I asked for more explanation, as I was clueless as to how it happens. He went on to explain the penned raising of lions in a manner that I suspect will be the focus of this segment referred to in the original post.
I've never been to Africa and never done the penned shooting gig, but if what he explained about some of these lion operations is shown in the piece that MSNBC will air, I expect another rough period ahead. And if lion hunting in some of these places is as he explained to me, I'm not sure how the hunting community will find any defense of it, rather, it will be another big sore on the image of hunting.
I had one the other night with BBQ Tri Tip from Costco alongside BBQ Elk backstrap...and all preferred the elk.
I have many of these folks admiring hunters...and then this comes along.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the HF stuff...but it does cast ALL hunting in a bad light.
I think we all need to refer to these not as hunts....but "canned shoots" or "high fence shoots" from now on to separate ourselves from these deals.
ANTI-hunters are going to hate us and what we do no matter what it is. I could care less about them as they/we are not going to change our minds either way about hunting.
Now most all of the NON-hunters I know have the attitude that they don't mind if we hunt as long as....
1. We use the meat and don't waste anything.
2. Our hunts are FAIR (as they perceive it).
Now that's the rub. The plain truth is that the future of hunting WILL be determined by the non-hunters, because they comprise the largest number of people who have input. Their numbers dwarf those of hunters and anti-hunters combined.
Personally I have no issue with someone who wants to go and slaughter a pen raised animal as long as they do it humanely and quickly. If I opposed this I'd be a real hypocrite as I eat beef, pork and chicken all the time and that's exactly what happens to them.
If they want to think that they're really hunting then that's their fantasy and if they have the money to waste on it then go for it.
But that said, it may very well be their playing out of their fantasy that winds up hurting those of us who actually DO hunt. And that's where the problem is and it's a tricky one.
Example: When I go to the trout pond, catch the trout for dinner or smoking, pay by the pound or hour its understood its not a wild trout by any means. Even though the trout stream with wild trout may only be a cast or two away. Fun experience but it ain't a wild experience like the river runs through it...
Many animals live and die in areas far smaller than some fence-enclose properties. And there are islands that hold game that are smaller than some fence-enclosed properties. I've never heard of a person experiencing an animal that attempted to swim away from hunting pressure - even though they COULD. I forgot where I was going with that train of thought...
The fairness of some of these island hunts have come under scrutiny too, but that's deviating from the topic and getting a little apples/oranges.
The issue here is raising lions (or deer for that matter) till they're mature, in small fenced enclosures, then releasing them into slightly larger enclosures, to be shot.
This is just so much different than what I do when I go afield. I'm sorry, but what I described above is not going afield. That's driving to the store. That's ordering a burger. That's going to a brothel. I'm sorry, I try not to be judgmental, but that's as different as what I do with my wife behind closed doors and hiring a hooker. The act may be the same, but we're not doing the same thing.
I and many others like me, try to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, because we're told we have to "stick together." But I'll tell you what, I wouldn't defend a guy for hiring a hooker just because he enjoys having sex with a woman. Do what you want, but don't compare what you do with what I do and don't ask me to defend you.
And I don't want your money. Righteous hunting can stand on its own. I've defended it to many people, including liberals. I've even defended Palmer. He at least tried to hunt fair chase. Who knows if he broke rules doing so, but at least Cecil was a wild lion and died on his own terms.
I agree that the future of hunting rests on the whims of the non-hunting voting public. We're losing folks to shit like this. I, for one, am tired of defending these whore-mongers. Forgive me for being so bold: It's not hunting. It's repulsive to 98+% of people. It's a bastardization of something beautiful.
At the heart of why we do this is an instinctual drive to chase animals and the dopamine reward we get for that because it kept us alive for so many thousands of years. The farther we get from what that used to be, the more watered down and convoluted "hunting" becomes. Eventually, at some point, it ceases to be "hunting."
Where do we draw the line in the sand? Why do we draw the line in the sand?
