high fence v. fair chase
- Thread starter Wyogstew1
- Start date
G
gilamonster8
Guest
Put a hi fence all the way around Texas And I think we will be fine
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-07 AT 10:05PM (MST)[p]Once you put a federal ban on high fench private ranch hunting, where do you think all those guys will go. They will be in the drawing pool trying to complete with you for public land hunting. Do you really want this?
I would prefer to see that high fench around San Francisco, and the L.A. area and leave those darn politicians from those areas inside of that fence.
RELH
I would prefer to see that high fench around San Francisco, and the L.A. area and leave those darn politicians from those areas inside of that fence.
RELH
CAelknuts
Moderator
- Messages
- 3,824
As much as I hate high fence elk hunting, I am not in favor of putting the federal gov't in charge of determining whether it should be legal or not. I think that each state is perfectly capable of enacting and enforcing their own laws as they pertain to wildlife.
I may be a bit of a misguided soul, but high fenced elk and mule deer hunting bothers me a lot more than Texas whitetail hunting does. I don't know why, other than a lot of Texas ranches have been doing this for years, and until the last 10-15 years elk and mule deer were never hunted in this manner. Another difference in my mind is that a heck of a lot of people who take a big bull off a high fenced operation would never be able to kill a big bull hunting outside the fence. Again, with whitetails it seems that just about anyone who puts in the time in a good area, fences notwithstanding, can have an opportunity to kill a nice whitetail.
I may be a bit of a misguided soul, but high fenced elk and mule deer hunting bothers me a lot more than Texas whitetail hunting does. I don't know why, other than a lot of Texas ranches have been doing this for years, and until the last 10-15 years elk and mule deer were never hunted in this manner. Another difference in my mind is that a heck of a lot of people who take a big bull off a high fenced operation would never be able to kill a big bull hunting outside the fence. Again, with whitetails it seems that just about anyone who puts in the time in a good area, fences notwithstanding, can have an opportunity to kill a nice whitetail.
J
jmcenulty
Guest
I do not think there should be a law. Laws are nothing more then a way to control people. Yes, there are laws that are a must, but there are way more laws then there needs to be. The problem is that once a law is past due to the "majority" think it's the ethical thing to do, they don't stop there. Today it's something you agree with tomorrow it's something that you don't. Take smoking for example. I hate being in rooms with smokers, but I loudly protest the law banning it. It takes away our freedom to make choices. If someone want to smoke then they should have the choice. If I don't like it I won't do business with establishments that allow smoking. Shouldn't a business owner have the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking in the business that he owns.
How do you boil a frog? If you drop him in a boil pot of water he will immediately try to jump out, but if you put him in a pot of cold water and turn up the heat slowly he won't jump.
I know what has this got to do with this subject. Easy today it's high fences, yesterday it was wilderness area designations and point restrictions and tomorrow it will be maximum distances you can shoot. Heck PETA got to love this. When we get through putting all the restrictions how to ethically kill and animal (yes I said kill. I'm not a farmer I don't harvest) we won't even be able to step on a grasshoper in our backyard without forfeiting our house. I bet not even one game warden knows every law in the book by heart.
If ethics are based on feelings or how the "majority" thinks then we will never have enough laws, because what the "mojority" believes changes constantly.
Now here is my opion (which stinks like everyone elses) avoid any law unless it's absolutley necessary.
How do you boil a frog? If you drop him in a boil pot of water he will immediately try to jump out, but if you put him in a pot of cold water and turn up the heat slowly he won't jump.
I know what has this got to do with this subject. Easy today it's high fences, yesterday it was wilderness area designations and point restrictions and tomorrow it will be maximum distances you can shoot. Heck PETA got to love this. When we get through putting all the restrictions how to ethically kill and animal (yes I said kill. I'm not a farmer I don't harvest) we won't even be able to step on a grasshoper in our backyard without forfeiting our house. I bet not even one game warden knows every law in the book by heart.
