrong? A high fence isn’t necessarily acceptable because the hunt is difficult. It also isn’t necessarily unacceptable because it’s easy. I’ve never understood that line of reasoning, on either side.

Nothing. It’s a sideshow. Most of them are here to make it easy, but the wrongness of them goes well beyond why they exist.

Your smart-a** post was that I am operating from a position of jealously. I proved you wrong. As usual, you just pivot to some other non-relevant point.

Right and wrong doesn’t change with the times. Or with how many are doing it.

You have vociferously argued against their ideology and run them down as an organization in past threads. Glad to see the evolution.

Thats where everything gets muddled up. By definition HFs arent fair chase....but common sense has to prevail at some point. I dont know what the magic number of acreage is but I do know that if i ever get drawn for the chap that I will be a HF hunter. Canned hunts and penned raise deer give all HFs a bad name because we as humans refuse to use common sense when it doesnt fit our agenda.

I see NP can't answer 2 simple questions that define his argument. The reason he deflects, is because he knows his argument is not logical. He would rather tilt at windmills.

1). Is any legal HF hunting ethical?
2). Is any legal LF hunting unethical?

No, not IMO.
Yes, IMO. Some can certainly be (see below for some of the other issues that can be involved).

Legal does not necessarily = ethical.

There are a slew of subjects that integrate that concept into the discussion about them.

HFs, long range hunting, baiting, use of dogs, use of electronics/technology, use of aircraft/drones, meat utilization, and on and on.....

Different people have different positions on them depending on many factors and exactly what is being discussed.

Hunting penned in animals is an easy one for me. Others can be much more nuanced/situation specific.

You didn't prove anything other than your full of

You have zero facts to back up your

You want to tell your fellow Americans how they can spend their money hunting and how they can't, just like all you whining liberals. In this state you will always be whining because you and your liberal cohorts will never be able to tell a land owner how they are gonna spend their money and manage their land. And your sure as he77 are not going to tell Texans how they're going to hunt either.....no matter how much you cry and whine on your my way or the highway soapbox.

Legal is not always ehtical. From the huntfairchase website:



Always amazed at how so many equate the two. Lying, cheating on your wife, burning the flag, and a whole host of stuff that is legal can be unethical. On other topics discussed here every day no one even argues the point.

But on the HF topic guys often chant it like some sort of mantra.

I’m not telling anyone what to do (if it is legal that’s beyond my purview). I am merely giving my opinion on the subject. There is a difference.

Thanks for the direct answers NP. We agree with #2.

We disagree on #1. What about a 10,000 acre HF, is that ethical to you? What about 100,000 acres HF?

While there are some instances of very small (<100 acres) HF hunting not being ethical, there is more than 1 reason why people put up HF. At least 1 reason is unethical LF neighbors.

Now, would you be interested in a bet? What if someone who had 1,000+ HF pasture released a certain marked (let's just say ear tagged) WT buck on his place, with your name on it. Putting aside your objection to HF hunting, would you bet that you could hunt & kill that specific animal in the course of a season?

I'm betting there are several places where you would never see that deer again.

Either way, I'm glad it's not you who gets to decide how everyone hunts their own private property.

You’re very welcome.

Whether I could or couldn’t is not the point. I’m betting I could but, again, not the point.

One thing I could know is that he is there. Every time I go out. And knowing that is a huge advantage for any hunter. That’s why the fence is there. And that’s why it’s not fair chase - because he’s confined. To me, it’s not hard.

But the problems with HF go well beyond just the ease of hunting. See above.

sorry I posted the article - this thread is a bad look for this forum and hunters in general

I believe a landowner shooting deer in a high fence is no different than a farmer shooting his own cattle. Not saying its as easy as shooting a cow, but its his cow so I shouldnt have a problem with it.

But what if I leave my gate open and a deer enters. I decide to close the gate and keep him as a pet.

What would the warden say?

If one wants to put up a high fence, they should be able to; but they sbould have to make a reasonable effort to push all deer from property first.

Dont think it should be legal to turn wildlife into livestock.

How does knowing that he's on the same 1,000+ acres as you any huge advantage? I can guarantee you, when I go hunting, there is a shooter buck within 1,000 acres of me. Funny how I seldom SEE them tho.

It's your insistence that no size HF is "real hunting" that I find ludicrous. If you tell me 30 acres isn't real hunting, I'll agree. To say that anything 500 - 1,000 + acres isn't hunting, that's absurd.

& again, there are numerous reasons for having a HF, not just the reason you continue to insist.

I'm not chiming in on the article issue but I can tell you that I know several people from4 of these companies that hunt high fences and take big customers on high fence hunts every year. Both here in the US and in New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina. Some are huge places some are not so huge.
These companies advertise where they feel they can sell products.

I agree 100% on capturing wild deer in a high fence. That is where the state should step in. No difference in poaching a deer and having to pay restitution and HF in wild deer. If one wants to HF that is his choice but every deer should be run out or the landowner pays the same restitution fee as a poacher.

Where did I say right or wrong changes with the times, or how many are doing it. There have been a lot of changes in the last 100 years or so, but neither that you mention. And yes, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right, we all agree with that.

I HFd my place to reduce the overgrazing and get the population under control and balance the sex ratio. You see, all the ethical, fair chase hunters on nearby properties had chosen to not shoot does, and to shoot anything with horns. That, coupled with an exploding deer population resulted in too many deer, and way too many does, and a preponderance of 1.5YO bucks. This resulted in the pasture being over grazed. The deer had poor nutrition. This was detrimental to the deer, other wildlife, water quality, etc. The HF allowed us to reduce the population to within the carrying capacity, and balance the sex ratios. This meant that a few 1.5 year old bucks were not trying to service 8 or 10 does, which was abnormal and detrimental to genetics. We now have healthier deer, more quail, more doves, better nutrition for cattle, less soil erosion, etc.

