Its also about horn porn LBR - whatever it takes to maximize the size of the deers antlers to impress others with your "accomplishment"
I agree, but that still boils down to money--bigger antlers = more money for that animal.
I'm not trying to compare how hard it is to kill a deer on pressure public land and killing a deer on a large piece of private land.
My mistake then--but that's sure what this next quote seemed to imply.
WILD? How wild is a deer who lives his life in a part of the country that is covered in houses, shopping malls, and 5 acre lots that are owned by countless people? A deer living on a mulit-thousand acre piece of property, weather its high fenced or not, is a true WILD animal. That deer is living as wild and untamed as his descendents did thousands of years ago. His poor cousin who lives up state has to dodge traffic, highways, interstates, malls, wal-marts, subdivisions, humans, pets, and golf courses and cant cover 5 acres with out walking on another persons property. I'm sorry but that deer dosent sound wild at all. In your mind he might because thats your way of hunting and your use to it and you dont know any better. But come down to south Texas and book a hunt on a 10,000 acre ranch that is almost 100% untouched, you will learn what a wild deer really is and what a wild piece of land really looks like. Until then dont make comments on a topic that you know nothing about...........
I can tell you from experience that these deer are VERY wild. They have had to adapt to more dangers than any deer that lives a protected life in a fence, and common sense tells me they are a heck of a lot more challenging to hunt.
I'm sure it's not the case every time, but I've heard too many stories--primarily from people I know--about deer and other animals that live in a fence that have tamed down a LOT. One person talked about a deer that they were able to sneak up on, in it's bed, and touch it with an arrow. Out of curiosity, do these ranches have the natural preditors removed also?
I've been very blunt on this topic and havent tried to sugar coat anything. I'm sorry if you take the truth as sugar coating. And just because I dont say what you want me to say, like "high fences are a zoo", dosent mean I'm trying to dodge the real answer.
Maybe we just have a different opinion on what is "blunt". What it boils down to is the deer are easier to kill, only certain people will ever have a chance tokill them, and they will have a tremendously better chance of growing a "trophy" rack and/or living to be much older. Deer on pressured land don't live long enough to grow trophy racks unless they are very smart. To me, the hunt is about the challenge, not about how big the rack is. I'd bet the deer here that may cross umpteen property lines in a weeks time are a whole lot more challenging to hunt. It's a challenge to even get acess to places to hunt to try and even set up on one.
The deer never seeing the fence is even more reason to have one, it just means that the high fence on that property is even that much more ethical and "fair" to the deer. Compared to deer that spend there lives in a small couple of acres pen. And we really dont care if a poacher knows how high the fence is, if and when he gets caught he'll face a felony charge and go to prison for a couple of years.
That statement has just lost me. How is it more ethical and fair? Because the deer gets to live until it grows an acceptable rack before it gets killed? I haven't made any comparisons to smaller enclosures--they are the worst kind IMO. Does the law differentiate between poachers/trespassers that break the law on unfenced land, low fenced land, and high fenced land? A poacher is a poacher, a trespasser is a trespasser--at least to me.
NO, your wrong, I dont make any money from hunts. I'm not a guide, I'm not an outfitter, and I dont lease any of my land for deer hunting. I do however buy hunts, but I'm losing money not making it. Me and my family own a couple of ranches in south Texas, some of which have a high fence others dont, but this land is for our private enjoyment andwe have no desire to sell hunts or mess with lease hunters.
I didn't say everyone did it for the money--I also noted a category for the folks that could afford it, and just wanted to have their own peice of deer heaven for their own enjoyment.
This is a complicated issue. Yes there is some jealousy/envy from one side of the issue. There is also a lot of greed involved. I also see some elitism as well. With TXhighracks continual "Joeblow" and "Bubba" comments. This tells me that he thinks he is superior to and does not want to share the PUBLIC ANIMALS with "Bubba"(who cant afford or most likely didn’t inherit 300 or even 5000acres and was not born with a silver spoon up his rear) that has to hunt a hunting club that has 3 members per 100 acres or to "joeblow" who cant even afford that that hunts public land (which is very sparse in Texas). One thing I see as a problemfor hunting is the more valuable it gets the less people that will have access to it. This equals shrinking numbers of hunters. Then when hunters are more of a minority of the general public the easier it will be to make it illegal. So Highrack enjoy those racks while you can. Your actions may make it harder for your great grandchildren to hunt.
