Indianapolis Star Article"Trophy deer industry linked to disease, costs taxpayers millions"

I'm originally from Indiana and read he Star frequently, so I ran across this artcle that ran this morning. I think this is an interesting read and thought some of you might here as well.

http://www.indystar.com/longform/news/investigations/2014/03/27/buck-fever-intro/6865031/

Ironically TX has on of the biggest breeder programs in the country.

CWD was not brought into Texas via breeders, it came to us via wild deer in remote west TX.


The interesting thing about CWD was it was only discovered in CO after scientists used a high fence system to help deter or stop mule deer and elk migrations so that they could better observe them.....

Meaning its a natural occuring disease that mother nature concealed for a long time in the backcountry. Coyotes and other scavangers/predators have an efficient ability to conceal diseases

I'm not a pro high fence hunter and am not real fond of deer farms.

But....this is really flawed reporting the way this guy reports the CWD story. He reports this as facts but has absolutely no factual data to support his facts.

From what I've learned from facts is I agree with Bobo, this is a natural occurring disease similar to anthrax, and deer farms have nothing to do with this disease.

Looks like an article written with an agenda. That agenda contains the "facts" as they want you to see them and not the true facts as they occur.

The article is full of mis-information and out right lies.

It reeks of class warfare as well. No doubt bleeding over from the political climate in this country. Suffice to say, if you agree with the basic premise of this article, you MIGHT be a socialist.

Loved watching the bucks but didn't care for the story. That shot at the 2:25 mark has me scratching my head.

No one "cares for the stroy", but it's something that needs paid attention to. Socialist,really? I'm a conservative who doesn't have their head in the sand. And if states don't do a better job regulating this, yeah there's that word, the Federal Gov't will and no one wants that. Class warefare? No, but saying so and trying to turn it political is a convenient way to deflect the need for a closer look. It's in part about the balance of being a conservationist versus an opportunist.

I didn't care for some of the reporting, but there were facts given to support SOME of the conclusions and where there weren't, it was acknowledged as such. Yes CWD is naturally occuring. But it is pretty easy to conclude that when you have an unusually high number of animals feeding mostly all together in a smaller regulated place, the chances "naturally" increase for easier widespread infection.

The reporting on how ehtical high fence hunting was interesting and less filled with facts, even though the guides they interviewed had some enlighting comments. I admit I'm not a fan, but not going to get on my soapbox about it becasue I know and respect the many here who might have a different opinion.

States are pretty hard core on it. Some are smarter/more common sense about their laws and regs then others for sure.

But the colleralation between HF/breeders and CWD is a ploy. What they don't tell you is 100% of breeders have generations of historical health data on their deer. Something that can't be said for LF deer.

Again CWD was discovered once they stopped migratory Mule deer and elk in CO to study them. In other words before when you were to see a dead mulie or elk in the back country you think, moutian lion, yote, old age..etc

I'm not discounting CWD as a very bad disease, it is a very bad disease. But we are not going to eliminate it, nor stop it. What we can do is be more aware and informed on it, and make sensible management strategies around sound science, IMO

My on CWD

"Hoosier Texan", the lies in that article are just too many to chronicle. The implication that CWD spreads more in "deer farms" is a big one. There has never been any proof that high density feeding areas promote the spread of CWD (even though they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars TRYING to prove it). Want an example of how NOT to deal with CWD? Just look at Wisconsin. Until they hired Kroll to come in and help, they were well on their way to kill off a majority of their herd, based on bogus science.

Also, the article is filled with ignorant "fair chase" attacks against high fenced operations. And begins with the 99%'er mantra of the "elite few" want to have all hunting for themselves thereby ruining hunting for the "average Joe". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, Texas has the best hunting of any state, and if you consider the exotic industry and 365 days of hunting, the best of any country. All available to both the "elite rich" and even more so the "average Joe". The reason it's that good, is that we have private land AND the freedom to manage.

The fact that you want MORE regulation indicts your profession of being a "conservative". Conservatives do NOT want more regulations and in fact are faithful to freedom.