If ethics are based on feelings or how the "majority" thinks then we will never have enough laws, because what the "mojority" believes changes constantly.
Now here is my opion (which stinks like everyone elses) avoid any law unless it's absolutley necessary.
B
buglinbull2
Guest
I have a problem with high fence "hunts" here in Idaho, but I do not think the feds need to stick their noses in it. We all know that their little wolf project turned into a complete cluster f. The way I see it, Idaho has so much public ground and it is so easy for an out of stater to get a deer or elk tag, why would any ethical hunter want to hunt in a high fenced area. I'm not talking tens of thousands of acres like Texas or Africa. These places are usually only a few hundred acres. But at the same time, there is a market for it and there is people willing to pay for it. I will silently judge these people. But, as far as I am concerned every law passed that denies a certain type of hunting, is just one step closer to all of us losing the privilege.
J
jmcenulty
Guest
Buglinbull,
Question for you. I heard there was an area in Idaho that is easy to get tags and there are plenty of deer, but nearly impostible to hunt because of the terrain. You would have to be a stupid idiot to hunt it. Is there such an area? If so which area, becasue I think I fit the idiot catagory. I love to hike into areas where most woudn't think of going. Even when not hunting.
Question for you. I heard there was an area in Idaho that is easy to get tags and there are plenty of deer, but nearly impostible to hunt because of the terrain. You would have to be a stupid idiot to hunt it. Is there such an area? If so which area, becasue I think I fit the idiot catagory. I love to hike into areas where most woudn't think of going. Even when not hunting.
D
deserteagle500
Guest
to each his own. if a man wishes to put up a high fence, then he is fully entitled to it. high fence hunts have their pro's and their con's.
the only eagle with enough power and speed to kill and gut you with one shot
the only eagle with enough power and speed to kill and gut you with one shot
202typical
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,123
CAelknuts well said.
Staes rights all the way. Feds need to get out of our lives not more in them.
CAelknuts I live in Texas and I agree with you on your observation of whitetail vs. muledeer or elk. We have a saying down here about high fencing whitetails "We do not fence deer in we fence bad neighbors out"
I do however feel there should be a an acerage requirement for high fence hunting. Something like a 1000 acre minimum. There are some nuts that hunt 20 acre high fenced pastures and smaller. That is canned hunt in my view.
?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
Staes rights all the way. Feds need to get out of our lives not more in them.
CAelknuts I live in Texas and I agree with you on your observation of whitetail vs. muledeer or elk. We have a saying down here about high fencing whitetails "We do not fence deer in we fence bad neighbors out"
I do however feel there should be a an acerage requirement for high fence hunting. Something like a 1000 acre minimum. There are some nuts that hunt 20 acre high fenced pastures and smaller. That is canned hunt in my view.
?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
P
proutdoors
Guest
I agree with CAelknuts. I hate to see the Feds get control over more anything! This is a state issue and should be decided by the states. I wish MORE states would ban these high-fence operations, but I believe it is best kept in the hands of the states, rather than GIVING the Feds more control over what states do. Tighter local control I think would be a better option. I don't want to intentionally turn ANY hunting related issues over to the suits in DC.
PRO
PRO
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 12:22PM (MST)[p]What I want to know is, why should anyone even care about the high fence issue at all.
There are pheasant clubs, duck clubs, trout farms, catfish farms, etc. and almost all are on some kind of "pay for play" system.......there are even still legal cathouses, where you can "take a trophy".
Whats the big deal. You choose if you want to take advantage of those fenced opportunities.
It's all relative. We pay for beef at the store because our lifestyle does not allow us time or inclination to grow it ourselves. Same with clothing, car repairs, plumbers, electricians, etc, etc, etc. It's just the world we live in.
It is also a way older practice than America itself. They have been shooting grouse and deer in Scotland on fenced farms since 3 days after the first gun was invented. Remember Sherwood Forest....private land, selectively hunted by the elite.