I don' t know about "Bubba" and "Joe Blow", but I fully agree with the rest. It's all about ME, right here, right now. So what if the majority of the population can't afford to fence in thousands, or even hundreds of acres for their own little private ranch. So what if the majority of the population can't afford to pay big bucks to hunt the big bucks. I'll tell you what--it's just like MB said--you are cheating yourself, and your decendants, right out of their right to hunt. Politicians set the rules. Politicians are elected by the majority. Guess who the politicians listen to and cater to? Guess what's going to happen to hunting when there are too few hunters to be heard?
As far as money goes, to put up a high fence it costs around 12,000.00 per running mile, some ranches will never sell enough hunts to even pay for the fence being put up in the first place, which leads me to believe its not about the money!!!
Put your emotions and personal preferances aside for just a moment, and use your common sense. Canned hunts, guided hunts, fenced hunts, etc. areBIG business--otherwise they would be few and far between. Now, listening to common sense, do you still have any doubt whatsoever that it's not about the money, at least in most cases?
Please don't take thisas a personal attack--it's not. You have just brought up the points that caught my attention, and the ones I felt like addressing. I don't know you, and have no reason whatsoever to attack you personally.What bothers me iswhat this type of business is doing to our sport. It's a cancer that is slowly but surely killing it.
I don't have a problem with folks that like big antlers--I reckon that's just human nature. I reckon it's also human nature to cheat and get thoseantlers the easiest way possible.Yes, I do feel that hunting in a fence, where the herds arecontrolled,managed, and supplimented; where the pressure is low and my guess is even the natural preditors are removed, is cheating. It sure as heck isn't nearly the challenge that hunting these deer on their own turf is--deer that grew that rack due to being smarter, faster, stronger, and more cautious than their brothers. Any decent buck here, unless you get lucky, takes work. Shoot, it can be really tough to get a doe for freezer meat, with a bow. I really don't see the point in "hunting" these fenced in deer with a bow, muzzleloader, or any other weapon that limits you. What's the point, if the goal is the biggest rack, and you are taking the easiest route possible anyway? As far as that goes, why is a smaller enclosure bad and a big enclosure just fine? Is the smaller enclosure cheating too much? You want it easier, but not
too easy? I'm having a hard time understanding this.
Personally I love rabbit hunting, with a bow. It's one heck of a challenge, and (as I said), that's what hunting is all about to me--the challenge. I don't care if rabbits don't have antlers. As far as that goes, I wish there was some way to classify trophy does--I've been busted lots more times by does than I have bucks. They can be unbelieveably smart.
Admit it or not, even realize it or not, it does boil down to greed, or at least selfishness. You want it,you like it,you might even make good money at it, so tough luck to those that have to pay for it in the future--you aregoing to haveyour fun right now.
You may not have ever thought about it like that, but that is what it boils down to. Thousands of acres made private, made into pay "hunts", made into high-dollar leases, etc. is driving the Average Joe away from hunting. Well, that's really not an accurate statement--they are getting priced out of the sport--they simply can't afford it. Not everyone was lucky enough, driven enough, even smart enough to pull down a big salary and/or inherit alot of property or money.Fences--whether it's high or low, 100 acres or 100,000 acres, looks really bad to the non-hunting public.From what I've read, there are lots more non-hunters than hunters, and the gap continues to widen--I think largely in part due the the reason I already stated. It doesn't matter if that perception is based on fact or not--votes won't be culled due to the voter not having all the facts. Think about it.
If you don't careaboutthe future of our sport, well, I don't guess there is anything else to say. If you do care about it, consider what you are supporting and defending, and do something about it.
Chad