Jimmy Houston - High Fence Hunt

[Deebz]

Aside from being extra harsh on the deer, a 3 acre pen might be cool if you were going in armed with a loincloth and a spear... or just a big bowie knife... I seem to remember reading about Native people running (on foot) after a deer until it gets too tired out to run anymore, then coming in for the kill with their primitive weapons... that would be intense... You'd probably never get permission to trail across all the property lines though

[Big Horse]

Animals are property. Makes no difference whether that is property of an individual or of the state. “Wild” refers to their demeanor not their ownership. The states vested interest in owning animals is no different than that of individuals, how they can benefit from their “management”. Personally, I’ve never seen the government do much that couldn’t be done better by individuals.

One need look no further for proof than several species that are not native to this country, yet thrive in numbers here larger than those of their native land simply because private individuals have chosen to manage them for their worth. These species are found in the U.S. primarily on high fenced ranches. Unfortunately, the federal government has recently made a ruling putting an end to the legal hunting of three of these species that will undoubtedly reduce their existence in this country and likely harm their existence as a species. You can thank the Animal Rights wackos for that. And don’t think whitetails aren’t on their to do list.

What one does with their property is no business of mine. You want to raise a dog in a 4X8 kennel in your back yard, go ahead. You want to raise chickens in a 6X6 coup, have at it. You want to keep cattle in a 30X30 corral, be my guest. You want to raise deer in a 3 acre enclosure, no problem. You want to walk outside and kill any one of them on any given day, for whatever reason you may possess, that’s your right. It’s called the right to property and it’s a God given unalienable right, protected in this country by the United States Constitution.

I honestly believe the term “fair chase” is a nonexistent fallacy that was created by the enemies of hunting in an effort to cause division among the ranks of hunters. A divided house will fall. It appears they are achieving that goal. I see a lot of pictures of guys in here wearing camouflage and holding compound bows posing with their trophies. The clothing we wear, the weapons we use and a host of many other steps we take in our hunts all eliminate fairness by one degree or another. Whether the chase is “fair” or not is in the eye of the beholder, and every individual has to make his own judgment on what is right for him. I’m not telling anyone here they need to support high fence hunting or any other form of hunting. What I’m saying is that denigrating any of them accomplishes nothing positive. If high fence or whatever, is not your cup of tea, fine, don’t do it. But who are any of us to tell another their pursuit is not worthy? I say “don’t tread on me”.

I think a lot of what we are talking about here and what seems to be a matter of contention is a difference in perception of what is a “hunt”. Webster’s define it as “to pursue” or “to search”. Some seem to be of the mindset that if you are not in the 100% uninhibited “wilds” of the great outdoors, you aren’t”hunting”. I don’t think hunting is defined or limited to by what, where and how one does it. It’s simply the task that is the quest itself. Hunt elk in the Rockies, hunt frogs in a pond, hunt mushroom’s in a wood lot, hunt deer on a fenced farm, none of those things are of any consequence to me. I simply ask that others don’t subject their will on my pursuit of happiness.

[kellory]

Question. If the deer are owned by the state (a natural resource) and we are the state, then why IS it legal to trap our deer? If allowed, then why do bag limits not apply? I believe my rule book also reads "take and reduce to possession" for any type of game animal, so why can they be kept alive as breeders? Why does installing a fence allow for the theft of state property? I can only take so many animals (with permits I have to pay for mind you) while if I install a fence I could snare hundreds of game animals? I think I might be using the wrong weapon! Armed with a building permit for the fence, that means I could hunt deer out of season as well! "What weapon did you use? " " A fence !" Seriously, Why does a fence transfer ownership? EDIT If I can take a state natural resource by enclosing it, why not state land? Just put up a fence and take a few thousand acres? If someone from a state agency drives a state car onto my property, can I close the gate and keep the car? What is the difference?

[buckhunter21]

Personally I don’t have a problem with high fences. Quite frankly, I’d like to see a few thousand more miles of them. But that’s just my opinion!

borderwallasinfrastruct.jpg

ha, love it!

[buckhunter21]

Animals are property. Makes no difference whether that is property of an individual or of the state. “Wild” refers to their demeanor not their ownership. The states vested interest in owning animals is no different than that of individuals, how they can benefit from their “management”. Personally, I’ve never seen the government do much that couldn’t be done better by individuals.

One need look no further for proof than several species that are not native to this country, yet thrive in numbers here larger than those of their native land simply because private individuals have chosen to manage them for their worth. These species are found in the U.S. primarily on high fenced ranches. Unfortunately, the federal government has recently made a ruling putting an end to the legal hunting of three of these species that will undoubtedly reduce their existence in this country and likely harm their existence as a species. You can thank the Animal Rights wackos for that. And don’t think whitetails aren’t on their to do list.