If someone owns, leases, or otherwise controls a piece of land and they want to raise Unicorns to sell to people to shoot, why should I care?
How many places in this country already raise animals not even native to the United States, just to ultimately kill?
Why did Pheasants, Chukar, Huns, Brown Trout and others come to the US.....for a better way of life? Not. "We" brought them all here to have something to shoot.
We have spread critters from the East to the West so us Western folks have more things to shoot.
We have hybridized dozens of forms of wildlife so we can have more things to shoot.
Millions of dollars are spent annually to grow better feed, better antler size and bigger animals in general, basically, so that we have better quality things to shoot.
And why would the Federal Government need to be any deeper into your life than it already is?
Try not to let your hypocracy get too far away from reality.
There are pheasant clubs, duck clubs, trout farms, catfish farms, etc. and almost all are on some kind of "pay for play" system.......there are even still legal cathouses, where you can "take a trophy".
Whats the big deal. You choose if you want to take advantage of those fenced opportunities.
It's all relative. We pay for beef at the store because our lifestyle does not allow us time or inclination to grow it ourselves. Same with clothing, car repairs, plumbers, electricians, etc, etc, etc. It's just the world we live in.
It is also a way older practice than America itself. They have been shooting grouse and deer in Scotland on fenced farms since 3 days after the first gun was invented. Remember Sherwood Forest....private land, selectively hunted by the elite.
If someone owns, leases, or otherwise controls a piece of land and they want to raise Unicorns to sell to people to shoot, why should I care?
How many places in this country already raise animals not even native to the United States, just to ultimately kill?
Why did Pheasants, Chukar, Huns, Brown Trout and others come to the US.....for a better way of life? Not. "We" brought them all here to have something to shoot.
We have spread critters from the East to the West so us Western folks have more things to shoot.
We have hybridized dozens of forms of wildlife so we can have more things to shoot.
Millions of dollars are spent annually to grow better feed, better antler size and bigger animals in general, basically, so that we have better quality things to shoot.
And why would the Federal Government need to be any deeper into your life than it already is?
Try not to let your hypocracy get too far away from reality.
S
Salmonfg
Guest
Sounds a lot like the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. There is a late-season controlled buck hunt with unlimited tags. Biggest limitation is it is a fly-in hunt with the airstrips essentially located at river level and deer generally up a few thousand feet.
Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
T
TK
Guest
Talk about beating a dead horse, on this issue. I could not have said it better nickman.
M
Model_70_Guy
Guest
I second you Nickman... Your right on the money.. Great response
W
Warren
Guest
Ban the fences any way you can.
>Against it but would not support
>a ban.
+1, They are still in the "hunting community". The second we fight about things like this as hunters the "ANTI's" dig their teeth in and take advantage. We all grew up in different life styles and hunting styles, does that make any of us right or wrong? No, let them be.
Mntman
>a ban.
+1, They are still in the "hunting community". The second we fight about things like this as hunters the "ANTI's" dig their teeth in and take advantage. We all grew up in different life styles and hunting styles, does that make any of us right or wrong? No, let them be.
Mntman
J
jmcenulty
Guest
>>Against it but would not support
>>a ban.
>
>
>+1, They are still in the
>"hunting community". The second we
>fight about things like this
>as hunters the "ANTI's" dig
>their teeth in and take
>advantage. We all grew up
>in different life styles and
>hunting styles, does that make
>any of us right or
>wrong? No, let them be.
>
>
>Mntman
Right on that's what I said a few posts up. The anti's will get us one law at a time.
>>a ban.
>
>
>+1, They are still in the
>"hunting community". The second we
>fight about things like this
>as hunters the "ANTI's" dig
>their teeth in and take
>advantage. We all grew up
>in different life styles and
>hunting styles, does that make
>any of us right or
>wrong? No, let them be.
>
>
>Mntman
Right on that's what I said a few posts up. The anti's will get us one law at a time.