Last, I'll note that two of the authors of that piece are from California. A place comfortable with losing it's freedoms. And based on your post I guess I'll have to add "Don't Hoosier my Texas" to my more commonly used phrase "Don't California my Texas".

BRAVO!!! well stated!

I know one thing, x-factor is probably the ugliest buck I've ever seen. Not interested in shooting a pen raised monstrosity like that. Even if $ was no object. It ain't natural and looks like chit.

Yuck.

Amo, your deer are gorgeous. Nothing like that x-factor FREAK.

These two should help with some good information:

http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/diseases/cwd/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKcr3sw2HkU&feature=player_embedded

That deer has no value to me either. The problem is when people decide they want to make their personal preference everybodies' rule. And that is typically low fenced elitists.

When was the last time you heard a high fenced rancher/hunter say "I don't think you should be able to hunt low fenced"?

I'm not being an 'elitist' when I say I don't like high fences, hey, it's your land, your fence. If anybody is being elitist it would be the folks with the high fence. I prefer to keep things as natural as possible. Nothing wrong with that.

No one said or implied you were an elitist. Not sure where you got that. Did u read the article? It's entire subject was to imply that we need to "regulate" (read ban) breeding and high fenced ranches. That's what I referred to as elitist in my response to u.

Not sure what u mean by high fenced ranchers are elitist, since I, like you, have no problem with others chosen methods. So, please enlighten me.

So now you blame HF pen-raised antler porn on LF hunters?
I've seen some stretches in logic before, but that takes the cake.

And your last sentence is a nonsensical red herring.

I have no expertise on the CWD issue. But the story and numerous other stories like it show this immutable fact: if you pen up a bunch of animals, shoot them, and call it "hunting"-many folks (hunters and non-hunters alike) are going to react negatively to it. For obvious reasons. Gives all hunters a black eye.

Uhhhh no. The only thing I blame anyone for is wanting to decide how others should hunt. Which is exactly all I said. Never indicted personal preferences, except when they drive one to manufacture or accept bogus theories in order to ban activities enjoyed by others. Maybe a little more sleep would enhance your reading comprehension?

The only "immutable fact" illustrated in the article is that some anti hi fence people will draw and support erroneous conclusions, if they feel it helps in their quest to outlaw high fences.

And no, my last sentence wasn't nonsensical at all. It pointed out the fact that the only folks wanting to ban activities are on one side of this argument. Again, more sleep NP. Try it.

You are a nice ambassador for the HF folks. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

Maybe. But I champion freedom to pursue interests of low fence hunters too. Individual freedom is important to me.

Article is just as extreme as some of the animals he is talking about. Most things in excess are not good for you. News articles are written to be read and the more extreme a response that reporters can get, the more papers, magazines, etc. they can sell.

I'm betting neighbors next to your high fences probably don't think you are a very good champion of their freedom to pursue their interests.

You'd probably lose that bet. My two HF ranches do not have any low fence neighbors, they are HF too, and don't envy me at all. My low fenced place doesn't have any HF neighbors. And if someone put a fence up on my border it would please me.

One thing I know for sure. If these arguments must be had, they should be had behind closed doors in our own community, not aired out for the non-hunting majority.

Why not? If there's nothing to be ashamed of and all us fair chase people are full of baloney, what is there to fear about an open discussion?

If you want the non-hunting majority making rules for the hunting community, fair chase or not, you either haven't thought it through very well, or aren't operating with a lot of horsepower.

I don't think you understand that their broad brush stroke morality is much different than your fine number 2 pencil ethical lines.

You ask them to remove the "wart" of breeding operations from our community's face... and they might just cut off the whole nose to do it.

Won't happen. The reason the discussions are even had that hurt hunting in the first place is because of the pens. Get rid of the pens, the negative spotlight goes away. Simple as that.

You are really that naive?

The HSUS understands exactly how they are going to conquer hunting as a whole. Simple activist methodology 101. Pick the easy mark first, hell, for no money at all they have hunters willing to vote against other hunters.

Death by a thousand elitist hunter aided cuts.