Yeah, all HFs are evil.

“Archaic” has meaning when you say it. It means outdated, old-fashioned.

“Evil” might be a little strong.

I agree 100% and I own 2 hf ranches. But at that point I actually own the deer. The state of Texas is fubared on this.

Fair enough. I’ll accept that “evil” is a little strong, if you’ll admit that HFs CAN be a valuable tool And we can both agree that canned hunts are bad.

Laudable position. Reckon what % of HF landowners ran out the native deer? I would guess very, very few.

Why do you try to interject logic into a discussion based on ignorance!?

We can certainly agree on 2 out of 3 and (in a way) on 3 out of 3.

From your perspective, it is a valuable tool. You have bigger and better deer.
From my perspective, you are no longer fair chase hunting, you are deer farming. And, in doing so, creating issues for us all that are both practical and perception-based that you either did not consider, or considered and dismissed.

Many consider hunting enclosed animals “canned hunting” - because the animals cannot escape their enclosure. Certainly there are varying degrees of “canned”. I don’t say that to get a negative reaction from you or bash you. I say it simply because it’s true that many see it that way.

I believe a lot of the heat generated by this subject is because it is an emotional issue for many who have so much invested in it - both monetarily and emotionally. No one likes to hear others voice a negative opinion about their hunting. Everyone wants acceptance.

Not everyone accepts hunting behind an escape proof enclosure as fair chase hunting. Not by a long shot. That’s just the way it is.

Those people are not “evil” either.

Just one time. One stinkin time I wish one of these "skilled, pure hunters" would take me up on my offer. Come hunt 2 days on a 500 acre pasture and if you kill a 30+" aoudad at a feeder it's free. If not I'll hire the chopper and show you at least 5. But you pay me $3500.

Does it have to be at a feeder?

Yes, I have a healthier deer herd. I also have improved the environment, making the property better for all wildlife, indeed all animal species, and better flora, which is also reduces water runoff and pollution, and improves air quality. I think I’ve considered the facts that matter. If there are people with perceptions based on fake news, I should let my property degrade and harm the environment, or would it be better to educate the ignorant?

Well, I’m having a hard time seeing a HF being responsible for all that - and that you couldn’t have accomplished many, if not most, of those positive effects without it.

But, I’m not here to argue with you. I’ve stated my positions.

I will say I have given reasoned arguments/facts in support of them. My position is not based on “ignorance” - nor are the opinions of those who share my positions. Labeling them as such and as “Fake news” is simply an untrue, emotion-based reaction. As alluded to above.

I’m all ears on how to control the deer population on a ranch without breing able to control ingress.

And you seem to be the one without facts. But at least you ha e agreed that there are degrees of canned.

I’ve been drinking.

Did I read somewhere here that the guy that own the place is 34?? Where de he get the money?

.

This oughta piss off the HF haters.

If I HF, I hope to catch as many "native" WT as possible.

Why? Because I can manage them better than the dipstick neighbors who shoot anything that looks like a deer, regardless of age. The deer will be far better off under my care, than they would be outside. I've got other things planned that would give the HF haters here the vapor locks.

See NP, some people would rather take great care of animals, & improve their herd. But that can't be accomplished when idiot neighbors don't care about deer population or management, all they care about is "filling muh freezer".

Just another example of the HF being used that has nothing to do with your silly pre-conceived (illogical) notion.

I can't wait!

But what if a deer enters my 1 acre yard Nd I decide to close the gate behind him and keep him as a pet?

Is that legal?

I get there are reasons why folks build the pens. I get they make it easier to “manage” the deer herd since the environment is now totally controlled. I get that those that do want everyone to agree with their reasons, ooh and ahh over the bucks they kill inside the fence, treat it as if the fence makes no difference, and that it’s all the same. Again, lots of emotional and monetary investment. But, again, the same reasons that folks build them in the first place are the reasons they fundamentally change the game. They enclose the animals. It’s not hard. It’s not “illogical”. It’s just fact.

There’s a reason folks post “LF” or “HF” in the photo section with their buck pics. There’s a reason folks ask “HF or LF?” if someone posts a pic of a big buck without notation.
Folks know the difference. Sorry, but that’s reality.
(Note: they don’t ask “HF under ___ acres?” or “HF over ___ acres?”.)

As for my “notions” being illogical, I’m not interested in a pissing match. Just read my earlier posts for my positions on the subject. Suffice it to say a lot of folks agree, as many states have banned the practice, imports have been banned in even more, the deer farming market is on a downward trend, and the discourse is becoming much more vocal against the practice.

Ok I’ll ask a different way. Where did a 34 year old come up with the money to high fence 18k acres? What brand of fence was used? How tall is it?

Lots of families have money. It comes to them in hundreds of ways. These days, even a smart 34 year old can have plenty.
I don’t see why it matters.

Please list all states that have banned the practice and when the law was enacted.

You claim your reasons for your anti-high fence hunting stance is public perception and ethics.

Post the facts, not opinions that back your stance.

I can tell you before you google the public that's against hunting looks at your vitriol as pathetic and moronic.
When they use logic to form their opinion of you...........you kill wild animals for your pleasure. Regardless of how you do it, that's the end result.

They laugh at your idiocy and applaud it for the effect it has dividing the hunting community. Congratulations!

Look it up for yourself if you think I’m wrong. (I’m not.) I’m not an errand boy. (LOL some of y’all always want my posts to be doctoral treatises - while you just snipe, insult, and whine.)