What one does with their property is no business of mine. You want to raise a dog in a 4X8 kennel in your back yard, go ahead. You want to raise chickens in a 6X6 coup, have at it. You want to keep cattle in a 30X30 corral, be my guest. You want to raise deer in a 3 acre enclosure, no problem. You want to walk outside and kill any one of them on any given day, for whatever reason you may possess, that’s your right. It’s called the right to property and it’s a God given unalienable right, protected in this country by the United States Constitution.

I honestly believe the term “fair chase” is a nonexistent fallacy that was created by the enemies of hunting in an effort to cause division among the ranks of hunters. A divided house will fall. It appears they are achieving that goal. I see a lot of pictures of guys in here wearing camouflage and holding compound bows posing with their trophies. The clothing we wear, the weapons we use and a host of many other steps we take in our hunts all eliminate fairness by one degree or another. Whether the chase is “fair” or not is in the eye of the beholder, and every individual has to make his own judgment on what is right for him. I’m not telling anyone here they need to support high fence hunting or any other form of hunting. What I’m saying is that denigrating any of them accomplishes nothing positive. If high fence or whatever, is not your cup of tea, fine, don’t do it. But who are any of us to tell another their pursuit is not worthy? I say “don’t tread on me”.

I think a lot of what we are talking about here and what seems to be a matter of contention is a difference in perception of what is a “hunt”. Webster’s define it as “to pursue” or “to search”. Some seem to be of the mindset that if you are not in the 100% uninhibited “wilds” of the great outdoors, you aren’t”hunting”. I don’t think hunting is defined or limited to by what, where and how one does it. It’s simply the task that is the quest itself. Hunt elk in the Rockies, hunt frogs in a pond, hunt mushroom’s in a wood lot, hunt deer on a fenced farm, none of those things are of any consequence to me. I simply ask that others don’t subject their will on my pursuit of happiness.

You raise some good questions, but I have to admit, I don't agree with most of what you said. Just because something is 'legal,' does not mean it is 'right' or 'humane.' There are a lot of legal things in this country that I do a double-take at. The animals that we hunt deserve every bit of the respect that we can give them, and that involves giving them a free range to roam. This also goes to your example of chickens, dogs, cattle, etc. If you are going to raise animals, have some respect for them and let them roam like they deserve to...with what will make them happy. Again, like you said, if you want to put your Alaskan Malamute in a 3x5 foot kennel his whole life, I guess you are free to do so, but that's not fair to the animal.

You talk about the clothing we wear, the weapons we use, etc, might not be fair in one way shape or form, but where is the line? We need to draw it in the sand I think. I'm not trying to divide hunters, but rather unite us. How do you think these high-fenced hunts look to the antis? ....this video in particular?

[pgchambers]

Big Horse,

I don't know about where you live, but free ranging deer in WI can and do cross the border into MN, Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois all the time. The deer are certainly not the property of WI. Heck, I am pretty sure deer cross into Canada from some states as well, so they aren't even property of this country. A high fence changes that, and although you are certainly welcome to do what is legal in your state, I still don't have to like it.

"Fair chase" is not a term created by the antis, it is a term created by hunters to distinguish what many consider a fair hunt in consideration of the many advancements that reduce the animals chances. You listed some of them, and you are correct that it can change from hunter to hunter, but it does exist and it is no fallacy.

This is a site for hunters to share their experiences and their opinions. You are more than welcome to disagree with those opinions, but you seem to be saying you think we should not express our opinions on high fences unless they are positive. Sorry, but I won't comply. Nobody is subjecting their will on your right to hunt as you wish, just stating our opinions. If you don't want to read them, pick another thread.

[pgchambers]

Okay, the pick another thread comment sounded worse than I meant it to be. I respect you opinion and thoughts as much as anybodies, so I was not trying to say get lost or anything like that. I was just trying to say there are plenty of other good conversations going on.

[Big Horse]

Kellroy,
The quick answer to most of your questions (entrapment, bag limits, possession limits, breeding) is that they are all regulated by the state through a system of permits and licenses.

In my state the law says;

510 I.I.C.S. 60/0.01 All birds and animals ferae naturae or naturally wild, including fur bearing animals not native to this State, when raised or in domestication, or kept in enclosures and reduced to possession, are hereby declared to be objects of ownership and absolute title, the same as cattle and other property, and shall receive the same protection of law, and in the same way and to the same extent shall be the subject of trespass or theft, as other personal property.