HSUS and FOA win easily because elitist (your trophy isn't valid and should be outlawed because you didn't kill it the way I did) hunters will help them. And make no mistake, they aren't just after HF operations. Their ultimate goal is no hunting at all.

The question to all hunters is, "are you gonna help them or fight them"?

I'm not naive. HF hunting is a black eye we simply don't need. Period. Non-hunters react negatively to it-as do many hunters. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why......

You know in all of these HF vs LF arguments I have a hard time seeing how everyone gets so worked up. So what if you don't like what other people are doing it's freaking America people do what you want to do. Don't hate other people for doing what they can afford, makes them happy, or are interested in.

The issue you never see brought up and this applies in all states where baiting is legal; is shooting deer over a feeder is shooting a deer over a feeder. It really doesn't make it that much easier or harder whether or not you know what animals are there or if they are enclosed or not. Shooting a deer off a feeder just isn't that hard sure there are challenges but either hf or lf is not that different.

Hearing all these anti hf arguments is obnoxious get over it. So you don't like what x factor looks like no one asked you.Nor is factor the standard for breeding operations. There are breeders who breed big healthy "natural" typical bucks who you couldn't tell the difference between that and one you saw on grandpa's farm.

I have never shot a hf animal but I don't hate them because really the only advantage is controlled and improved factors mostly in health and the knowledge that those deer are somewhere in that hf however small or large. I have been on plenty of HF ranches and Texas brush is Texas brush finding an animal even as big as an ELK can be hard on 200 acres(I'm sure someone will say Im an idiot but it's true)

Finding them at a feeder at feed times is just the same as a low fence. Im sure this will discredit my argument but if you think HF shouldn't be allowed you really should think any fence shouldn't be allowed. If deer are property of the state and you think hf shouldn't be allowed because of whatever reason doesn't that make you inline with thinking everything should be state property. Talk about socialism. My house is about air tight are you gonna tell me I can't keep that air in there because it belongs to the state or I'm keeping other people air away or some nonsense logic. If your neighbor build a HF that great your property just because flooded with wildlife leaving his and any future wildlife will be forced onto your property.

Sure you can discredit deer shot on HF because of so many reasons but in the end it's a sustainable way to hunt big deer which wouldn't even exist in Texas if not for human interference. Do you buy beef from the grocery store? If we only ate wild range cattle not from fenced production ranches not only our country but the whole planet would starve. If you think anything about a LF ranch in Texas is natural or close to it think again. I would like there not to be fence and coon hunt up and down the creeks and rivers all I want but it's not the way our world works.

If you have such an issue with fences maybe look into the old history books. Indians couldn't comprehend the idea of fences or ownership of land, they didn't think any land belonged to anyone but the earth. Our way of life couldn't work like that. If we still had migratory herds and tribes of hunters with no fences all the game would be long gone. If you like hunting you shouldn't have such an issue with HF it's turned into a mudslinging bloodsport as much as any politicians campaigns. Got to get past this crap..

Most people I run into consider HF hunting shooting fish in a barrel, which is far from the truth. It is many times no different hunting a HF or LF ranch when hunting a specific animal or class of animal. Additionally, with annual/season leases drying up all over the state, do the LF proponents expect outfitters to make a living charging thousands of dollars for a hunter to hunt a LF which may or may not contain the animal the hunter wants?

If a HF ranch meets/exceeds the normal habitat range for the species inside then what's the big deal anyway? Deer that have everything they require in food, water, shelter, possibility to mate, will not travel much anyway, and can spread a disease contrived my mother nature as readily as those in HF.

Hunters attacking other hunters' method of hunting is the black eye we don't need. If as you say, you think anti hunters are only or mostly anti HF hunting, you are indeed naive beyond your comprehension.

I didn't say "anti-hunters", I said "non-hunters", Mr. Comprehension.

I know all HF apologists want to act like it's not an issue, but the fact that so many have a visceral negative reaction to it speaks for itself.

It's strange that this one issue is very heated (articles against it, many states ban it, etc.) and your response is "let's not talk about it." And you have the gall to call me naive.....