The old “division” argument has worn thin.

As Diana Rupp (editor of Sports Afield) said in this month’s issue:

“While hunters may all be in the same boat, it is not incumbent on us to sit idly by while others shoot holes in the bottom of it.”

And one more time, here the quote from the B&C affiliated website that YOU instructed us to visit:


“Beyond what is legal, it is ultimately up to each person to choose how they hunt, including whether using a specific hunting technology is necessary and will still provide the type of experience they seek.”

Keep it up, you’re doing a great job.

Spoken like a true liberal, Diana.

Just what I expected from you, more liberal vitriol, no facts.

There are lots of big ranches that are LF and control their deer populations, have incredible natural growing conditions and manage pastures, grasses and invasive plants. The big difference is they don't believe in restricting those deer from their neighbors. The incredible part is by having a low fence their big deer breed a lot more does and those deer spread throughout the county.
I hunt on one that is 25k acres and our buck to die is 1.5 to 1. We have very few mature 8 point or inferior deer.
The ranches on all four sides of us have the same.

I guess if you have a small piece of land, under 2000k acres it is hard to control so the avswer is to cage them in and make them livestock. You can't have a natural order in a small place. No matter what your arguement is you are Raising deer to your specs if they are captured. And the smaller the place the more true this is.

I think everyone understands the reasons that people use high fences. They are the very same reasons that ranchers fence in cattle, and with the same results.

When you say everyone your speaking for me. This is not my understanding of why landowners high fence.

Speak for yourself.

You’re correct. It doesn’t matter. Was just curious. I read that there was a giraffe on the place . I don’t know what it cost to import a giraffe, but, Generally speaking, that kind of money is had by Saudi oil families, Columbia’s drug lords, and a few people here in states. It’s really not my business, just thought maybe the guy invented the internet or something along those lines .

I agree. We hunt on 165000 acres so there is no need to fence to manage the resource.

But if you have like your example 2000 acres that's bordered by small properties that don't have the carrying capacity to shoot all the deer they shoot this is the only option to give yourself the possibility of killing mature healthy animals.

Where I disagree with you is it can be hard to find a particular cow your looking for on 2000 acres, let alone a individual deer. This is why the banter really gets going on theses discussions when opinions that are expressed are no longer logical and strictly based on emotion.

Compensating for something small?

You're second paragraph is just not true. "Only" option? That's just a cop out. It may be the easiest option and/or the most effective option since it encloses the animals, but it's not the "only" option.

I own 365 acres surrounded by public land and neighbors that hunt - a lot. Thanks to good management practices, my deer herd has improved dramatically since I bought it 14 years ago. I and my family have taken several big bucks there.

Sure, other hunters kill some too, but know what that's called? Hunting.

Typical liberal response. This didn't happen to me so it's not true.

You were given this very example happening to JJH. And he logically explained how he protected his resource from selfish neighbors and you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Sure you can improve the herd if all the neighbors are cooperating. It’s call a co-op and the TPWD will help. BUT, it only works if the you and your neighbors follow the rules.

Hey, did I see you are using management practices?? OMG, you’re nothing but a deer farmer...that’s not hunting.

Well, of course., if you have tens of thousands of acres to work with, a lot of things are different. I’m sure the hunter in all of us would love to be able to step out the back door and have thousands of acres of undisturbed land to hunt on. Land where the balance of nature is unaltered by the encroachment of civilization, where a natural balance between predators and prey exists, and land fragmentation hasn’t altered the landscape. But that’s not realistic for the vast majority.

There may be legitimate reasons to put up a high fence, but the fact that it is almost completely unregulated is not good for native Texas animals. Reasonable regulation could solve some of the problems. You can bury your head in the sand and hide behind private property rights arguments all you want, but the fact is many landowners are acting irresponsibly and it isn't good for Texas wildlife in the long run.

what are these landowners doing that is irresponsible? And what reasonable regulation would you recommend?

So your insinuating he got his money from ill-gotten gains?

You do know there are plenty of families with plenty of money who worked hard, spent smart, invested wisely, or got a little lucky, all perfectly legal?

I'm a broke-dick dirt farmer, but I hold no grudge against wealthy people. Seems that most everyone here that hates HF are jealous of others wealth, which is often acquired thru years of hard work, being smart, & getting lucky.

Instead of hating others, due to a HF or that persons wealth, I hope to work hard & get rich myself. If only more people could try that instead of just being hateful & envious,

95% of HF is hate is jealousy, IMO.

Not everyone can hunt on 25,000 acres...........

I'll bet he uses feeders. Many folks don't consider that hunting. If the Fudd's ever make a law against HF, the next step will be feeders "hunting over bait". Then firearms "your not really hunting, unless your using a spear".

I actually agree with the difficulty of finding an animal and agree that you don't always see every animal in an enclosed.
I have 20 head of cattle on 350 acres and can't find them all at any given time but I still am raising those cows and they can't escape my fences. It is the same with deer in a high fence.
When you say you high fence because neighbors shoot too many deer then you are fencing the deer away from your neighbors. My contention is they are not your deer according to the state and one has no right to fence them.
High fence hunting can surely be a challenge but it is still farming deer or capturing deer.

Also my 350 acres is surrounded by small places that lease and I have a very healthy deer herd. I simply keep feeders going and keep plenty of cover for them.
Like I said I don't care if you high fence but run the states deer out and buy your own.

If I were to run every one of "the states" deer out of my HF, would any WT deer that I buy from a breeder & release on my HF be mine & not the states?

Nope. They are still the state's deer. You get to pay for them, but the state owns them.

