Some "Canned Hunts" might be ok.

rightroad

rightroad

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
There is currently a lot of controversy surrounding hunting ranches. Some are better run and may be more ethical than others but I'd like to discuss another side of the issue.

"Wild" animals, "fair chase" hunts, "canned" hunts and other labels hurt hunting. As long as hunters are piously critical of eachother the antis will feed upon the spoils of our petty war.

Why is it so wrong to hunt a ranch when you're 75 yrs old, disabled or severely overweight? I say it's alright if that's all you're capable of. Nobody critisizes someone for fishing in a stocked dugout.

I'm fit and hunt wilderness areas now but like to think that when I'm old there will easier hunts avaiable. I fully plan to hunt until I die. Everyone should have access to a hunting opportunity at their appropriate level of difficulty.
 
This is a tough issue for hunters as unity is important however some canned hunts are so blatantly lame that siding with it will likely hurt us more in the long run.

I know there are many fenced hunts that encompass huge areas and do represent a challenge however where do we draw the line?

Like I said it is a tough one for us as a group.
 
rsp1761 said:
This is a tough issue for hunters as unity is important however some canned hunts are so blatantly lame that siding with it will likely hurt us more in the long run.

I know there are many fenced hunts that encompass huge areas and do represent a challenge however where do we draw the line?

Like I said it is a tough one for us as a group.
Click to expand...

True enough, some hunting operations go from being "fair chase" right down to Hunter Special Olympics.

Some hunting ranches are so big it would be no different than hunting a small Wildlife Management Unit. Some other operations leave a lot to be desired.

I would love for everyone to hunt as I do now but not everyone's physical ability will allow. Hunting Ranches should be an available option.

In the long run we need to make sure that hunting survives population growth. Places like Texas need hunting ranches if hunting is to survive. How it's done will determine perceptions.
 
If a fenced game ranch is fenced in order to enclose and preserve a functioning ecosystem with naturally reproducing animals, I'd say it meets the definition of real hunting. Put and take "shoot farms" are perversions of our sport in my opinion. Shoot farms are to hunting what prostitution is to marriage. You can argue all day that they are the same thing, but you know in your heart that they are not!
 
I do not feel that a logical discussion on the issue is bad at all. If canned hunting is deemed to be less than ethical in regards to hunting then let it be said. One consequence of such a debate may be to better define and actually improve hunting. There is nothing wrong with having different forms of hunting such as true wild land, canned hunts, or other such categories.

If you want to participate just take your pick as to which one you'd like. However, defining the actual activity will help to eliminate people arguing over which is best.

An analogy might be a hockey player who states which league he plays in. You either play NHL or don't. If you play rec hockey you won't go around saying you play with the pros. If you get my drift;)
 
powdergun said:
I do not feel that a logical discussion on the issue is bad at all. If canned hunting is deemed to be less than ethical in regards to hunting then let it be said. One consequence of such a debate may be to better define and actually improve hunting. There is nothing wrong with having different forms of hunting such as true wild land, canned hunts, or other such categories.

If you want to participate just take your pick as to which one you'd like. However, defining the actual activity will help to eliminate people arguing over which is best.

An analogy might be a hockey player who states which league he plays in. You either play NHL or don't. If you play rec hockey you won't go around saying you play with the pros. If you get my drift;)
Click to expand...

:agree:Powdergun has hit the nail on the head. I guess we should start asking what is acceptable in private hunts and what is an un-ethical hunting operation. And what do we call activities that most hunters don't count as hunting?

I can understand hunters despising operations that raise wild animals to be as tame as Herfords only to let people shoot them. That gives PETA all the ammo they need.

But stocking a reasonably large game reserve with animals that fear humans could be a challenging and rewarding hunt for less capable or mobile hunters. Everybody can share the sport and even risk failing to take an animal too just like the rest of us.

Maybe some other canned hunts are better termed "rehersed hunts" 'cause the outcome is 99.9% gauranteed.

Hey, I just made up a new label. :slap:

Back to the dawing board :bangHead:
 
I don't care what others want to do for their kicks. however i am concerned that sometime down the road with the acceptance of fenced area hunting, and the injury of hikers, we all may be reduced to "hunting" in a fenced area. it just might save one life.
 
I started a thread about a lame hunt and somebody threw out a comment about a Wild TV program that involves Lee & Tiffany Laskosky.

I don't know them and have never been to their place, but I've seen their show lots. As far as I know, the deer on their property are free ranging deer, they just 'manage' them.

