Topgun 3006

SoTex---Have you ever hunted a high fence ranch of ANY size in Texas to make the "not fair chase by any stretch of the imagination" statement? I sure wouldn't argue your statement about it getting to be only for the wealthy as the last lease my Dad was on was $1500 per gun and you could only kill one good buck and one management buck per hunter. That was cheap because many places were 3 to 4 times that and some were only for the deer season, where his lease was for the entire calendar year to hunt anything on the ranch and he was even allowed to put up a nice building that the rancher got when he quit because of his age. This was a low fence 2000 acre ranch west of George West in south Texas.

Muley Hunter

Last time I checked. Texas has more whitetails than any other state.

Is the hunting so hard that it needs to be done in fenced areas?

skinnnner

Im pretty greatful the world hasnt become so populated yet that if i choose to hunt it will be confined to a fenced area that costs a pretty penny.untill that day ill choose to hunt the way i always have.

skinnnner

Maybe we should stive to keep it natural instead of condoneing things like fenced hunts?

iamyourhuckleberry

We have this:

this

and this

All three answers directly circumvented the question. You have to choose one or the other...sportmanship, or a wise use of a natural resource. It is a bottomline question.

I surmise everyone's bottomline will be a wise use of a natural resource. This is perhaps the reason why so many feel so unsalty when we wound something and it gets away, only to be found days/weeks later rotten and wasted. How many pure elitist sportshunters stop their hunting endeavors when such an event occurs? Where's their salt then? No gentlemen, I think a wise use of a natural resource is perhaps the reason so many folk plug the hole and try to kill the fox in the hen house. They know if he gets away, he will be back to kill more chickens. And finally, this is perhap the very reason every one should assess the situation before we blanket statement all aspects of hunting. If we are killing for no apparent reason other than sport, IMO, we have failed.

I think Calhunter expressed it beautifully when he stated, "Not all of us are going to hunt the same way or even agree on what's "fair" or "real" hunting. That's why the laws allow so many differences." I couldn't agree more. The paradoxical situation of sport verses wise use will be with us forever...

I have to find my balance and everyone else will have to find theirs. That's bottomline!

Muley,

I need to share this story with you. It's a recount of an event which happened to me on Victoria Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. I was there to hunt musk oxen with my bow.

On the first first day of the hunt, I arrowed and enormous bull. I/we (had to use a guide, by law) spotted him from a distance on the barren landscape. I began my pursuit by positioning the only boulder within miles between myself and my prey. As luck would have it, the boulder's mask postioned me within 22 yards of the bohemoth. I can tell you, I was a little timid. I stepped out from around the boulder, drew my long bow. and let an arrow fly. The flight was perfect, I struck the bull right behind his right shoulder (he was a hairy beast and discerning the correct spot was challenging). The bull spun and ran off with my arrow. I knew instantly that my arrow had failed to pierce the anything vital. The chase was on...

I gave continued pursuit by dropping down into a dry creek bed. It was a creek bed the bull, for some reason, paralleled. I'd pop up every now and then to check his position. When I was finally within 30 yards, I dropped my 65 pound longbow and unslung my 76 pound wheel bow. I sent another perfect shot down range. This time, I buried and arrow home. The bull was dead in less than nine seconds. My first arrow made it four inches past the bag target the Inuits call "guard hair". The second arrow made it 13 inches. I was amazed...

I helped skin the bull as he laid on the tundra, but my wide round eyes where being blinded by the low sun on the horizon. I asked my guide if he would excuse me while I went to recover my sunglasses (they had fallen from my head while I was pursuing the bull. I did my best to backtrack myself-to no avail). I assumed they were going to butcher the oxen and prepare the meat for travel...if not, I'd complete the task after I had my glasses.

Upon my return (15 miutes, max), I found the Inuits ready to roll. However, the bull had been pushed into a depression and none of the meat had been taking from the carcass. I was dumbfounded. I asked, "why did you do that?" I was immediately told, "the fox and wolves need to eat too." I replied, "Well, the law says we must take all the consumable portions of the meat." My Inuit guide then stated, "Get on the machine or we will leave you." I grabbed my knife from my pack and began cutting meat from the carcass. They Inuits started to drive away, they were serious! They came back when I had both backstraps removed. I was told, "this is your last chance.

I felt horrible when I mounted the ATV. Abandoning good meat and breaking the law did not sit right with me. I was bothered for the next four days...

When I returned to Holman, I slipped away to the DNR officer's home. I told him what had happened. His very first word was, "So". I said, "SO what? Why did you have me here if the meat was going to be wasted?" He replied, "How much did you pay for your musk ox?" I said, "$3800". He continued, "You must understand, every person in this village has several full freezers. We have fish, we have caribou, we have seal, we have more musk ox than we can eat. What we do not have is heating fuel. We have to pay for that." I can tell you, a light went off in my head.

The Inuits purchase heating fuel from the Russians. They also sell the Russians wolf and fox pelts. The natural resources on their island are theirs to manage (they make the laws) and they do it quit well-despite what I think.

So here's the point. What was so wrong on the surface to me was absolutely right for them. It was a learning experience I will never forget. It didn't matter how I shot that bull...rifle, bow, on an island, etc. The Inuits needed heating fuel, and they got it because somebody was willing to come. Fair had nothing to do with it.

Forgive me if there are typing errors...I have work this morning and do not have time to edit...

Enjoy your day everyone.

Muley Hunter

Not sure why you told me that story. It rubbed me as wrong as a fenced hunt.

First off I never would be in that situation, because I won't pay anybody a dime for a hunt. Just for arguments sake. Lets say I was. I would let it known from the beginning that the meat would not be wasted on feeding other animals. I would have arranged to keep the meat myself, and that would be part of the hunt if the locals didn't need it.

If they acted like they did with you. I would have gone back with them, and then taken a vehicle back and got the meat myself.

They got the money for heat. I got the meat, and everybody is happy.

Keep in mind i'm a meat hunter. Not taking it is beyond anything I could do in any situation.

skinnnner

Its pretty hard to answer a question that is unrealistic.

Chopayne

Iamyourhuckleberry, im not necessarily against high fence hunting with some of your arguments, but I also dont see the point of your story. Are you telling us its ok to waste a resource if we have alot of it? Are you telling us its alright to break the law if the locals do it? Is it ok to break the law and abandoning meat if you pay enough?

You wrote in there "fair has nothing to do with it" and youre right, what does fair have anything to do with this story?

Topgun 3006

I would have to agree with MuleyHunter on letting that meat go to the animals. The people got the money to take you on the hunt and they can use it for heat or whatever they want. To let that animal go to scavengers, unless it's a last resort does not sit well with me. So what if they have enough meat in the freezer! Maybe they should have shot one less knowing that you would be there to take an animal that must be close to a 100% kill rate from everything I've read about them. The whole hunt from things I read is more the challenge of survival in that climate than the hunt itself. It's not something that I have even thought about based on what I've read and seen written about it. I guess from the sounds of the story you didn't have much choice since it wasn't discussed BEFORE the hunt. That meant it was either you or the meat if they were serious and I damn sure wouldn't test them in that frozen environment to find out!

Charlie P

Small enclosure high fence is for people that want to kill something put a trophy on the wall without putting any work in. Just like the kids that are just happy to show up and get thier trophy for participating and not care if they got any better or won something.

I'm talking 100% guarenteed small enclosure hunts. They are bad for hunting.

I also conisider places like Quest haven lodge in the same category.