I want to chime in, because there is so much misinformation and misconception in this thread. My family has owned low fenced and high fenced ranches. We once purchased a contiguous 160 acres to add to our high fence ranch. We added fence to enclose the 160 acres initially thinking we may possibly need to remove a few deer, but were more concerned with removing as many hogs and any coyotes that were present before opening up the 160 to the rest of the ranch. We had the fence contractor drive as many deer out before he closed in the 160 acres as he could. We thought we had at most 1/2 dozen deer remaining within the 160 acres based on camera surveys. We stand hunted over feeders for 3 months and only killed four deer, but soon realized we had more deer based on trail camera sightings that continued to pick up more deer. So, we organized six hunters to do drives and spent all day taking out 6 more deer. We continued to hunt the 160 acre pasture by spot and stalk and stand hunting, eventually killing 13 deer total, yet there were still more deer sighted. There was one mature buck that we never captured on any trail camera and never saw while stand hunting over feeders. He was only seen a couple of times while doing the drives and spot and stalk hunting. My point is that even in a high fenced pasture as small as 160 acres, it is impossible to drive all the deer out, there are more deer than you think there are and many of the deer are nocturnal and don't frequent or ever come to feeders, even in a small 160 acres. We knew after trying all efforts to remove all the deer in this 160 acres before opening it up to the rest of tne ranch that there were at least 3 deer still remaining. Anyone that thinks you can go into a high fence and kill any deer you want, when you want has no idea.

Currently on our high fence place, we have a mature management buck that disappears during hunting season. This is my third year trying to hunt him. He had been a 9 point the last two years and is an 8 point this year and probably 7 1/2 years old. He frequents protein feeders all year, but when we start throwing corn out of spin feeders in the fall, he disappears. We run cameras on every spin feeder and he is rarely seen at one and if he is, it is usually at night. I have seen this deer only once in person in the last three years and it was on a wheat field with a bunch of other deer after the season was over.

My experience is that there is no difference in hunting low and high fence. We have certain deer/bucks that routinely frequent feeders on both the low and high fenced properties. Some bucks are predominantly nocturnal on both low and high. Some deer are predispositioned to be more visible, less cautious than others. We have bigger antlered deer on our high fence ranch because we had bred does brought in and have managed our property and these improved genetics. Every one of our bucks was born on the property, and we don't have breeder pens. All of our bucks are wild. They are not pets and bolt at the smell of human scent or the sight of a human. We also run cattle on this ranch and these deer are no more like livestock than are the wild hogs, coyotes, raccoons or rattlesnakes on the ranch.

The most important thing the fence does for us is that it keeps deer out. We manage the population to below carrying capacity, target a 3 buck to 2 doe ratio and supplemental feed protein with vitamins and minerals and wheat. Someone mentioned that high fenced deer ranches are giving deer steroids. Nope. Never heard of a steroid you could give a deer to grow big antlers. Just good genetics, good nutrition and age. The bucks on our high fence property weren't the product of our neighbors deer. Our neighbors still successfully hunt their property and have no shortage of deer. Our low fenced ranch is bordered on one side by a high fenced ranch and it has no negative impact on the quantity or quality of deer or hunting on our ranch. Our high fence did not negatively impact the number of deer our neighbors have compared to the time prior to fence being built. The only negative they tell me is that because the hogs do not move through our property any longer due to the fence, when hogs move in to their property, they tend to stay longer.

If high fence hunting isn't for you, I get it, but don't bash other hunters because how they hunt isn't for you. You are playing right into the anti-hunters hands. All hunting is under attack, no matter how you legally hunt. Hell, girls can now be Boy Scouts, you think hunting can't be compromised? I would ask those crusade against high fences, why do you care about my family property being high fenced? Are you just as adamant about large ranch owners that are selling off their property in smaller parcels, ranchettes and subdivisions which negatively impact tne deer on these properties as well as the neighbors? Should these landowners not have the right to break up their properties into ranchettes?

The big bucks on our property are not the product of the native deer on our neighbors' property. While the deer do not belong to my family, we did pay for the genetics, manage the habitat, provide supplemental feed and keep the population numbers in check to do our best to maximize their potential. And we don't do any of this for money. To this point, we have never sold a deer hunt and if we ever do, it would be on a very limited basis and certainly would never come close to compensating for the time and expense invested. And i want to mention one last thing. We have never had anyone turn down an invitation to hunt our high fenced ranch.

Not sure. But you would be paying for your them just like any other livestock that is captured.
I know the state has authority over the general health of wildlife and if your deer have a disease they can take them.
Either way you should pay for deer that are captured on your property. If you are taking them out of the range and availability to others you should pay the same restitution as a poacher.
And no I am not calling anyone a poacher, I am referring to the fee charged by the state for deer after the legal penalties are paid.

I out now. Anyone that thinks that high fencing in native deer is not removing them from free range public has simply convinced themselves that it does not. Not only do they keep adjoining landowners from those deer but they are disrupting the animals migration and travel routes. Which effects breeding patterns, feedings patterns and resting areas.
Eventually the state will have to make some laws to slow the high fencing trends. The best way will be to charge the landowner for the deer captured at the time of finishing the fence. This would deter the land owner if it costs him twice as much to do so. And the money could be used for the state for research and enforcement of game laws. Which they could use for sure.

That sounds like a real workable plan. Just how would one determine how many of the state’s deer are “captured “when a fence is put up.?

Here’s an equally workable plan: Perhaps landowners should charge the state for providing food and shelter for the state’s deer.

BTW, whitetail do not migrate.

By law, the deer are the property of the public at large and held in trust by the State for the benefit of the public. Chapter 1 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code:




That law has been conveniently ignored because HFing started with the rich and powerful.