PG,
I live in Illinois, and while I don’t have the time to do an in depth search of all States and their laws, a quick Google search provided me with front page links to ;

Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Title 1. Chapter 1. Subchapter B. Sec. 1.011. Property of the State. (a) All Wild animals, fur bearing animals, wild birds, and wild fowl inside the borders of this state are the property of the people of this state.

Title 36. Chapter 1. 36-103. Wildlife property of state -- Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.

Article 1. Section 38. Wildlife is property of the state. All wildlife in Wyoming is property of the State.

And I’m sure if I kept going I would find similar laws in State after State.

And while I’m not a fan of the U.N. I’ll post this simply to illustrate that the premise that animals are property of the state is a view held worldwide. From the U.N. ‘s Food and Agricultural Organization;

Ownership of Wildlife - IV Ownership of wildlife and related rights and obligations. 4.1. Legislative Approaches to Most legal systems address the issue of ownership of wildlife, which has significant practical implications. There is a variety of approaches, but generally wildlife is regarded either as a part of the rights of ownership over land or as State property.

The fallacy of the term “fair chase” is that there is a conceivable rational that fairness plays a role. I dare say that there is not a hunter on this board that has not done at least one thing in their pursuit that hasn’t gone toward eliminating a degree of fairness. It may be something as simple as wearing camo, or utilizing no scent deodorant. With that in mind, the premise that any of us are hunting “100%” fairly is a misnomer. What degree you’re personally comfortable with is simply individual choice.

As for the expression of opinion, that’s a double edged sword. I may retract my statement about denigrating one’s choice of hunting accomplishes nothing positive. It is the debate and discussion of different views that provokes thought. I too, welcome your opinion. As someone who had never hunted high fence, it is discussions such as these that helped to form my opinions on subjects like forms of hunting and individual liberties. Many tend to overlook how closely those two subjects are interrelated, but the truth is they go hand in hand. I’ve tried to stay on topic in this thread, but I’ve also tried to encourage people to look at things from a view they may not have considered before.

BTW, a few years ago I went on my first high fence hunt. I wanted to see for myself what it was about. It was a hog hunt, not whitetail, and after 3 days of hunting a high fenced operation I came home empty handed. It was not the fish in a barrel hunt I had heard people claim. On the other hand, on more than one occasion I’ve but a .22 through the head of a hog in a pen and fed my family with absolutely no regrets. Both were a means to an end.

[pgchambers]

All fair points, Big Horse, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with fencing in whitetails. All of the laws you cite still do not restrict the animal itself from moving to another place, thereby changing ownership. A fence insures that one property owner has and always will have sole ownership of that whitetail(unless he sells it of course). As I stated before, the idea saddens me. Part of what makes a giant buck so impressive is his ability to survive. Neighbors who shoot young bucks are just one of the things he no longer has to survive when you put up a fence. Now you are just talking about waiting the appropriate number of years before you kill him. I know there are no guarantees you will kill him, but you have guaranteed your neighbor won't(without poaching), you have guaranteed he won't relocate, and with the right management you have guaranteed you or whoever pays you are his only predators(fences keep things out as well).

Which brings me to fair chase. There is plenty of conceivable rationale that fairness plays a role. Why does the fairness have to be 100%? I'm guessing there is a line that goes too far for you as well, say tieing the animal to a stake or putting it in a small enclosure. You aren't claiming you "hunted" that hog in the pen. I am not asking you to agree with my standard of fair chase, just as I am not going to get upset if someone believes using trail cameras crosses their standard of fair chase. That said, I can't honestly say that I think high fences automatically go to far in terms of fair chase, it would be a case by case thing with me considering property size and habitat, I just don't agree with dismissing the idea of fair chase completely.

[Big Horse]

All of the laws you cite still do not restrict the animal

Absolutely correct. Law does not apply to animals. It only applies to man. Therefore, the restrictions of the state are applied to man. The state dictates when, where and how man may "hunt" it's animals. If the animal was not the property of the state, the state would have no authority over it's use.

Why does the fairness have to be 100%?

Fairness does not have to be 100%. In fact, i don't think I've ever witnessed a case where hunting was 100% fair. Humans have the capability of rationalization and comprehension that puts them at a higher level than animals and that will always give us an advantage.

While I can understand the emotion that saddens you to see whitetails enclosed, it is simply that, emotion. To elevate whitetails over swine, or dogs or any other animal is based in emotion and a persons connection or appreciation we as humans have for particular animals.

Perhaps we've found some common ground on the topic.