I am beginning to agree more and more with the kenmorrow theory on the jealousy issue. My research says those that bark the loudest all use feeders. So what is the big difference between a HF and a feeder? One keeps them inside of a so called pen of large acreage and the feeder keeps them close to the feed source on large acreage.

Or is the kettle calling the pot black?

Never said HF hunters were immoral, non-traditional, or unethical, any more so than some low fence types. But the poster said HE found most objections to HF hunting were based on envy, as if the other mentioned reasons were not sufficient for many hunters.

What research did you conduct? Ya missed me; I don't use a feeder.

Are all HF places "large acreage"? Defined how? Inquiring minds want to know.

I sure don't lump them (HF places) all together as to how they operate.

didn't bother to read the rest of the thread, did ya?

i'm a still hunter and have never nor ever want to hunt a high fence property.

nor did i say it was "all about" anything. i said that i thought ONE major reason was...

and i didn't say a thing about socio-economic status. i don't know where you got class envy from. but if it's about getting the darned jet skis off the lake, you won't find many anti-jet ski folks who own jet skis. and if you suddenly give a bunch of them jet skis, they shut up. heck, i've even seen a few of them openly switch sides!

Since you stated "it is very, very attractive to the masses to beat up on what they don't have access to but a few others do", it sounded like envy of some sort, socio-economic or otherwise.
Maybe lots of folks "have a price" (your jet ski example), but there are those they have genuine reasons for objecting to... <insert your issue here>...

Good `ol Paul Harvey used to say "self-government doesn't work without self-discpline", when citing an example where new government rules were brought on by some self serving types who were doing something legal, but in doing so created an outcry for "more laws". Legal does not always equal ethical or moral, but we all draw our lines at different places.
As it relates to this thread, some (most) HF operations won't draw the attention for "more laws", but to think "it's okay because it's legal", regardless of circumstances, is just asking for regulations.

nope...those are wind up deer on those places as well... I would be very proud of a deer shot out of a place that had 3 sides high fenced, with outlaws all the way around it.

If you read my previous long post on this subject, you will see that you and I agree. My point on ethics is that it isn't the fence, but how it is used. And that creates a much more difficult situation to legislate effectively. When the high fence becomes a way to restrict movement to make them easier to hunt, I have a moral problem with it. When it is a TQDM tool used to fence out variables and doesn't create a fair chase issue, I have no problem with it.

GSS you are correct in the passage above of course where you are, but ETHICS are a subjective matter. What is ethical in one place may be intirely unethical in another.

What I mean by that is, the way some folks think as being ethical is driveing deer with dogs, some places do not allow this, like TEXAS for instance, but Louisianna sees nothing wrong in this activity. That is their ETHICS, and if you don't agree with them, you are not required to hunt that way. In Eastern Europe wild boar are driven from the forest by beaters, and horn blowers, out across open ground for waiting "SHOOTERS" on tower stands at night. There that is considered ethical, in other places not so much.

Here for some reasons ethics goes out the window depending on the animal being hunted. The hogs for instance! Here on this website I have read post after post that said shooting hogs in a trap is ethical. I understand why in this is the case but I assure you the rest of the world would be livid at the thought of such a thing, and the animal rights folks will use posts like those to help stop all hunting.

In Texas most see nothing wrong with shooting a deer from the jeep,and it is legal on private land,Of course what other type land do you have in Texas? So it is litteraly legal all over the state for all practical purposes as a result. In Africa, that is illegal, and considered highly unethical. So my question is why is any method ethical for one animal, and not for another. It seems most of this talk about "ETHICS" is simply a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and changes at the owners whim depending what he WANTS to do, or impose on others!

What I'm trying to convey is, "LEGAL" is like the referee that decides what the most poeple consider Ethical in an area, and what is best management of the game and hunter's activities. No law is perfect, and no ethic is world wide. If a person has ethics IMO, he doesn't do things HE considers unethical, but his freedom to swing ends at the tip of the other mans nose.He can't force his ethics on others, so the law decides.

Ethics are a personal thing! what is ethical to you, may not necessarily be ethical to me, but if I hunt in your area, I have to abide by your game laws, eventhough I may not consider them ethical, That is the way we have to accept the ethics of those we sometimes disagree with, and your option is to not hunt there if you disagree enough.

The one option you have is, anything you consider unethical is something you are not forced to do by game law, but gives you the choice NOT to do it. That choice, however doesn't give you the right to deny another the right to do it if it is legal in the place where you hunt. The game laws there were laid down on the general ethics of the state where you are hunting.

When you get down to brass tacks, you fire one shot, and kill one animal, the result is the same no matter how you went about it, one cartridge was used, and one animal is dead. Is that animal more dead because you shot him at night, or in a cage? Do the steaks taste better if he was shot from a rifle with it's owner standing on his hind legs in open natural woods, or if it was shot over feeder from a heated box stand behind high fence?

SO, if you consider high fence, no matter how large, to be unethical, the game law doesn't force you to hunt behind one, it only makes it legal for those who do consider it ethical on a place by place basis. You are allowed to pick the size, and cover of the high fence you consider an ethical hunting property, and pass those that you don't, and to forego them all if that is your ethical opinion. But it is only YOUR OPINION, and not a requirement for others to follow your lead, as long as you both follow the game laws.