While whitetails do not migrate in the traditional sense, they dang sure move a long ways. Got a trail cam photo of a buck 2 days ago that has been on my neighbor’s place all summer. “Neighbor” in this case means 3 miles away. Happens all the time - especially this time of year. You know, the rut, dispersal and all.....

You can always tell who read the article and who didn't; clearly stated where he got his money:

The ranch is named for its owner, Brent C. Oxley, 34, the founder of HostGator.com, a web hosting provider that was sold in 2012 for more than $200 million.

I love reading threads like these, I bird hunt, but don't deer hunt, so my opinion is based on logic not experience.

I get why people build HF, they can manage the environment and animals, to provide a scenario where better than normal results can be expected. After all, that is legal.

Why anyone would do that, shoot a big deer, then brag about how big it is while ignoring the fact that they artificially created the environment is pretty dumb to me.

Its like catching your PB bass at a pond that solely raises big bass, and then acting like you just went to Fork and pulled out a 14lb'er last weekend because you're so good at fishing.

edit: and it still may take you a year to catch that big bass, not fish in a barrel, but at the end, you should still put a * on the end of it

Lots of opinions on here, lots of hard facts as well.

Bottom line though; we are all on this site for a reason. We all share the same passion for the outdoors and the thrill of the hunt.

anybody and everybody is entitled to their own opinion, that the glory of living in this great country.

Hunting season is here boys, lets embrace it.

Hate to see all these folks battling it out with each other. How about putting this energy towards the lib-tard AntiHunting forums/sites?


No matter how you folks go about harvesting game, wish the best of luck to all of you this season!

Whitetail do migrate short distances, they have a range of 10 miles. They especially do this during the rut. High fences also change bedding and feed ground patterns.As far as determination of population fenced in, seriously?
Helicopter survey when the leaves are gone off trees. You wouldn't see the all but you would see most. I have been on several of these helicopter counts and until you have been on one you can't believe the amount of animals you see. That would also be a cost to the guy building the high fence. If you want to play you gotta pay.

Some folks around here sure don't like private property rights......especially if they disagree with how the owners are using it.

I just don't understand the butt-hurt that people get over what other people do in their own place.

I’ve been on helo surveys every year since 1998. The researchers at CKWRI say you may see anywhere from 35% to 65% of the deer. Did you read the earlier post regarding how difficult it was to remove the deer from 160 acres? Having a home range isn’t migrating.

Because it affects others off their place - in several ways already mentioned. That’s the reason they are illegal in many states - and why making them illegal is perfectly fine under the Constitution. It’s up to each state per the 10th Amendment.

The maxim when examining individual rights: “Your rights end where others’ rights begin.”

The “private property rights” mantra is a straw man. Private property is subject to all sorts of restrictions when it comes to hunting (seasons, bag limits, no night deer hunting, etc.) If your neighbor is shooting 4 deer a day, hunting out of season, and night hunting - are you cool with that? It’s his “private property”, after all. Perhaps this will further your understanding.....

BTW, I like private property rights just fine. Have spent my entire career fighting for private property owners against the government.

And not migrating in the scientific sense (though they do move distances, disperse and relocate) doesn't mean HFs don’t affect natural deer movement patterns/surrounding properties.

(As long as we are playing the “taken to its logical conclusion” game.)

"If your neighbor is shooting 4 deer a day, hunting out of season, and night hunting - are you cool with that? It’s his “private property”, after all. Perhaps this will further your understanding....."

That type of behavior is one of the main reasons that HFs are constructed.

Exactly

I think nearly all at the very least put an * beside any animal taken inside an enclosure. Some get ** or *** or ****, depending on the circumstances.

Those little *s are probably at the heart of most of these threads. Pesky little devils.

That’s why the “jealousy” argument is such BS. How can one be jealous of something one doesn’t admire or want to participate in? The “jealousy” is most often manifested on the other side IMO - in the seeking of acceptance to have the * removed. Think of it this way: if one is truly secure in one’s belief that it’s all the same and doesn’t care what others think, why come on here and defend it so passionately?

Those bad, bad neighbors. Criminals all. Why, I don’t see how Texas deer survived in the era before the pens. And how do we LF folks ever, ever kill any deer in this outlaw age (almost 700,000 last season)?



Nice pivot/deflection to avoid the points made in the post though.

"pivot/deflection to avoid the points made in the post"

you're and expert in that area.

NP, you sound jealous because other people have nice deer that you don't have access to. If people want to drop a buncha $ for nice deer, or any animal, that's none of your business. You can claim whatever you want about it, but so far all I've heard is hot air & ignorant opinion.

I assure you that I don't care about any type of "*" that you keep regurgitating. I don't give a [censored] what B&C says. I wanna grow nice deer, & don't want the [censored] neighbors shooting them at 3 years old.

I am quite positive that jealousy has little to do with why many people don’t care for high fences.

Lol it’s OK. Folks gotta sleep at night. Projecting ill motives, building “straw men” to knock down, and claiming “ignorance” in others all the while ignoring all but what they want to see can be good NyTol for some.

That’s all you got, NP, emotion. No data. No facts. You just don’t like it, so the folks you disagree with must be evil. HFs are a tool, just like guns. They can be used for good, or evil. But you blame the tool. Democrat?

You see that is factually wrong and I don't see how anyone including you can say otherwise.
A 10' tall fence around a wild animal that can jump 9' is a pen. Period. If a wild animal can't get out of an area it is penned in.
You can argue all day long about management practices but the HF is a pen nothing more or less.