At "right and wrong?" At natural and unnatural? How do we make that call?
I think I know: If it's brown, shaped like a turd, and smells like shit, I think it's fair to assume that it is, indeed, shit.
Once again, the non-hunting public wants to see "FAIR" hunting. And because they are the majority they will get to determine what "fair" is.
Except you say you can hardly comprehend and I am at a total loss at to how anyone can in anyway comprehend.......
it does not matter if hunters think this is hunters hunting..............the rest of the world thinks it so deal with it accordingly.
Raised to be released and shot in fenced in areas.
A lot of the African trophies on Bowsite have come from such events.
"It's a wild lion that came in from Botswana."
"It's been in here so long that it's wild and killing all our Nyala, we need to hunt this lion."
What other lies/lines have you heard?
Saving your ass: This activity is generally regarded as inhumane and not an act of fair chase hunting. It violates almost every ethical hunting standard. We need to universally condemn penned/canned hunts and work to put an end to them. Ignoring them is causing us harm and lost hunting opportunities.
I learned a long time ago...decades... You can't save your ass and your face at the same time.
Game ranching in South Africa is common practice and you hunted within high fences for your game. Most likely, one if not all, of your trophies came from game ranching operations.
A trophy 50" Kudu and a male Lion are no different. And if you think the anti-hunters are going to stop at "canned lion" hunting... You are niaeve.
Also... Does anyone want to know what the lion population numbers are going to look like after the lion operations shut down?
I personally know a young lady who owns 6 "saved" lions from circus or tourist operations. She says eventually she will need to get rid of them because the food alone costs tons of money and there is not enough demand to "view" fenced lions to justify it.
None of my friends would do a canned hunt, and none of us would think much of somebody that did.
That being said, if somebody wants to pay a ton of $$ to kill the wild equivalent of a cow because it has big horns, that animal lived a heck of a lot better than most hogs in this country, and that money supports open space that in turn supports wildlife. There's a lot worse things that go on in this world, just ask the half million people bailing out of Syria right now.
WRT turning a lion loose inside a fence.... fenced hunting in parts of Africa is a real life fact. About fences, there are paddocks and there are farms beyond most folks imaginations. Turn a lion loose on a huge farms measured in Lord knows how many acres, he's gonna eat something, likely the game paid for or raised inside that fence. Or even harm people that live inside which many do.
Liability for something happening such as an escape (I've read the dusty old books talking of lions going over 8 or 10 foot fences with game in their mouths) or other "incidents".... I can see where they want to keep things a bit more controllable.
I don't know. The Cecil thing was no canned hunt. Unless friends are talking about dropping $55,000 on a canned hunt. It was laughable to me when he was called a "poacher". That I would imagine would be the first clue as to the ethics of a hunt, if everything you were looking at was $50,000 plus.... and you find some for a great deal of money less... hellooo....
All things are not created equal in the real world, animals do not have "rights", people do. A good many folks here have been on high fence African hunts, a good many of those will tell you they were in no way "canned" hunts.
All said and done.... lions and other dangerous game pose their own very unique set of problems and issues WRT HF hunting. No doubt. Personally, I have no issues with animals raised for many purposes. Eating them, wearing them or just looking at them on the wall.
People expending emotional energy on them have spent very little to no time on the production and use end of things. They go to the market or clothing/accessories store, buy their dead animals bred and born to do so in fact with no chance at life other than what their owners make..... and go home. Conscious is clean to make ethical indictments on those who do so day in and day out... for them....
That IMO is 90% of the argument for hunting. "You" (the general public) simply pay someone to do for you what we recognize is a part, however "modernized", of the TRUE Circle of Life. In essence, nothing more than what these lions do. They just do it with no remorse or higher conscious. As predators... killing well, they eat well....they live another day to continue the existence of their species.
But all said and done this movie will do nothing more than fill someones donation quotas, maybe. Same as when they have a fundraiser for sterilizing urban deer.
Product and demand - if you can make money raising cows, pigs, chickens, etc.. why is it so damning to make money raising elk, deer, LIONS???