Many non hunters don't look favorabley on bowhunting.... should we ban that also?
They also don't look favorably toward feeders, should we ban those also?
They also don't react positively towards hunters with big guts and beards, soshould we impose physical perception requirements?

You were making an argument that HF's threaten hunting by shedding a negative light on hunting. Non-hunters "who aren't anti-hunting" are no threat at all. So it's obvious that even though you said "non-hunters", you were referring to "anti-hunters", since they are the only real threat to hunting. I was just helping you out with a misnomer you used, and was correcting you as discreetly as I could... I'm a nice guy that way.

I never said or implied that we shouldn't talk about it. I said and implied that we shouldn't attack each others different preference in hunting method (how you could think I don't want to talk about it after all this dialogue is pretty amazing don't you think?).

We certainly should talk about how we work to help change the anti-hunters' negative perceptions of hunting. ALL of them as BoBo pointed out.

And thank you so much for all of your contributions to help make our "attacking each other's methods is counter productive" point. I couldn't have designed more perfect illustrations.

Red-herrings. You simply don't see the controversy and negative reactions to those things as you do to HF hunting. That's why many states (even states loaded with hunters like western states) ban HFs.

Well, should go without saying when someone professes to be me, changes my words, changes my meaning, changes my thoughts, and then proceeds to argue against the "me" that they have constructed, I'm probably going to come out on the short end of that discussion.

But it does show one thing: you do not have the tools to prevail in any discussion except one with yourself.

Not a red herrings, its the exact same thing hence no bear season in certain NE states, no baiting bears in some western states.
No baiting deer in some states.........
No mountain lion hunting in a west coast state....


You only use red herring when other examples are introduced that don't support YOUR ideology


HF is a private property right, what's next no hunting on aceage less then 100? 50? 20?

Semantics of "rights" aside, if it is a "right" it is one that can be taken away-which has been shown. So there is no absolute PP "right" to HF.

Semantics being expressed now are nothing more then a circle arguement to dodge/ exclude the rest of the things said above.

HF is a property rights issue. Just like private property access. ..

"Well, should go without saying when someone professes to be me, changes my words, changes my meaning, changes my thoughts, and then proceeds to argue against the "me" that they have constructed, I'm probably going to come out on the short end of that discussion.

But it does show one thing: you do not have the tools to prevail in any discussion except one with yourself."

Professed to be you? Narcissistic much?

Your words were conflicted, I just pointed it out and it stung a little.

That you end up short sticked in these discussions is not my fault.

You two play nice... left not make personal jabs

That's what always happens in these things- arguments are ignored/changed, names are called, and victory is declared.

Yes sir you did dodge the corresponding public opinion...twice now actually.

Some states have band bait for deer and bear. On top of that voted to close mountain lion and bear hunting.

I agree with rancher you are either all in or all out....

Well, you are both wrong then. I'm out on the pens. Doesn't make me out on the other stuff. As much as y'all think it's your way or the highway and everyone has to think like you, that just isn't the way life works.

ive got zero interest shooting bears over bait, but i sure not going to publicly denounce it. Shooting a mountion doesn'interest me the least bit, but I dont publicly slam it.

Pot meet kettle...... difference between you and I defend all legal hunting and I also realize public perception will always be against what they know nothing about, until educated about the subject

You'll get bigger bang for your buck talking to all those uneducated folks in the Quality Deer Manangement Association, The Boone and Crockett Club, The Pope and Young Club, etc.....

The fact that they are "all out" on hunting will probably be news to them too.

These are arguments that will never end. As BOBO mentioned, some western states have banned HF, but the reasons differ among states and you have to acknowledge that. Many states have migratory big game and high fences can interfere with that, (even though those state install HF along highways ""for public safety"")

As far as bait hunting bear in Colorado, I was told by a DOW biologist when they changed that law in the 80's, it was primarily to protect/ increase the numbers. Hunting bear then was similar to hunting over a deer feeder, so naturally that's when/how most hunted them.

Personally I'm for some game regulations, so I may be socialist, IDK, I do know that the animals we hunt now, would have been wiped out if some regulations were not put in place. I would also submit that without the hunting public, we would not have those dollars to support many of the wildlife programs, recoveries and species if left to be funded by anti's. IMO, antis are in it for just the control and argument because it conflicts with "they're" lifestyle.