There is jealousy, but maybe not the way that has been discussed.
Our neighbors are jealous that they cannot get to the deer that we manage. They would kill everything and rely on us to keep a population. Now they are victims of their own stupidity.

Dang 4ft fences are keeping the bison off my place.

Exactly why our LO put one up - problems with the neighbors. The old "I waunt whatchoo got" bitter, base emotion that's found in all cultures among the lazy.

I get the frustration with neighbors. But you are a neighbor too. I mean if a deer goes on their place also, aren’t you penning them in because (when they are over there) “you want what they got?” Think about it. This whole concept of “my deer” is stupid - and everything hunting does NOT represent.

Bottom line, letting frustration with others turn one from a deer hunter to a deer farmer is too high a price to pay IMO.

Well, we've all had our say. I think everyone understands everyone else's position. No one has changed their minds. We're beating a dead horse, but at least the discussion has been relatively civil.

I would hope that we, who all share a passion for hunting could unite again our common enemy, the anti's, and no let them use our differences against us.

No they probably aren't if they are wire. Smart arse answer but bison are now domesticated animals not wild.

No he put one up to keep them from shooting "his" deer.

Now you're a mind reader. Sanctimony much?

People.complain until they get a 300" red stag at their feeder and get to shoot it, then they dont mind so much.

Another HF thread, imagine that. Pages of yapping and not one mind will be changed.

Haha true. I post for the lurkers.

I do it once year just to say I did.

When Trump gets done with his fence, huntwest’s head is going to explode.

Spot on, it is nice to read a post of experience

Then if we build a wall along Canuckistan, we will have 1 big "pen" & we can easily shoot whatever deer we want, whenever we want, because they are all in a "pen" at that point. There will be no more "real hunting".

Funny, but I'm for that high fence.

One thing is for sure, if any one of us opened our checkbook and booked a HF hunt we could more than likely have a 200"+ buck on the ground by Wednesday if they had an opening. Just look at the photos section, monster freaks are posted daily, some from the same ranch were they kill several a week. Anybody can do it, it's not hard.

bringing animals from Africa and fencing them in, in Texas, to shoot for high dollar and calling it a sport and fair chase, and then hiding under the false pretense that you are helping a species survive, is horse manure in my opinion. it's just killing to be killing, call me what you want, that's my opinion, but i think God would agree...

Well, I agree - but I won’t presume to speak for God.

Hiding behind the “quit bashing” and “we all gotta stand united” is just another way to cop out and avoid the reality of things.
Guess what? Penning deer isn’t real well-received by the non-hunters who control the fate of hunting. It’s not even well-received by many hunters (just read this thread).Amazing to me guys who will gladly join in the discussions about how we need to present ourselves well as hunters via the media (look at jtprocaddie thread comments, for example), our photos, the terminology we use, etc., etc. all of a sudden get all like “We can’t be “bashing” HFs now boys, remember-we’re all hunters.”


Why are you so afraid to discuss it? If it’s so okey-dokey, the strength of your arguments will carry the day instead of trying to guilt people into shutting up. Right?

Oh, and we all get that penning the deer in gives you total control over your herd, allows you to grow bigguns, and keeps you from having to worry about those pesky neighbors.

That’s why they’re built.

For many, it’s not a sufficient justification, and you’re no longer hunting. We get you don’t like folks feeling this way about it, but it’s not gonna change. In fact, the winds of change are in favor of those who are not in favor of it. Newsflash: all those folks are not anti-hunting or “ignorant” - many consider their position decidedly pro-hunting and yours as antithetical to hunting.

That's exactly right.

So...don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up.

You know, just saying something over and over and over again doesn’t make it true. In fact, it’s the hallmark weakness in argument/discussion. You addressed nothing in the post you quote. Nothing.

My facts have been presented and my points about both your facts and “non-facts” have been made (as have many others’). Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.

I’ll grant you, my mind is made up. But the facts I have presented led me there, not the desire to pen up deer so I can kill me a biggun and justify it later.

Sleep well.

Gott mitt uns, ya? Cause if God is on your side, who could stand against you?

The haters here have now delved off into FantasyLand. I see no one has taken up PP on his offer. We have such badass LF hunters here, full of gas, but they won't take a bet on how good or easy it is to hunt in a HF.

The HF hate is so strong, so emotional, & so jealous, that reason can't enter into their thinking. It's already been established that numerous species would be extinct, were it not for HF hunting & CONSERVATION, that would be impossible without a HF.

So, NP & all the other haters (you know who you are), would you rather these animals be extinct than HF hunted? I think I know the answer, & y'all are on the side of the idiots in PETA, HSUS, & other wackos. Congrats!

"just saying something over and over and over again doesn’t make it true".

We agree on that!

And I sleep well every night, thank you, thinking about my little peace of heaven and how much better shape it's in since I bought it (and not just the deer)

Be well, mighty hunter.

X2.

I don’t have a problem with high fences. I have a problem with the way y’all defend them. You suck at it.

Paying to shoot animals is just the way it is. Whether it be a lease, your own property payment, or a guide. Even if you are hunting on a relatives place, you still have, fuel, corn, bullets, processing, etc. A unique thing with exotics is that money talks. Capitalism at its best. If you can keep a healthy herd of exotics, they will flourish and the there is money to be made, a win-win.
Many species thrive because of this. Or like the lady on 60 minutes, would you rather they go extinct than be hunted?

That is an interesting idea. I hear often of those defending HF ranches in Africa of 250,000 + acres. I wonder where the LF purist draw the line on acres?

Sometimes it just feels like we are beating a dead horse.

It doesn't (shouldn't) need defending.

1 side is in agreement with PETA, HSUS, other anti-hunting groups.