PERCEPTION - nothing more. How the masses perceive the animal is what drives this. Silly when you break it down and no different than "Hunters" here or otherwise debating an "Ethical" shot. ie. one will chastise another for taking a shot at a moving or running deer or a particular shot angle but take the same shot at a rabbit. Explain why the rabbit is less worthy of "perfection" than the deer??? PERCEPTION.
Use reality and it beats fanaticism every time.
Then why do I see hero pictures with spotted pigs all the time, even on this site...
The days when the public perceived the hunter as one who matched wits with the beasts on a level playing field are long gone. Gone also is the prestige and allure of the sportsman. Theodore Roosevelt described the past allure and the sportsman as follows: “In hunting, the finding and killing of the game is after all but a part of the whole. The free, self-reliant, adventurous life, with its rugged and stalwart democracy; the wild surroundings, the grand beauty of the scenery, the chance to study the ways and habits of the woodland creatures – all these unite to give the career of the wilderness hunter its peculiar charm.” The charm is gone and the public now sees a fully gadgeted nimrod heading a field to slay the defenseless creature. Let's not throw gas on the fire.
It is the general non-hunting population who will determine our hunting future. If the degradation of the hunter, in the minds of Joe Public continues, they will legislate out our ability to pursue game.
I do not believe we as hunters will be served by the "big tent" theory or that we must all hold hands around the campfire and sing Coombya. We must separate the killing of animals in pens from hunting. It is NOT hunting. I choose to be a hunter and pursue game, not just kill it. I choose this for the reason verbalized by Sitting Bull, “when the buffalo are gone, we will hunt mice, for we are hunters and we want our freedom.” I want my freedom and to support or condone killing in a pen is to sign our death warrant.
A closing prayer to our future by Saxton Pope: “May the gods grant us all space to carry a sturdy bow and wander through the forest glades to seek the bounding deer; to lie in the deep meadow grasses; to watch the flight of birds; to smell the fragrance of burning leaves; to cast an upward glance at the unobserved beauty of the moon. May they give us the strength to draw the string to the cheek, the arrow to the barb and loose the flying shaft, so long as life may last.”
I can't overstate my agreement with your well-written post, nor the degree of respect I have for you. Thank you!
So let me get this straight.....
100,000 acres high fenced. Adult male lion that has been living on this property for more then 6 months and kills animals for food. Not pen raised, not fed by humans, mates females in his pack. Find tracks in the early morning and start to hike and hike and hike. Tracking for hours upon hours in thick brush. Many times being outsmarted by the lion or winded. Finally... Hours or days later.., you are in tight with the lion who is now not happy with you. He stands his ground and growls. Mock charges. A well placed arrow is not easy and risky.
Second hunt.... A small wood lot 20 acres surrounded by a neighborhood and a busy street. A 2 year old doe whitetail walks out of her small thicket every day during the fall to feed on dropping acorns. You see a trail and fresh sign so you climb up a tree out of sight. After sitting there a few hours the doe steps out of the thicket and works her way towards the acorn tree. You make a noise like a young deer to get her attention and shoot her standing broadside.
Fence or no fence... Your definition of a hunt might not exactly be the same as mine.
Just remember that your perception is different but not always "right"
"that we must all hold hands around the campfire and sing Coombya." No. Neither do I think bowhunting is some sacred religion to be worshiped. It's a method of hunting. Hunting is a base instinct, similar to many other human base instincts. But certainly not a religion, even if Priests abound.....
Hunting is what we do when we pursue wild free ranging animals. Slaughtering is what we do with livestock. If the animal was subject to any of the above, they are not wild free ranging animals and I have no interest in "hunting"/slaughtering them.
Some Texas and African "hunters" might be offended by my definition. So be it. Personally, I am offended by canned hunts, and don't want what I do to be tainted by the choices they make. And before someone gets huffy, I know that there certainly are Texas and African operations that can pass my test. I just wish that they all could say the same.