No.1, they live in Iowa, which is about as good an area as there is for whitetail genetics.
No. 2, they never shoot little bucks and are the only people with access to it.
No. 3 they feed the living #### out of them by planting food plots for the deer.
Finally, anybody with land in western Canada could do the very same thing and end up with a lot of super big bucks on their land.

I have ZERO problem with that.

There are similar operations that have high fence all the way around. There is a place (Michigan?) called the Sanctuary or something like that and I've seen hunts staged there. Ridiculous number or bucks for one thing; like an unnatural number. They are also 'managed'.
Meh... take it or leave it. It appears there is fair chase involved at least, but it's certainly not a wild, natural hunt and those sure don't interest me.

FWIW, B&C does not recognize any animal taken in that situation.

The Black Tail that TBart shot... now that's a trophy by any definition.

The point about these type operations permitting a person to continue hunting... :confused:

I don't know. For years I thought I would hunt forever, but truthfully the last few years I hunt less and less. Maybe I'm going to shut 'er down.
I certainly doubt that a farm hunt is going to appeal to me, but I can see the point, for those old die-hards.
 
Fair chase is the key. does the animal have a chance? High fence can produce better bucks because you get less tresspasing, controll of ratio, and # taken. Put & take have been common for years, ie: pheasant hunting. My idea of "canned" hunt is the dispecable shooting of old domesticated large cats that are crated & the crate opened so the cat runs out & is shot. This is also done with live pigeons. These are what makes us look bad.(even though it is not "hunters" doing it. Again this is JMHO. we do need to work together. Aj
 
This is an interesting thread, As stated it is not for everyone the same as road hunting or sitting over bait. If it is legal and fair chase and ethical than we as hunters need to support it wheather we would particpate or not. The antis are far to powerful and we continue to fight amonst ourselves continueously.
 
I think that defining the definition is a major part.
Having 75 animals fenced inside a 1/4 section is B.S.
Having a couple hundred animals of differing species in a controlled ecosystem that is 600000 acres in size with a fence around it in Africa to keep the poachers out may be a different thing.
The game "preserve" I hunted on in Africa had a fence around it, this was the 600000 acres I mention, in 2 weeks I never saw a fence and several days saw little game, kinda like hunting the prairies at home.

I have a real problem with the real "canned" hunts I see on some TV shows. Game management is 1 thing, but having nearly as many critters as acres and planting tree houses in the middle of a bait crop does not make it for me.
 
I don't have a problem with "canned" hunts. They're not for me, but who am I to judge. I only have a problem when a canned shootfest gets advertised or bragged as a "hunt", which it is not. Call it for what it is. When I go to the trout farm, I didn't go fishing, I when to the trout farm. I dont try to pass off 1000 fish in a 1/4 acre pond as fishing.

If someone enjoys eating game meat, but doesn't have the time/patience/ability to track, stock, shoot, skin and gut an animal, then by all means go to a game farm.

As stated by the OP, we as hunters need to remain united. There is no difference with having a deer farm then there is a cattle farm. The method of death is different, but the end result is the same, the customer goes home to fill their freezer.
 
mvarley84 said:
If someone enjoys eating game meat, but doesn't have the time/patience/ability to track, stock, shoot, skin and gut an animal, then by all means go to a game farm.
Click to expand...

I dissagree, if they don't have the time, patience or required abilities then hunting is not for them, The supermarket is a better fit. Hunting is supposed to require all of those skills, if we as hunters feel that they are one in the same then it threatens our rights to hunt in traditional methods in the future and undermines the spirit of fair chase

As stated by the OP, we as hunters need to remain united. There is no difference with having a deer farm then there is a cattle farm. The method of death is different, but the end result is the same, the customer goes home to fill their freezer.
Click to expand...

A Game farm yes, but a "HUNT" farm, no. BIG Difference
 
High fence=habitat loss for native game poulations. While it's obviously convenient for those who want to pay to hunt an area where the animals cannot escape, the reality is that the high fence prevents actual wild animals from accessing the land either for food, shelter or as a thoroughfare to other habitat.

Why would any hunter support a business that reduces habitat?
 
Lazy Ike said:
High fence=habitat loss for native game poulations. While it's obviously convenient for those who want to pay to hunt an area where the animals cannot escape, the reality is that the high fence prevents actual wild animals from accessing the land either for food, shelter or as a thoroughfare to other habitat.

Why would any hunter support a business that reduces habitat?
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you don't live in an urban area with a comment like that. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom