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.
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.
Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.