As far as HF, I don't think I would feel the same hunting one personally (for a book deer/trophy), but have no issue if a fellas wants to spend his money that way. I would not want my neighbors to HF me in either. The biggest benefit I see for HF is investors insurance

I dont see where HF has any effect on CWD, unless they can prove close confined animals will transmit it. If thats the case, then you have them contained so....

Many argue from the public resource side of the debate. They look at a high fence as a way of containing otherwise free-ranging wildlife which could travel across property lines. This applies to any member of any species that becomes unable to freely pass into or out of said property. Some lobby that it promotes the spread and transmission of disease. Many say when the wildlife is contained in a high fence it is no longer a public resource, and is viewed by some as no longer wildlife, but somewhere within a grey area between wildlife and livestock. Some say people are capitalizing on an otherwise public resource, making money, and that this is wrong. Somem say it stimulates the economy. Some say they are canned, some say they are still wild, some say they are trapped, some call it unfair chase, some do not. Many look at it as an issue of individual freedom or an issue of private property rights. Many say you own the land but not the free wild creatures on the land. Some may view it from outside of the high fence as an impedance of public wildlife resources that would otherwise be potentially available to all instead of captive, thus taking from or restricting the freedom of others. Socialism indeed. Tragedy of the commons indeed. Freedom to all indeed. I could write on this for days but that is not worth my time.

My viewpoint in this matter at this point is irrelevant as are all of yours. I have one of course, but for today, I will keep it to myself. Yesterday, I may have aired it out here to be left open for argument. Another viewpoint, however, I will air out. What is relevant is how are we going to resolve this debate? Debating further is not the way, this I know. Saying "We must fight! Fight! Fight for our beliefs! Fight for our rights!" only does just that, starts a fight. Some fights end with a peaceful resolve and a firm handshake, most do not. Most leave a bad taste in the members of both parties' mouths who are left longing in earnest for tomorrow's fight, and the next fight after tomorrow salivating with the prospect of victory and the humiliation of their adversary. There are many viewpoints, theories, and definitions for the same subjects, terms, philosophies, and so forth. I say learn them all and do everything you can to resolve as peacefully as possible instead of promoting your own agenda and attacking others all of the time. Airing it out on an open forum then squabbling with those who, in the grander scheme, closely share your own viewpoints is childish and counter-productive. I have been as guilty of this as many of you have. These little forum topics can be seen by anyone, remember that. It does more harm than some may come to realize before they realize it has even done harm. This internet thing has gotten to be a pretty big deal these days as everyone seems to be showing their selves to the world.

Name-calling and getting your feelings hurt because someone doesn't agree with you are childish and counterproductive. Discussions airing different points of view are not. It's called free speech and the marketplace of ideas. It's what this country was founded upon. Good ideas should prevail and bad ideas should not.

My belief is all the HF folks don't want to discuss because their views cannot reasonably prevail under honest, factual review. So the mantra then becomes personal attacks and taking the position that discussion of the topic is somehow bad. Which is a cop-out.

P.S. This is a hunting discussion forum.

Even if the law was to kill all or push out all animals before HF(like some states), your, mine or NP's opinion wouldn't change.

Ironically...The first fence height restrictions in states actually didn't come because of deer breeders. They actually popped but to counter taller fences of a buffalo rancher. They felt the taller buffalo fences were having an affect on natural elk and mulie deer migrations, and causing undo mortality(mainly from not being tall enough). If that land baron, wasn't who he was, it would of never passed

The biggest difference in North HF ranches and South is size. Most the ones up north are true breeders and tiny compared to texas thought process of a ranch. so in a nut shell they aren't touching nor do they want native stock.

So before NP agrues deer travel restrictions, no different if I took a chain saw and plow and mowed down my ranch to nothing but improved pasture. ...again property rights issue

I will always look at HF as a private property rights issue, not a wildlife.

Unless you sign your rights away to an HOA you should be able to fence your yard the way you want. If I want to fence my ranch with pipe, 8 strand, 7 strand, 5 strand, 2 or 1 strand plus net I should be able to.