Ok...lets talk about Texas "free range" whitetail herds. You can buy does with great genetics who are already bred by a big breeder buck and have her released on the property. This will start the chain reaction of better genetics on your land. Free range 100,000 acres no fence. Not like you would ever know when you booked your hunt there....
Lets talk about Bison... many of the "relocated" bison are from private herds. Yes...even the ones you need to draw tags for so you can feel better about killing a wild bison.
Lets talk about New Zealand Red Stag...Argentina Red Stag...Aoudad Sheep...New Mexico Ibex...
All of these instances had human interaction...but my guess is that you decide to dismiss that because it meets your definition of a hunt.
For the record...I have never hunted SA lions behind wire.
I have also seen elephants push down a fence without hesitation.
Lets take the same two scenarios I mentioned above... but now you allowed to bait with corn. Is your free range baited doe more of a trophy then a "canned" tracked lion??
Maybe for you it is...nothing wrong with that...but maybe for someone else it isnt. Nothing wrong with that either.
If "canned" lion hunting or "canned" deer hunting didnt exist... the anti-hunters would use some other hunt that they deem unethical to cause the same "black eye" effect.
Yes they would, but they would not be right. they are right with the circus lion slaughter model.
PA, if you will read my original post again I think you would be hard pressed to include desert bighorns, New Mexico Ibex, etc. etc. in my definition.
"If an animal has ever been born or bred in captivity, artificially inseminated, or transported in a vehicle from a pen to a high fence enclosure, they are not wild animals in my mind." That statement doesn't say anything about the animals ancestry. The fact that the original transplants may have had human intervention to move them to new territories or reintroduce them where they formerly existed doesn't forever taint the descendants of the transplanted animals. And again, is in no way shape or form related to what goes on with canned hunts.
For the most part, game departments no longer attempt to introduce new species to areas in which they never existed in the first place. Yes, the Ibex, Aoudad, Red Stag, etc. were introduced long ago and in some places have established free range and self propagating herds. But still, your examples are all of herds that currently live as free ranging populations. Again, a far cry from a game farm.
Also no, I personally don't think purchasing a doe that has been bred by some super duper captive buck and releasing it into an otherwise wild herd is in the best interest of true hunting. The only purpose of those programs is to help the shooter kill an animal larger than he could if he had to hunt a truly wild herd.
Personally, I am not impressed, but rather am sickened, when I see pictures of some of the genetic mutants that float around on the internet these days. I want no part of that, and don't believe it has any place as a part of fair chase hunting.
It doesnt matter if you they are "not right"...or "right" in your eyes. To anti-hunters..shooting a squirrel in not "right" and if that was the only hunting allowed on North America...they would figure out a way to stop you from doing it. They would make that the "black eye" of hunters.
Bear baiting is the perfect example. You might hunt bears over doughnuts and syrup while another hunter out there thinks you "not right" for doing so. You can try and justify a difference but to the public eye...there is no difference.
A giant bear was killed a few years ago in PA. It lived near a small ski community and was fed by local people. They even gave it a name. A group of "hunters" waited until it went back up on to public land and shot this almost tame bear. This bear was nearly 700 lbs. Shooting this bear...while perfectly legal...was a black eye to hunters.
If the lion population...outside of "game farms" in SA...are slaughtered down to 0 animals left in the true wild free range populations. Would you be happy that game farms existed?? Would it bother you to know that some of the lions you see in national parks in Africa actually came from Lion Breeding Farms??
How about that farm in Texas that you shot a beautiful 10 point free range...actually did use genetic modifications by use of does and young bucks? Just because they use this genetic modification management doesnt mean that the bucks walking around the ranch are going to be 220" 2 year olds. There is a very very very large market for "normal looking" bucks with good genetics.
You can stand back and shake your head...blissfully unaware of reality...or you can accept it. It doesnt mean that you have to participate or that you even have to like it. But you should accept that others dont have the same thoughts that you do...and that doesnt make them less of a person or meet your requirements of being a "hunter".