The other side is pro-capitalism, pro-conservation, & private property rights.

Come on now, do you really think it's that simple?

What part is incorrect?

Do you really think advocating for fair chase is the equivalent of PETA?

It’s all they’ve got. Yet we’re the “ignorant” ones.

Do you really think that ANY HF is not fair chase?

We've already heard from several members here WITH ACTUAL EXPERIENCE at larger HF operations about the difficulty finding/seeing animals on 1,000+ acre HF places, yet some morans here still say no matter how large a HF ranch is, it's still a pen.

I have several sets of cattle pens, between several different ranches, & ain't none 1,000+ acres. None are even bigger than 2 acres. I just saw an ad for a 13,000 acre HF lease, is that a "pen"? Of course not, y'all have taken this to the absurd.

The thing is, most everyone will agree that a small HF place is not sporting (real hunting). But you lose most people with the absurdity of carrying that opinion over to 1,000+ acres.

So again, what part of my statements were wrong? Anti-HF hunters are on the same side of the issue as PETA/HSUS.

If PETA/HSUS ever got HF hunting illegal, do you think they would stop there? Of course not. Next it would be "hunting over bait" or "hunting with a rifle". Their ultimate goal is to end all hunting, & the Fudds here who are anti-HF play right into their hands.

Like Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

I never said all high fence hunting is the same regardless of size. That position would be just as absurd as your equating HF opponents to anti-hunting groups. And I don't buy the slippery slope argument either. There is room for reasonable regulation and at some point It will happen.

In flounders case yes 100% of his sediments mirror Priscilla Feral’s to a “T”. she stated she would rather oryx, addax Etc go extinct then be hunted.

Fair chase is an ironic statement since hunters joined up with PETA to ban hound hunting for bears(wasn’t fair chase), ban baiting for bears(wasn’t fair chase)..... Etc. Trickle down, just banned “trophy hunting/can’t keep skull/pelt/claws Etc ” grizzly in BC, and banned hunting in certain areas. I bet there will be a full ban in months to come. Is this the specific regulations you speak of...double edge sword.

The whole I can kill the biggest deer in ANY HF is a stupid agruement unless your into arson, even then it’s not a guarantee. It the thought we would all like to think that we could do, but reality doesn’t boad well.

End of the day you can not hunt an area that you cant see. South Texas is may be a four way sendero, hillcountry 60 degree cone extending 60yards when bow hunt the Hill Country.

At this rate hunting is going to be done as we know it in 20 years, via Infighting. Just like bear hunting hounds, bait Etc. LF, HF doesn’t matter. Anything and everything can be bought. You want a LF 400” bull...done, can’t walk a mile....doesn’t matter. You are 70 and decide you want a sheep slam... done. But let’s belittle a guy that hunts or HF’s his property, it’s laughable but sad how some can spend 1000’s on guided hunts yet point fingers as a purest fair chase. The fair chase is same buzz word that’s bitting us now as “trophy hunters” with heads on the wall and grip and grin photos. Hunt enough and you learn real quick fair chase is a joke, nothing fair about it, general public sees same thing. You have a scoped rifle... camo....blinds...trucks....utv’s.... snowmobiles... food source.....only water source. General public isn’t dumb

Nothing worse then reading these threads and watching hunting fall apart at the seems. Sad.

At what point is something truly fairchase? No Guide tip? Scoped 1” rifle? Bow with 65 yard sight? Corn bill >$300? Lease price? Horse vs ATV, Foot vs Horse?

The assertion that all HF hunting is the same, regardless of size, has been pushed by many in this thread.

I'm not equating HF haters with anti-hunting groups, only noting that their interests support each other in regards to HF & hunting exotics, some who would otherwise be extinct. If I found myself on the same side as PETA/HSUS, I would have to stop & reconsider my position.

I'm glad that you don't mind giving away some of your rights to the slippery slope "reasonable regulation". That doesnt mean you can give away mine, or anyone else's. I would wager that your ok with restricting individual rights with firearms, as long as its "reasonable" eh comrade?

The very definition of a Fudd.

Grosvenor: You have stated before that landowners are acting irresponsibly, and reasonable regulation is needed. Can you tell us what the irresponsible acts are and what regulation you would recommend? R

Ha, I had to google Fudd. You've got more fire in your belly than me, comrade. You win, happy hunting.

NO. We post facts.

All you got is your emotional wish list.

You've been asked on multiple posts in this thread to post facts to support your position. You can't.

Let's make it easy for you; Post the states that have outlawed high fencing and the date the law was enacted. Simple......if it were factual. We're waiting.......

Not without dragging this thread out even further, which was not my intent in making the few comments I made. I'm happy assuming that we simply wouldn't agree on the matter.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. But I am sincerely curious as to how you think Landowners are acting irresponsibly, and what reasonable regulation you think would address the issue. Would you PM me if I promise not to argue?

I hunt a HF place right now, but we now have huntable populations of axis, aoudad, nilgai, blackbuck, etc outside of theses fences. None are native, and they compete with native wildlife. Heck, we even have a guy in South Texas that brought in wart hogs. These things can all impact native animals negatively. You can't just bury your head in the sand with free market, landowner rights type jargon.

As to what is fair chase, if an animal has reasonable access to escape cover, I'd say that's pretty fair chase, but there are all kinds of shades of gray. Nothing is black and white.

I said earlier it’s One of the few legitimate biological agruements of HF is the importation ability. But we also have to remember we have introduced elk where elk never existed, buffalo where they never existed, turkeys where they never existed, whitetails where they never existed...not to mention cattle, horses(although thought to have actually been native to NA and went extinct), we can go on and on,

Let’s be honest the 250 million human footprints effects far more then importation

I would say most HF I have seen have been better Land stewards from a total flora then LF. Some LF ranches just don’t have the resources to offset lack of neighbor participation

100% right nothing is blk and white.

