Opening Up A Can of Worms
June 28, 2007
Field & Stream has posted an interview with Ted Nugent on the topic of canned hunts and the appropriateness of this style in the world of hunting. Now I’m one that is not a big Nuge fan but in this interview I got to say he is pretty much on the money.
There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions. There are those small minded individuals, a lunatic fringe if you will, that think many forms of legal hunting “degrade the heritage of American hunting.” To their way of thinking, in-line muzzleloaders degrade our reputation. They consider scopes on same, treestands, compound bows, crossbows, deer drives, women afield, ad nauseam, as unethical methodologies. I’ve heard some real doozies out there and don’t know whether to laugh or cry, they are so divisive and unsophisticated. I pray they become educated.
Ted is right we have got to find a way to tolerate others hunting styles even if it’s a method we would never use. I’ll admit that for me this is a topic I struggle with a lot because there are some issues that divide many of us in the hunting community.
The antis will take the most extreme can hunting experience and show that to justify the total banning of the business. That is what really hurts and puts all styles of hunting at risk. I don’t think we should push for government standards because obviously anyone that followed what happened last summer out west with the Rex Rammell story and government involvement makes you think twice about it. I think giving that High Fence hunting is a business then they should set up industry standards. SCI has some standards in regards to high fence hunting that seem to be very reasonable;
The North American Hunting Preserves - Fair Chase Standards
May 2006
Recreational hunting and the concept of “fair chase” has been linked for as long as recreational hunting has existed. However, the terms and conditions of what constitutes “fair chase” when hunting is conducted within a high fenced area has never been fully or clearly defined.
SCI believes that the following conditions must be met, or exceeded, in order for the concept of “fair chase” to apply for hunting mammals within high fenced areas in North America:
• The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer.
• The hunting property shall provide escape cover that allows the animals to elude hunters for extended periods of time and multiple occurrences. Escape cover, in the form of rugged terrain or topography, and/or dense thickets or stands of woods, shall collectively comprise at least 50% of the property.
• The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property.
• The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.
• Animals that are to be hunted must exhibit their natural flight/survival instincts.
• No zoo animals, exhibited animals or tame animals are to be hunted.
• No hunting or selling of hunting rights to a specified animal.
• Hunting methods employed cannot include driving, herding or chasing animals to awaiting hunters.
• Every effort must be made to utilize all meat commonly consumed from a taken animal.
The minimum amount of land necessary to meet these requirements varies by region, terrain and habitat type. Setting a standard minimum area is unlikely to be realistic. However, SCI recommends that state/provincial wildlife management agencies work with the operators and the hunting community within their area to establish specific regulations to guide the operation of hunting preserves.
Whether we hunt high fence operations or not as long as fair chase standards like above can be achieved I don’t have an issue with it. Like in the Zumbo blog post I’m afraid that the comments may drive a deep wedge and work to undermine all that we hold dear. I hope the dialog stays civilized and I’m wrong. Many families are supported by the High Fence business and it really is an issue of property rights.
Ted is right on this issue and it will be one we continue to face as many try to end this industry.
Moose Droppings is a place that chronicles my journey, Ill explore new places and ideas Ill learn new things and Ill teach the things Ive learned to others. Join me on the adventure and hopefully it will help you in your outdoor endeavors.
Canned hunts. That name should be all the information that we need to make up our minds on this issue. If an animal is not allowed to hide or, more importantly, run away from danger due to high fences, then you are not giving the animal a fair chance. You are right when you state that this is a major issue that hurts the pro-hunting people in our country because the extremist, fanatical anti-hunting people are using this as a good example as to why hunting should be banned. I have no problem with people charging money for people to hunt on their property, but to fence it off with HIGH fences is no different than hunting in a zoo. Eventually, inside a fenced off area, every animal WILL walk by you. That is not the case when you hunt on some local farmers property or your own land.
Yes, this is just my opinion, but logic should dictate if we truly want to claim that something is being hunted under “fair chase” standards. High fences do not logically meet this standard of fair chase.
I’ve hunted on an island before that is smaller then many of the high fence ranches out west and it was a animal that could not swim does that violate “fair chase”?
Does it matter if it is a fence or water that contains the animal and prevents escape routes or blocks normal alternate route of travel? Any limit on borders in the natural habitat that prevents an animal from traveling in a certain direction to avoid a startling sound, or scary smell is an unfair limit to the animals ability to survive, therefore is unnatural, therefore unfair to the animal. How is it really a challenge to “hunt” if you know that there are borders that the animals cannot cross? Part of fair hunting practices is knowing that you may have scared the animals away.
How much land must there be in order for it to be considered fair chase? I’ve hunted public hunting grounds on an island, less then 1800 acres of land with many parts of the island being 200 yards or so across that escape for some of those species was limited to the island because they cannot swim. Does that mean it is not a fair chase? I don’t think so because the habitat is such that the animals have ample cover and multiple opportunities to elude the hunter. I guess based on that I have a hard time saying that a hunt on a similar land size with the barrier being a fence rather then water and it being private rather then public makes the hunt a non fair chase situation. I guess this is the part of the issue I struggle with and I’ll admit my mind is not completely made up on this subject. I read the SCI guidelines and they seem to make sense to me.