High Fence Again?!?!

‘Sick, poor, stupid, fat, lazy, and old people can’t hunt wild animals. It’s important that they can still kill something and pretend.’

LOL – Too funny, you’ve got a way with words!
SBW

1) I quoted directly from your first comment, fifth paragraph. The April 30, 2009 post. Read it yourself if you think there’s a problem with the context. There wasn’t, but read it yourself if you want.

2) Please share any and all scientific evidence you have. Please quote the study and the authors so I can read the entire study myself. Since we’re talking about the ethics of shooting contained animals, I’d hope the “science” you’re talking about addresses that issue. I doubt it does.

3) I’m glad you have a great deal of non-fenced acres. That means you can guide real hunts too. I’m sure I’d love to chase pigs (or whatever free range animals you have) around your place. This conversation is about high fences, so naturally that’s the part or your place we’re talking about.

4) Yup you’re right, it’s legal, for now. Sad but true. Actually I wish it were legal and no one would do it… That would be my perfect world. I don’t know what this matters though. The discussion was started about the “ethics” of high fence shooting. If the topic had been, “is high fence killing legal?” it might make for a better point.

Hey Duk — Just a couple of observations:

– What’s “up” with Riddle putting “quotes” around certain “words” he “writes?” Does “he” understand punctuation and/or “how” to “use” it? Did he “pass” 6th grade?

– Does numbering your paragraphs, writing more because you’re angry and stupid, and occasionally putting asteriks or quotes around things you subjectively deem to be important make people more likely to believe you? Because I don’t think it does….

– OMG!!!! When did the “whole” state of Texas become high fenced? Where have I been? Why wasn’t there some sort of announcement? Can anyone get in or out?!

– Does he realize how much he hurts his own (pathetic) cause by appearing as such an ignorant buffoon on the internet? What a joke!

P.S.
Notice in #1 of my #4 response: I do “not” remain anonymous and am freely inviting anyone to a private debate.

Interesting, how a debate can become an indictment over something so foolish as a personal ethic.

I wonder, if the High Fence issue were to be broken down into emotional arguments and logical arguments, which column do we think most of this debate would fall into?

That’s a rhetorical question, of course. Almost every facet of the argument against high fence hunting is pure emotion, whether it’s the ideal of hunting “ethics”, or the simple class jealousy of haves and have-nots. There is no logical, sustained, fact-based argument against high-fence hunting operations. (And of course, individual exceptions exist, as they do in any field of human endeavor. More on that in a moment…)

The reason high fence operations are still largely legal around the country is because of that simple fact. All of the challenges to the practice come from people’s emotional ideas, and that’s a pretty sorry place to start basing legal challenges. How do you prove “ethics”? Define “right” and “wrong”, and then show me how that definition applies to everyone equally.

Yes, it’s obvious that Mr. Riddle is charged up here, and I can understand his frustration. He’s asking for a logical explanation of why high fence hunting should be banned, and all he’s getting is rhetorical claptrap about “ethics” and half-baked theories about spreading disease.

Dukillr, you asked for scientific papers to support Mr. Riddle’s position, but haven’t provided a bloody thing on your own behalf. Where’s the beef?

You accuse Riddle and others like him of resorting to name-calling, yet you, yourself, write that it is the lazy, stupid, and fat who participate in such hunts, and yet don’t substantiate a bit of that ugly accusation.

Have you ever been on a real, high-fence ranch? Do you, personally, know anyone who’s participated in such a hunt? From what experience do you draw your conclusions? Is it really just some stuff you’ve read? And even if you have a singular experience or acquaintance, does that really justify your blanket indictment of an entire group of people and businesses?

And that’s really what this comes down to… business and property rights. The animals in a high-fence are livestock (or in the industry terms, hoofstock), and are the property and responsibility of the landowner. It’s no different from cattle, sheep, or ostriches. What that landowner chooses to do with those animals is really nobody else’s business, as long as it doesn’t impact anyone else’s property or business. There are certain community standards of humane treatment that are applied across the board, and those have been codified into law.

It’s true, hunting inside a high-fence, even a large one, is generally not as difficult as hunting open land. In many cases, it really is a matter of selecting the animal you want to kill and making a relatively easy shot as the animal feeds carelessly a few yards away. It doesn’t matter at that point if the enclosure is 450 acres or 45000. The animal is just as dead.