99%+ of land is private in TX. Regardless of your thoughts of wildlife ownership, you will never be able to hunt more then .000001% of the wildlife in Texas. Thats a fact that hasn't changed in 200 +years and will not change with or with out HF fences.

I have zero respect for any of those for profit companies. Nor will I ever pay to submit any of my animals. They are the heart of the issues that divide us. They are a champion for nothing more than your dollar and not your individual freedoms.

They are not nor will ever be nothing more than a for profit company looking for your dollar to champion against land owner rights.

And it is my belief, substantiated frequently by your own words, that you and most of the anti HF'ers would restrict my freedom to practice hunting in the ways I prefer. While I and most HF'ers support your right to hunt any way you see fit.

Those who practice a "live and let live" philosophy are NATURALLY irritated by those who would outlaw our preferred hunting method.

It's also natural and just for us to point out that when you attack other hunters you are working with those who would ban both ours and your chosen hunting method.

Honest, factual, and prevailing easily. Truth always does.

I know guilt trips are all y'all have left, but since shooting penned animals isn't really hunting,then, by defintion I am not speaking against hunters.

It's so funny people attack me so vehemently-as if I am the only one or just one of a few who doesn't like HF shooting. I have news for you, that's not the case.

No guilt, you and I both know better than that.

That IS an incredible filter you read with though. I mean, I specifically included "most anti HF hunters" in the post you're responding to above, and "all you have" is implying I'm "just picking on you".

Typical of folks who think a little more highly of themselves than they should. But quite entertaining. Please carry on.

Oh. Almost forgot, there you go with the "I get to decide what the definition of hunting is for everyone" again... So predictable and such a weak position.

Two classic illustrations above. Awesome!

Looks like you're referring to Ted Turner and his Bison enterprises. They had something like that up at Snowcrest and Robb Creek in Montana some years back.

Fence heights, captive breeding, disease, the definition of fair chase, they all get people to arguing. Anything gets some people to arguing because they act like all their ideas are righteous for the greater good and because they just like to argue. Some people make a big deal and scream about everything because it is their right and they don't care if it annoys anyone. Then they get mad when someone tells them to shut up because they are annoying and wrong because they feel their rights have been trod upon when it is just as much the latter's right to tell someone to shut up and call someone annoying and wrong as it is the former's right to hoop and holler about everything because they think they are fighting for the prevalence of all things good and just in this country. The sword cuts both ways. Some prefer the shiny sharp side, some prefer the rusty and dull.

Not questioning the above, just noting that I have never seen a HF proponent argue for the righteousness of banning LF hunting.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is a perfect analogy.

thus why I refer to HF as a property rights issue. I have no want or need to tell or impose on you how you hunt other then respect another man's home

I don't get it. If someone wants to hunt on or own a HF place then that is their right. If someone prefers to hunt on or own a LF place then that is their right. We can each choose which we like. We are in America after all.
Why does one have to be "right" and one "wrong"? I have no problem with someone stating their preference but to then say the other way is wrong does not make sense. You like Ford - I like Chevy - big deal

It sounds ridiculous because it is. LF animals are not penned in-which is the whole issue. You just want to act like it's all the same, which is......ridiculous.

Oh I get it now this isn't about anything more then you feel big HF deer devalue your low fence trophies. Or is it your upset that all that entry money you paid to enter your animals into the Boone and Crockett club to have them spotlighted and bragging rights is overshadowed by higher scoring deer that just happened to come from HF.


Ridiculous right? Or is it elitest?

Point. Counterpoint. Rebuttal. Crossfire. Resolution. Something like that.

I can't wait until sept. Then it's more photo action and less debate action

Yeah I hope this season is better than last. I did less a less than mediocre job of contributing to the conservation of our wildlife resources through legal harvest. Circumstance and misfortune got the better of me. Killed almost a limit of doves, some coyotes and pigs and about a half a dozen ducks. No deer. Shameful.

NP believes that because he adheres to the perfect definition of hunting (his own definition of course), he should be allowed to define what hunting is for everyone. And he wants to make rules/laws that force his criteria on all of us.