I always laugh that each person meats there own requirements for the definition of being a "hunter". No one every defines what a true hunter is and then admits to not being one.
When money and dollars and inflated egos enter the picture hunting as the sport that I know and love suffers as a result. I absolutely do not have to accept the fact that others see things differently. I am in no way " ...blissfully unaware of reality..". On the contrary, I am very aware of what some are attempting to have hunting devolve into. That is not the sport I want to be associated with.
It's pretty simple, either your support canned non- fair chase shoots or you don't.
"hunting devolve into"... OK. Lets talk about that statement?
Do you use a compound bow? Do you use trail cameras? Do you use tree stands? Do you use camouflage? Do you use a thousand other products that "devolve" hunting from its original roots??
Oh thats right...those are OK per Whip so they must be OK for everyone else.
I give up on this thread. I made my points, and acknowledge that I won't be changing the opinion of those who enjoy canned hunting. For the rest of you, maybe it's a little bit of food for thought.
You saying a high fenced stalked lion on 100,000 acres is not a hunt.... but patterning a free range whitetail using digital trail cameras, using fake noises from a plastic made call, using unnatural mineral licks to concentrate the animals, using aluminum treestands to get out of their vision and using a mechanical bow that shoots 340fps is a hunt...is where I dont understand your logic of a stretch??
By the way...I never said that I like canned hunting or have ever participated in a high fenced hunt. I am just stating that passing judgement unto others for something you know little about is poor taste.
no we are saying shooting captive bred lions, or released former pets / circus felines in 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, or 1000000 acre enclosures is not a hunt.
what part of tame do you not get
But this is no different then arguing with an anti-hunter...when someone says high fence lion hunting you automatically picture a circus lion balancing a ball on his head while you walk up to 10 yards and blast it away.
Doesnt matter that it isnt reality or fact...but who cares about reality and facts??
I too agree that technology is probably the second greatest threat to bowhunting. We see many seasons being shortened because of the high success rates of the compounds and crossguns. It won't be long and we will simply have one VERY SHORT all weapons season. We will then all be able to enjoy all the time we want in the great outdoors with our camera.
I have personally guided clients to shoot black bears over bait and antelope over water that was a SHOOT. Hunter did nothing... Blind or stand was set, bait or water was set, scouting was done and animals were coming to them every day. All he had to do was shoot!! But that's a hunt because the animal could decide not to drink or eat that day??
I just returned from SA in July.... And can tell you that every no hunter asked me when I got home... "You didn't kill a lion or elephant did you?" They didn't ask if I was hunting behind a fence, did I bait, did I use trucks or technology to my advantage.
They, the non hunters and antis, group a high fence lion hunt with a free range lion hunt. It's still a dead lion.
Studies show that lion hunting opinions do not directly effect the opinion of a non-hunter on traditional North American big game hunting. Many organizations have done this study. So don't just ASSUME that you know how the public is going to react.
I bet if you showed pictures of bead black bears with powdered doughnuts on their face... That it would have similar effect.... Short knee jerk reaction but no long term effect.
On the opposite side... If we as sportsman let one version of HUNTING be taken away then it shows as a weakness. We then let them win and they will continue to win.
Ask anyone from California about letting the antis win once.... It won't stop.
no joke..........you know why............because honestly most people would not even envision the possibility that killing would even take place in such a situation. They don't even consider it. it is unfathomable to the masses. that is what is so appalling to them when these news broadcasts come out............they are actually educated to the fact that such an unseemly practice would take place.
while they were against the killing in the first place when the word is spread that some of these animals are actually captive bread and released in an enclosure to be shot by the hands that fed them they become even less tolerant of the concept.
Stay tuned for more of the same.
The Google earth photo here is of Ngorogoro Crater in Tanzania. It is one of the most unchanged wildlife santuaries and largest volcanic caldera in the world. It is 2000 feet from rim to the bottom and forms a natural barrier which has kept resident lions there for eons. It's an area of ~100 square miles (~10 miles in diameter) which is 64,000 Acres or 25,900 Hectares. This would be considered the size of a larger sized "Farm" in RSA.