Is this “true hunting”? Maybe not to you, but who are you to judge someone else’s experience? Who are you to impose your values on someone else’s life?

Why not also impose your own religion on everyone else as well? It’s the same thing, isn’t it… a set of moral codes that define right from wrong? And if you truly believe that yours is right, doesn’t that pretty much damn everyone else to Hell? It must then be your moral imperative to save the sinners, by force if necessary. Are you ready to launch the new Crusades?

It’s one thing to feel strongly that a certain practice is not for you… even to abhor it. The wonderful thing is that you’re free not to participate. But when you start to try to regulate someone else’s experience based on your own prejudices, which is exactly what this high fence debate boils down to, you’ve crossed the line.

If a high-fence operation is spreading disease. Shut it down. That’s a problem, but it’s not a problem of the entire industry. It should be handled as it is with any other farm. You quarantine the operation and destroy the diseased stock.

If a high fence operation is blocking public access or trapping and enclosing native wildlife, then that becomes a property rights issue, not a question of hunting ethics. There is already a place and procedure in the courts for that problem. It’s an individual case, and not definitive of the entire industry.

There are, no doubt, individual operations that are doing things outside of the law. They should be dealt with on an individual level. No different from poachers… they don’t represent law abiding hunters do they? Do we ban all hunting because some idiots like to get drunk and shoot road signs? Do we ban guns because some psycho shot up a schoolyard?

Where’s my dog in this fight?

My biggest concern here is this increasingly narrow definition of hunting ethics, and the demands that so many of them be enacted into laws and restrictions based on nothing more substantial than the idea that they’re not “right”. Doesn’t matter if it’s high fence hunts, baiting, hounds, or crossbows… far too many hunters are jumping on the “Ban It” bandwagon under the mistaken impression that this will somehow make non-hunters and anti-hunters embrace our sport. There’s this idea that, if we can demonstrate that we are all paragons of the highest hunting ethics, then somehow the assaults on our sport and community will go away.

I’m here to tell you it won’t work that way. All you’re doing is helping to draw a noose tighter around our collective necks by weeding out hunters who don’t hunt the way YOU feel they should hunt. One piece at a time, you’re doing the anti-hunters’ jobs for them.

The problem antis and most non-hunters have is that we are killing animals for recreation. That is the hunting ethic with which they have issue. All the other stuff is window-dressing. They don’t care if we stip down naked and hunt with our teeth and fingernails; as long as we’re doing it for “fun”, they think it’s wrong and they will continue to try to put a stop to it.

This whole “my ethics are better than your ethics” claptrap needs to stop, and if it does, it won’t be soon enough. The case for hunting can stand on its own merits, based on quantifiable fact and logic. The moment we base our defense on emotion, we’re doomed to a never-ending cycle of failure.

Really? If that’s the best counter you’ve got, you’re utterly missng the point. This isn’t a court of law. It’s an Internet discussion about shutting down a legitimate business in the name of some arbitrary sense of values.

But in the interest of full disclosure, yes, I’ve done some work for Mr Riddle, as anyone who’s visited the Hog Blog can see. In fact, one of the reasons we first met was due to my position on high fence hunting… a position I’ve held since before I ever even set foot on a high-fence operation. And my friendship with him is the primary reason I started following this thread, and why I responded to what I see has become nothing less than counter-productive bullying.

If your implication is that our business dealings have somehow colored what I’ve written here, or that it discredits what I had to say, then you’re sadly barking up the wrong tree and, as I mentioned, totally missing the point. Oh, and since we both have financial transactions and contracts with Skinny Moose Media, how does that play in to our apparently conflicting points of view?

Personally, I’m not a big fan of hunting inside a fence. I’ve done it, both at Riddle’s place and in Texas. I’ll likely do it again, even though I much prefer stalking the open wilderness of the Rockies or the Sierra. I can’t do that as often as I’d like, so sometimes I fall back on other options.

I’ve also hunted planted pheasants, and fished stocked streams. I’ve hunted “Texas Safaris” where you ride around in a truck with the rifle out the window. I’ve hunted river islands less than two acres across, and set tree stands on swamp hummocks. I’ve never bowfished for carp, but I’ve shot my share of rats at the town dump which is really kind of the same thing.

I’ve also rambled over the hills for mountain quail and hiked 18 miles into the Rocky Mountain wilderness for elk. I’ve climbed mountains, slogged through swamps, and literally crawled through thorns and cactus after deer and wild hogs.

The rewards for all of it were different, but they were rewarding experiences all the same. There are things I’ll probably never do again, like knifing a boar hog, because I didn’t care much for the experience… but I’m not going to tell someone else they’re “wrong” if they enjoyed it. We value different experiences, that’s all.

The point is, whether or not you personally “like” a practice doesn’t make it wrong. It only means it’s different. If it’s not doing any harm, environmentally or to wildlife management, then what is the problem? And as I pointed out, if an individual operation (or hunter) is creating a real problem, then deal with that individual… not the entire industry.

In the ignorant rush to appease the inconsolable (the anti-hunters), I believe well-intentioned people like yourself get too caught up in creating this fantasy image of the “ethical hunter”, and fail to realize that all you’re doing is excluding people from our sport. There is NO “perfect” hunter, any more than there’s some consistent definition of a “true” hunt. Sooner or later, we’ll get called out on it when we don’t live up to this image of perfection, and we’ll come out looking like liars and hypocrites, fighting amongst ourselves while the antis laugh with glee.

We’re none of us Golden Children. We’d do much better to stick with reality and quantifiable fact, and build a case on that. That’s what’s lacking in your indictment of high fence hunting… quantifiable fact. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with my financial transactions with anyone.

Dukkillr, I used to disdain high-fence operations, but it was just this kind of comment-thread discussion with Phillip (on his blog) that prompted me to re-evaluate both where I was coming from, and the implications of my position.

What I came to is this: Hunting comes in varying degrees of challenge, and I think it’s a mistake to try to draw a line on the challenge spectrum and say everything to the right is good and everything to the left is bad. To each his own. Hunt what’s right for you at your stage of development as a hunter.

I’m a new hunter, and I kinda hunt the middle. I’ve hunted at Michael Riddle’s place, and I’ve hunted wide-open cattle ranches and barley fields, and I’ve hunted wildlife refuges, and I’ve hunted grand old duck clubs filthy with ducks, and I’ve hunted planted pheasants, and I’d sure like to hunt wild pheasants but we don’t have a lot in California. I’ve never hiked 18 miles for elk. I hope to some day, but I’m working my way up to it. (And btw, I’m not sick, poor, stupid, fat, lazy, or old.)

As a new hunter – and one who started hunting in middle age – I’ve come to this with no preconceived notions about hunting ethics; I know simply that I kill animals to put meat in the freezer. But I’m constantly reading about hunting ethics and evaluating where I stand and why. I’m really glad Phillip is one of the people I’ve learned from. He’s a smart guy. His blog is hands-down my favorite hunting blog on the internet because he’s thoughtful, knowledgeable and just a damn good person. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy hunting with him, which I’ll be doing this weekend.

Michael Riddle’s a good guy too. I’ve watched him interact with clients and friends alike, and I can tell you he delights in helping people enjoy hunting opportunities, pure and simple, whether it’s within a high fence or on his open properties.

One last thing I’d like to add, for the benefit of “the woman”: I’m a professional writer – have been my entire adult life. I also teach college journalism. And if there’s one thing I learned in 20+ years as a reporter, editor, freelancer and teacher – interviewing people ranging from homeless drug addicts and thugs to governors and presidents – it’s that I should never be so arrogant as to judge anyone or deem anyone ignorant simply because of his punctuation or grammar. To do so would make me a very small person indeed.

The “logic” is simple. It goes like this:

1) If someone walks out to my south 40 and kills one of my cows it’s clearly not hunting. Everyone agrees with this I assume but if not then slaughter house guys must be fantastic hunters.

2) So if killing a cow in a pasture isn’t hunting, why?
– What if the pasture is 4 acres? What if it’s 4000 acres?
– What if someone pays to shoot the cow?
– What if that person believes they are “hunting” that cow?
– Replace the word “cow” with “elk” and then what?