I won't call him an elitist, I'll just post the definition and let you decide if he is or not (2b is quite accurate).

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē′tĭz′əm, ā-lē′-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

All I note is this HF thread is unique from others I have participated in because almost no time has been spent discussing the merits/demerits of the issue itself. Mostly just attempted guilt trips, labels and whining.

It is the height of irony that proponents of HF operations where the fat cats shoot big bucks off the menu over a weekend hunt and it's all about the $$$ have the nerve to label fair chase proponents "elitist".

hunt·ing noun : the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals

wild adjective : of an animal : living in nature without human control or care : not tame

Now y'all quit.

Ha. Nice try. Since "wild" is the key word (for your personal definition), I prefer this definition of wild.

(Of an animal or plant) living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated:
a herd of wild goats

All my high fenced deer live in a "natural" environment.

We can go "hunting" definitions of both wild and natural and hunting all day long. But in the end, there are a multitude of definitions for those words.

It's when one group or individual wants to decide what it means for everyone else that we'll always have a problem.

When you line up with anti hunters and attack a hunting method that I and many here enjoy and participate in you can expect it back as good as you give.

I think it's the "height of irony" that many LF hunters fight against all hunting with anti hunting organizations like PETA hsus etc.

The hunters who support the bogus ideas put forth in the article (CWD is caused/perpetuated by raising deer and that high fences should be outlawed), are fighting squarely on the side of HSUS, PETA and all other anti hunting organizations.

Yes!

Why, of course you do. You prefer your own definitions for everything. It's much easier that way.

Would seem they are cultivated........

Define cultivated... :-)

Again, regardless of definition, some want to ban others. 100% bad all the time every time.

I prefer freedoms over nanny state regs. You obviously prefer rigid guidelines that stifle freedom.

What is it that makes you need to make everyone else stop doing things you don't like, and follow rules that you would implement?

And please, all the folks here who would like to see high fences banned, please answer that question for us.

I don't want to see HF banned and I don't believe it creates more CWD; just don't consider fenced in animals as wild, no matter how big the pen.

The big ranch is 32 square miles, there's bucks that were born and died of old age and never got off that ranch. It's not high fence but it wouldn't make a difference, fences don't make an animal less wild.

Yet I could do the same thing on a number of lowfence ranches in TX, KS etc. I could also do the same with elk and mule deer. Hell I could do the same on big horn sheep

Yet apparently if I did per your definition I wouldn't be hunting and nothing more then a fat cat.

Contrary to popular belief its cheaper to do it HF then LF per INCH. But I guess I'd be able to boost more when I send my check to Boone and Crockett. ..........

raised or grown on a farm or under other controlled conditions.


I don't think it should be banned.

And I would say that if you supplementally feed with feeders OR food plots, have a management plan that targets improving the score of the bucks you kill, etc etc, you are in fact "cultivating" your herd.

And you can do that on both a high and low fenced ranch. Which makes "cultivating" a moot point in the comparison of high and low fences.

ETA if you don't support banning HF you and I have no argument. At least on this subject. ;-)

Is it Labor Day yet???

This sheds a whole lotta light on NP's views.

Yep, those big bucks ordered off the menu just "happened to come from HF". The pens have nothing to do with it, and those guys are just wasting their millions building them.

Give me a break.

If you have to live in an "Alice In Wonderland" world to support your position, maybe your position needs reworking.

Sheds no light, and most likely isn't true....

But what it does show everyone has different motives. It all boils down to putting to much confidence in public opinion gets things like mountain lion hunting banned, bear season banned, bait banned, grizzles in BC banned.

When you destroy landowner rights you destroy the very bottom of the hunting support structure.

How many species that live in Texas that have come to us from around the world thrive today because of land owner rights in Texas? How many would not exist with out landowner rights...

We can all keep degrading each other publicly or work together, unfortantly only a very few are all in. The others are clinging to a false belief that public opinion will save us...laughable especially in this current political trend, yet sad same time

But yet same can be done on LF, just higher priced menu.