In Ngorogoro there are over 25,000 various ungulates and a full compliment of predators including one of the most densest lion populations known. That population is down from ~100 in the past to 55-60 for the last several years. Picture yourself stalking around on a "Game Farm" even half that size 32,000 acres with even half this lion density (say 12 lions are there). With any proper cover, it is not a given that you will even find them especially if they know you are hunting them on that much habitat.
The principle issue is that most every "Game Farm" in Africa purposely does not have lions roaming around for several reasons including liabilities if one or more escapes and kills someone or the neighbor's game, livestock, etc. However some lion hunting operations do exist where either lions will come off of protected Game reserves or Parks like Kruger, or they manage there large properties specifically for lion conservation with some occasional hunting permitted to manage them (taking out the older played-out males). Lions in those two situations still act as wild as any and they should be considered very dangerous.
On the other hand there were some sleezy operators in the recent past who being more interested in making big $, raised lions in smaller enclosures with the intention of releasing them on smaller properties for some unsuspecting foreign hunter to come shoot. That depicts the "canned lion hunt" we all have come to cringe at the thought of. I also understand those situations are no longer happening due to intense pressure from Hunting orgs, RSA Gov and PHASA to clean IT up. The lions in those situations were much more likely not to behave as wild lions and for hunters they should be considered as more tame and used-to humans being around.
Frankly, having been in Ngorogoro, the lions there are anything but tame having watched them make kills. But due to the constant stream of tour vehicles and people hanging out windows with cameras, they are also very used to humans being there...but anyone getting out of the safe truck and stalking them...Hmmm they would respond in kind.
My point here is that a lion raised on a game farm which is large enough and wild enough, (think Ngorogoro crater with 60 lions in it) and hunts prey also living on that farm is and has been living as a lion should naturally. This kind of raised lion should in no way be equated with those raised as targets for those shameful "canned" hunts which are a thing of the past.
Baiting big cats has become a the simplest accepted way to get lions or leopards to come to you and most PHs/hunters have grown accustomed to that method since it works. Thus, Cecil was drawn off a National Wildlife Park probably because the farm owner had been baiting for cats in the past and he knew there was generally an easy free meal to be had over there. This kind of thing has been going on for years and it happens right here in the states as well. Pulling Elk or Deer off protected properties with food, minerals etc is common practice.
Being ethical is what most of use strive for especially when it comes to something we have so much passion around. We need to police ourselves constantly and have these discussions which help to hone the focus to problem areas. What is much harder is trying to dictate for all which thing is ethical and which is not since each individual potentially has a different set of morals and beliefs.
To call all "High Fenced" hunting "Canned" and "Unethical" is not accurate. I doubt if you were dropped in the middle of a large 50,000 acre game ranch not knowing where you were and not seeing any fences for many miles, the experiences of the hunter and hunted would be the same as it would without that fence. Pursued game runs away to some other location and you never see it again even after days of looking. Fair chase can be had in such situations as long as the game acts as it would in the wild and there is enough land/habitat area for them to live as wild.
I know there are those who will always disagree and that's fine, but let's be a little less judgmental and become more educated on what is happening and what is not.
I really suspect that a majority of hunters aren't sweating the existence of large-acreage hunting ranches with high fences, so long as the (yes) captive animals can move about freely and have every possible chance to escape being killed. If the penning or fencing plays directly into lowering the animals odds of survival, many will say that it isn't a fair-chase scenario. Here...now...we are primarily talking about establishments which raise animals in relatively small pens or enclosures, then sell/release/place them in other confined settings which prevent escape and vastly increase the likelihood of that animal getting killed immediately, or at least quickly.