3) The answer is this: Even for the biggest fan of pen shootings there comes a time, place, or situation, where it’s clearly no longer hunting. So how do you decide?
– Some commenting here would just punt on this question. They would say, “well whatever someone else thinks…” But this leaves real hunters on the hook for whatever absurd notion someone else comes up with and declares to be hunting.
– I would submit that real hunters agree with a much more rational definition, “Hunting is pursuing game on its own terms”.

4) So in the definition I propose (and I suspect most hunters inherently agree with) there’s really no reason why you can’t kill an elk in a 40 acre pasture. It’s just not hunting. It’s killing, it’s collecting meat, it’s practicing, shooting, or whatever. It’s fantasy camp. If the animal can’t get away the pursuit is not taking place on its terms.

5) And so finally, why do I care. Well that’s obvious, and I’ve already posted about it, but… If it’s already not hunting, AND, it has the potential to destroy the image of real hunters, why would I stand by it? I wouldn’t, and I don’t.

I’ve said this before too, but I get the impression most of these comments are from people who haven’t read all the posts so: In a perfect world I think high fence killing would be both perfectly legal, and something no one would do.

So that’s as logical as any thought process can be. Please save your self-righteous indignation. I understand your theory. I disagree. To say this is not logical is a lie and it shows you can’t see any idea that isn’t your own.

There are too many specific questions above to address and I leave for a bear hunt Friday morning. I haven’t had (and won’t have) enough time to address everything that Central to Northern California can throw at me. I do think it’s interesting that all or almost all of the comments are 1 degree of separation from Native Hunts. Anyway:
– Those fish were on a tributary of the Marais Des Cygne River. They could theoretically swim directly from where I was shooting them to 55,000 surface acre Truman Lake. If they could navigate Truman and Bagnall Dam they could swim to the Atlantic Ocean non-stop. I do think this shows desperation though.
– I asked for the science because twice Mike claimed that science supported his position. I was a Biologist before going to law school so I was intrigued to see such science. I was not surprised by his response.
– The $1800 per animal thing is wildly wrong and if I need to address it I will but it would take more time than I want to spend now. Just think about it. What happens if a wild deer dies of natural causes in the woods and compare that to what happens if it’s killed by a hunter. I have no doubt your figure is correct for livestock however.
– Craig Miller and Christopher Colligan surveyed Illinois hunters a couple of years back. 78% of those hunters said shooting deer or elk inside an enclosure was, “unacceptable”. 77% said it gave hunting a bad reputation. 54% think contained killing should be illegal. I can send you a link to the study if you want. The reason I bring this up is because I wonder if your view point is skewed. I can promise you the, “well if I say it’s hunting then it is” mindset is NOT generally accepted order in the Midwest. It may not be coincidence that all of you are from California and share a thought process.
– I actually do believe The Woman was right on (at least) one point. Because of the tone witnessed here I actually believe I’m even more set in my beliefs than before. You California guys should understand the “insulting your opposition” phenomenon… It’s happening right now with gay marriage. Each time Sean Penn insults those who disagree with him I think he loses ground for his cause.

I’m done for the time being with this discussion. Feel free to carry on but I have way too much work to get done before a 9:00 am flight to Fort McMurray Friday morning.

Hello folks. For my fathers day present, my wife booked a hunt for me at one of those fenced ranch operations. some folks hate them and others don’t mind. Well Now that I have experienced one I can offer an opinion without relying on hear say. Even though this has been my first hunt, I am sure that going after a free ranging animal will offer a challenge above what I found on this fenced ranch operation. This place did however offer quite the challenge for a first timer like my self. It didn’t take long for me to realize that while there were ferrel pigs all over the place, the monster pig in my minds eye wasn’t going to just walk out front of me. If I wanted a pigasoraus I was going to have to get off the trails and go deep in the draws and pull one out. when it was all said and done, I shot a 230 pounder that took two people to drag out to the main trail. If anything, I learned what kind of physical endurance is required for hunting steep terrain fence or no fence. The bug has truly bit me and I still have much to learn. I am now looking forward to stalking a free ranging wild boar.

in closing we all have out opinions of fenced hunting operations, I happen to think that as long as they offer some level of challenge they are the perfect gateway drug to hook novice hunters such as my self. I had a great time and nothing tastes as good as something you killed.

kill it, grill it and God bless America