I happen to disagree with a lot of laws, but I'm required by the general public to abide by them, so I do. The law only tells you what you CAN'T DO, not what you must do ethics wise.

.........................

Excellent post, MacD37!

What are wind up deer? They are all native no HFs. Three sides and a river on the fourth I like that place

wind-up deer - kinda like the toys, where all you would have to do is turn the knob on them several times, set them down and they take off walking.

MacD37: great points in your comments. Society does like to keep ethics (and subsequent laws) as a moving target (the line drawing I mentioned).
As you stated, I can choose not pursue game in a locale, setting, or region with different "ethics/laws", but like California krap spreads across our country, being complacent can really result in a "what happened?" feeling.

great post!

if you talk to an ethicist, however, they would gently point out that ethics are pretty universal and don't change while what you are talking about they call morals. morals change based on circumstances, geographical associations, sociological associations, and evolve over time.
for example, your contention that the law should be obeyed is an ethic generally held by all societies down through history. about 99% of humans polled would answer"yes" or "yes, but..." if asked "should the law be obeyed?"

and your examples of driven hunts and hunting with dogs are excellent examples of morals: sentiments, accepted practices, and even laws differ based on geographical boundaries, traditions, and what animals are being hunted.

the most interesting parts of all of this to me in regard to this thread topic is the influence morality has on the law and the morality that our right to exert moral leadership over others may only be exercised through the democratic processes of both politics and free market economics, ie. elections, legislative efforts, boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, etc. a lot of people would assume that even this ideal is an ethic, but it isn't. only a few hundred years ago, most societies believed that "might made right." in other words, it was perfectly moral to force your moral will upon others by violence and intimidation. today, only muslim radicals and dick cheney believe this. so this ideal evolved over time to become pretty universal. thus, it is a moral by definition.

some of you might think i'm prattling on, but this is an important distinction in this debate and in our larger thinking about hunting and fishing as we are confronted by anti-hunters and the non-hunting/fishing public they influence (who vastly outnumber us at the voting booth). the driving force behind the anti's is veganism, a worldview that holds that the inherent and inalienable rights of all sentient beings (animals) are equal to those of humans. therfore, humans have no right to consume other animals for sustenance or even subjugate other animals for our benefit or survival. to them, a pet is the same as a slave. that is their morality. they claim it is an ethic. but it is such a radical viewpoint held by such a tiny minority of the world's people throughout history and even today that the claim to ethical status is absolutely absurd! (this, by the way, is the whole basis of ted nugent's philosophy)

by contrast, i contend that it is an ethical principle that i...as all animals do...have an inalienable right to do whatever is necessary to not only survive but thrive (life), preserve and advance my freedom of choice (liberty), and prosper (pursuit of happiness). this means i have the right to compete against other animals (including humans) to do these things. of course, this ethic is tempered by other ethics and morals, but never negated by any of them...individually or collectively...for it is "the prime directive." (sorry for borrowing the phrase from star trek, but it fits really well)

the guiding ethic in all of this: the supremacy of respect for the dignity of human life! there is only one small subsect of hinduism (buddhism evolved from hinduism) that has not adhered to this ideal throughout human history, so it too is an ethic. vegans (and by proxy all radical animal rights types) want the entire world to adopt this anomolous, abberant, statistically insignificant notion as an ethic. what we should be doing is laughing at them for the kooks and weirdos they are!

What he said......! Either way we feed Indian Corn because the deer really seem to like it and stay at the feeder longer..

gotcha... this is the way I look at it... How many of the same deer do you see year after year... Kind of like you wifey's 10 point last year

What the differance? Both are low fence places.. the LF ranches mentioned abouve are just stricter on thier harvest.

I don't know if I had seen that deer.... we had only hunted the place for 6 days prior to last season. (and those days were opening evening in '07..in which she shot her very own 10pt... and then the last week of season). I will say though that in the week at the end of season I saw 17 different bucks and only 8 does. And it is a low fenced 300acres. Next season I will have a lot better idea of what all is there.

Now the other places that are a hop and a skip down the road... you are absolutely correct.

...... there's really not much of a difference.

dang howd i miss this thread.

well go ahead say what you got to say buddy

not much to say. you either like or you dont and i like it.

Do what you want as long as it's legal. I just can't stomach the folks who act like they are great hunters because they can go behind a high fence and shoot a big deer. Congrats........you can pull a trigger!

You act like killing a deer is hard...

+1

Not really. I grew up hunting with a rifle. When it lost any challenge I switched to a bow and haven't picked up a rifle since. When getting a decent deer with a bow didn't seem like much of a challenge I started picking out one mature deer and hunted and patterned that one animal until I got him. I don't know if that will become "easy" or not. So to answer your statement, killing a deer isn't hard. I'm just not looking for the easiest way to kill the biggest buck.

Do you not think that happens on HF places. Now you are getting close to hunting HF because you start looking for that "one" deer and not just "any" deer. I will pass up 120-130 deer all day long looking for that buck that will score in the 150's.