Unfortunately we've got people who call these captive animal shoots 'hunting' and maintain it should be continued. Somehow this always gets extrapolated into "today it's penned-and-captive animals....tomorrow it's a 50,000 acre Texas ranch." The paranoia behind this is simply ludicrous, bordering on idiocy. Condemning the practice of killing pen-raised big game animals (with no fair-chase opportunity to escape being killed) is how we police the few....instead of waiting for the inevitable groundswell of disapproval and disgust toward all of us. At that point you'll lose more than just a penned/canned animal shoot: you'll lose the support of non-hunters some day...all because you essentially couldn't stand up and call a spade a spade.
I might not like all different ways of hunting, but I will respect our right to hunt (within the law) as we see fit, as long as it meets the majority definition of fair chase and isn't directly damaging or threatening to the future of hunting. We are under constant attack from ARAs, Anti-hunters, Anti-gun activists, and a number of other semi-wacko groups. We can defend ourselves from them. We DON'T need to give them weapons, ammo and PEOPLE in the form of non-hunters who will despise us for essentially defending or engaging in (what looks exactly like) the prostitution of hunting.
It may not matter that this footage that the antis are digging up for the show is something which had happened in the past since regardless, it will still have a chilling effect on hunters since the antis will do everything possible to paint us all with that same broad "ugly" brush.
This should ignite a fully choked, double barrel response from our hunter's organizations like SCI and DSC, etc., to set the records straight about the vast majority of hunters being against such practices, which if nothing else should help to dilute the emotional noise.
I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of the experts posting on fenced hunts have never been to Africa or done any research on the difference between canned high fence hunts and concessions.
Did you know that Kudu, eland, impala, Nyala, regularly jump fences. Cape buffalo go through fences and warthogs go under them .... I know I have seen a 1000lb eland do it,,, its amazing.
Ask the orange growers in SA about Kudu jumping 10foot + fences to eat their crops.
The really good concessions don't buy animals and release them. "ALL" the animals are born and breed on the ranch in the wild. And some can and will cross the fence.
Owners of these concessions will tell you they have to and want to make their ranch the best habitat so the animals don't want to leave. Some of the reasons why they have fences is to prevent poaching, Establish property lines and the SA government mandate. ( Which is only a 10 ft fence. It is accepted that animals cross between ranches. You lose some you gain some.
You can not stereotype all fenced hunts the same or together. There is a big difference between the 1000 ac elk hunt in the US and the concessions of SA that are 10's of thousands of acres.
For most of the negative posters that have tunnel vision and don't want to learn the difference I suspect the green eyed monster has ahold of them.
I would really like to see these posters stalk and kill a specific animal on a concession with 10,000 + acres.
I am against canned hunting not concessions, but on the concessions for plains game 95% of the guys are not doing any stalking or going after specific animals. they are sitting in blinds that are nicer than the residences of most of the people who work for the outfitter and shooting whatever species is on their list, and within their financial means, as it comes to a cement trough or food pile.
if people are OK with it just call it what it is and don't make it out to be some stalking a specific animal under the beating sun of the Kalahari.
Some better news...
My perspective, and I'm will to bet many non-hunters and the general public across the board feel the same,,, if you have to open a high gate to enter, it's a can, regardless of it's size...
I said no such thing what so ever. the original post is 4 posts above this one please read it again.
my post was in reference to someome making it sound like hunting on these concessions was akin to stalking a specific animal on 10K acres. it is simply not. that does not make how these concession hunts are carried out "not hunting". it does make them not on par with spotting and stalking to within bow range of a specific animal.........on or off such a property. to infer, as was done above, that the two approaches are analogous is inaccurate.
That is the same as the fact hunting bear over bait (which I do annually) is simply not the same as spot and stalking bear (which I have done sporadically). It is also similar to the relationship between hunting pronghorn over water (which I have done) not being the same as spot and stalking 'lope on the prarrie (which I have never done).
these practices are all hunting, they are not all equally challenging approaches to hunting. Exaggerating for effect does not make one's case better, it makes it weaker.
call it what it is, do it with pride if you do it, and move on.