Too bad we couldn't have logical discussions like this one in this thread.

We need a drama queen filter on the THF!

As far as states high fences hunting is against the law for native species the number is 10.
It is also against the law to hunt high fence period in Wisconsin, Indiana,
Montana.
In Michigan they do a survey of deer on a newly high fenced property and charge the landowner for the native deer captured. That has actually been the rule for about 15 years.

I don't agree with outlawing high fence hunting. I don't think the government should be able to tell a man how high a fence he can have. But I wholeheartly agree with the landowner paying for the deer he keeps. It can never be exact but it can be fair.

So if the landowner had to pay for the state's deer, would they then become the property of the landowner, like exotics or cattle, i.e., no closed season, no tags required, no limits, no state control, etc.?

Another smart arse answer when you know full well what I am referring to.
But why would I expect anything else.

Sorry, but that is a sincere question. If the landowner pays for the deer, would they then not become his property? Chill, can't we have a civil dialog?

HW,

that does not appear to be correct. High fence operations are in operation all through the MidWest, often with "put and take" type operations, which are really the worst of all of the forms of "hunting" to me. Put and take operations really are just shooting livestock turned out into a pasture.

Here is a high fence deer operation for:

Wisconsin

http://www.wildernesswhitetails.com/

Here is a picture of their deer with the fence in the photo:




Here is an example from Indiana "preserve" hunting:

http://www.whitetailbluff.com/about/

South Dakota:

http://www.stonemeadowranch.com/index.html

Illinois:

http://genesiswhitetails.com/

Iowa:

http://timberghost.com/

Missouri:

http://oakcreekwhitetailranch.com/price-lists/ Interestingly, this one advertises "fair chase" for your 400" deer.


About 15 years ago, my wife and I went to a ranch out near Brady to shoot management deer. Only when we pulled up to the front gate did we realize it was high fenced. It was too late to back out, so we decided to give a go. It was all native local deer, no big monster mutants added to the mix. It took her two days to shoot a management 8 point and it took me three days to find one. The property was 2,500 acres, half set aside as a sanctuary area with no hunting at all. The hunting was about the same as anywhere in the Hill Country with a blind and feeder setup. If anything, the deer density was less than a low fence lease I later had in the area.

That is a data point of one, but honestly, it was a hunting experience like so many others, neither easier nor harder. The deer were well cared for and it was not shooting animals in a pen by any means - at least not at that property.

Having said that, I have not been back to hunt high fence. My feelings are very mixed about high fence not because of hard vs. easy hunting, but because the fence impedes the movement of all wildlife. It unquestionably disrupts the movement of buck deer moving during the rut. But it also disrupts badgers, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, jaguarundis, and maybe in my lifetime, a bear may wander back to the Hill Country. I have seen deer stuck in the fences driving from Fredricksburg to Junction, and occasionally large raptors caught in the wire.

The other concern is that over time, inbreeding seems unavoidable. The race for inches is sickening and producing horrendous monsters. I wish the AI breeding operations were banned right now, everywhere, no exceptions. The animals that looked like failed lab experiments make me sick to my stomach and just sad for the animal.

Conversely, some seem to raise "normal" looking deer, which really often are a real improvement to the deer in areas that have been "shot out."

The real irony in deer hunting is the demand for high scoring deer is the direct outgrowth of Boone & Crockett's scoring system. So as much as B&C wants to promote "fair chase," it has dirt on its shirt for causing the incredible focus on inches.

I remember vididly watching a man roll into the Los Cazadores with a beautiful buck in the back of his truck, taken on a low fence ranch. He rightfully was grinning ear to ear. Then the measuring started, checked, double checked, and added one more time. 159" net. He started cussing and throwing a tantrum like a spoiled kid. For him, it was only about score.

He killed an animal solely as a way to measure whether he was successful as a man.

Sorry, but high fence or low fence, someone is not a better person because they shot something with more inches or the animal was rarer or their name goes in a record book.

At the end of the day, hunters and hunting have an important and positive role in ecosystem management, and we need to keep that role as part of the perspective and dialogue - at least that is my view.

Yes they would become his property in as much the same as bought or farm raised deer are his property. It gives the landowner the right to high fence those deer from the rest of the legal hunters in the state.

I know that HF advocates will argue that even farm raised deer are the states but other than threat of spread of chronic decease name one case where the state forced a landowner to release his high fences deer to the public.
Once again I could care less how high your fence is, I agree that finding a gown trophy can be tough in a high fence. But no one can ever convince me it is ok to fence in wild deer in any quantity. Although I am not insinuating they are breaking current laws there still is no difference in charging a poacher a restitution fee for taking a deer from the public and high fencing a deer from the public. Both are examples of taking the states, ergo the law abiding public, deer from the herd.

Jeff bird I stand corrected. It is legal and here are the yearly requirements and fees involved to have a highfence with native species. At 200.00 a deer EVERY year and a required census it is pretty costly.



Plus would you really feel like you accomplished something to be proud of if you shot that deer?
That hasn't been part of my point and still isn't but come on that ain't hunting.

Currently, if a landowner buys deer from another ranch, the state still controls the management of the deer, via harvest limits, tags, etc. They are still property of the state by law. HF advocates are not arguing that purchased deer belong to the state, it's the state that dictates such.

You have an interesting perspective. But I agree with you that when the fenced acreage becomes small and the animals have little chance escape, that ain't hunting. In fact, I think we all agree on that.

Good hunting.