If it existed, would a 5,000 acre high-fence ranch with one small water source be a fair-chase scenario? Think about it.
I remember when I was a kid and went to a hunting/fishing show with my dad. They dumped 250 hungry trout in a plastic pool and we kids caught them with Velveeta on a plain hook. I thought that was fishing at the time.
My comments really have nothing to do with any of the better high-fence concessions, which might be more analogous to a river which receives periodic fish stocking to bolster numbers and opportunity. I personally will never hunt a setting which in any way utilizes a pen or enclosure to 1) limit an animal's opportunity to escape being killed, or 2) bolster my odds of killing an animal I might not kill without the use of a penned enclosure. That's my personal ethics and I'll abide them.
Would it be any different if there was no fence? One can argue that, theoretically would be. But practically, I do not believe it would change things. The animals that live in the immediate area would still be reliant on that water source.
The single worst incident for the reputation of hunting in general and bowhunting in particular has been the Cecil killing. Other than a rather technical aspect of the hunt regarding quota (which did not have anything to do with the hunt per se) and the fact that he did not kill the animal cleanly with his first arrow, it was a perfectly legal and legitimate hunt. And yet the public backlash was more extreme and enduring than any other situation in memory.
What that tells me is that "the public" isn't concerned about the fence, or the size of the enclosure, or if the animals are raised to be hunted or born in the wild - the public objects to the hunting of lions. No doubt these other factors are tangental, but are not central to the objection. The hunting of a trophy of a species that is not perceived to be over-populated and where the perception is that the meat is not used is disgusting to many.
That said, I don't think we hunters would be smart to condemn the hunting of lions (with fence or without) because of the potential of public backlash on our hunting in general. Living in CA, where wildlife decisions are increasingly based on public opinion rather than biology, I have seen it first hand how losing "fringe" elements of hunting and trapping have given momentum towards banning "the next target". Bowhunting is near the top of the list for the likes of HSUS and PETA - and we don't want to set precedent for rifle hunters to "give us up" in the hope of defending their past time.
Our problem isn't necessarily what's really happening; it is the perception of it by those whose opinions matter... and that is all people who can vote. The misconception many hunters carry is that wildlife management doesn't exist to please city people, non-hunters, soccer moms, anti-hunters, liberals, farmers and insurance people. It does whether we like that or agree with it. The management and use of wildlife is not the sole domain of hunters plain and simple. Hunters tend to get testy when confronted by that reality. No hunter wants to think his opinion is only equal to that of a animal-loving (lion loving?) high-rise urbanite in NYC.
Cecil certainly brought attention to lions, but that lion's death brought negative impact to more than lion hunters...witness the lineup of about 10 airlines which quickly stopped the transportation of many African species listed as threatened or endangered. An expose of penned lion killing isn't going to only cause outrage over lions...it will immediately be transposed to many other larger or iconic animals which are pen-reared and pen-killed simply for the sake of money and expediency. You know how it works and we know it will work this way. If it looks cruel and inhumane, the ARAs will maximize the exposure and propaganda to affect non-hunter opinion and sentiment. High fences are one thing, but killing penned or human-conditioned animals in tight confines...sold as trophy hunting...will taint a lot of minds against hunters in general.
I don't know how it all plays out. I do know that I won't be on the side of defending those who are determined to kill animals which have no or very little chance of escaping a bullet or broadhead.
This has been an interesting discussion/debate. I've probably said all I can, and more than necessary. I'll leave it to others at this point. Thanks to those who kept it polite.
I struggle with the notion that killing domesticated livestock for food/leather is widely accepted to be legal/ethical by most, as is the killing of wild animals for food/recreation - but that something that is intermediate is deemed objectionable.
Is there something that is objectively wrong with it, or are we just upset people call it hunting? How do we factor into the discussion the rights of folks who are proprietors of such canned hunts? Are we not, in essence, proposing doing something similar to them as what the animal rights activists did to the Minnesota dentist by disrupting his business even though he did nothing illegal?