LCC I agree with you in that I think "wild" game belongs to everyone..although I do remember seeing cowboys capturing wild Mustangs and pinningthem in .... however my point it that I can understand a man who wants to high fence HIS property ...not thatI would even if I could afford to ...I personally do not think its ethical but I understand the mindset ofan owner who doesis my only point.

dd

DD,

I would suggest the following for folks that want to high fence. They would fence their land, then go in andmove all the deer thereelsewhere.Then, they couldstock their land with deer purchased from a breeder.They could then manage away and do hunting for profit with deer that aremore legitimatelytheir property. Or, after fencing land, they could have wildlife folks come in and do an estiimate of the deer population, then pay the state for the deer. The money could be used for re-stocking projects or habitatimprovement on public lands. In either scenario, they would have a legitimate investment to protect.

NY,
I don't think you understand the concept of a high fence.
Only a moron would place a stand in the corner in such a situation. In hunting property like this, you still are hunting. I guess if you want to hunt in a pen that might work, I wouldn't know.
You have to use the same tactics as if there was no fence at all when you are talking large tracts of land.. The basics are the same, you hunt between where the deer are and where they want to go, where they feed and where they might be rutting. Unless there is an oak tree and a horny doe in the fence corner, why on earth would you hunt there?

By putting yourself in the corner, you pretty much limit your chances.
IF there was a high fence around where we hunt, my stands wouldn't change. I would still hunt the edge of thickets and oak flats in the morning and edges of greenfields in the evenings.

The fence isn't there so much to "herd" the deer in any particular direction, just contain. I don't think people have any idea how big 8000 acres really is.

I think that when some people see a high fence they think automaticlly that when you hunt there that you get an automatic kill. This isn't the case in most situations.

"Would it still be ok to shoot a deer that is standing there facing the fence looking at the other side?" We hunt natural barriers and funnels all the time, is that ethical? People hunt man madebarriers all the time too, roads, fences etc. Fair chase is when an animal is not cornered in a small area. Just because there is a barrier on one side doesn't limit the animal in such a way that you get an unfair chance at it. After a few years, a fence just becomes another geographical barrier to the animals in that area, much like a rockface or steep river bank. What abouthunting onthe other side of a fence along a major interstate. There are highways down here where there are 10 or 12 foot deer fences along the highway that go for miles.The reason is to keepdeer off the roads.If you had a lease, or there was a WMA that went along the highway, would you not hunt there? Now, I know you would never hunt a natural funnel or river crossing because that is the only place deer could cross for several miles, would you?
Hank

Quote:

natural funnel

What if they want to go on the other side of the fence?

Difference is they weren't constucted with the intent of making wild animals captive. They have adapted over the years to human influence and construction of the things you're talking about. Not many options when they are blocked in on all 4 sides by fencing.

I understand it quite well thanks.

Intent has nothing to do with it.
If you are hunting a man made barrier that modifies the animals behaviour, you are no better than a guy sitting by a fence that contains 10k acres. You are still taking advantage of what was put there by man.
Neither of these are intended to drive the deer in one way or another, just a barrier. One keeps deer in and one keeps deer out.

"Not many options when they are blocked in on all 4 sides by fencing. "
I don't disagree with you If we are talking about 40, 50, 100 even 200 acres. But when it starts getting into the thousands, you aren't really "blocking" much of anything. Does typically stay within about a 200 acre area, bucks might stay within a square mile or so. Many of the animals on a 8k plot would never even see the fence. You are talking about square miles or roaming. These animals aren't "captive" in the sense that you walk around and they just can't get away from you. The population density isn't much different on these properties. Just animal quality. It would take you the better part of two, maybe even three days to walk our (high fenceLESS) property.



Hank

I guess I don't see that as being the same. A fence put up so a deer can't jump over it and is forced to be contained is different IMO than a mile stretchof highway that a deer can cross and go wherever it feels like going. Yes a road may (or may not) funnel deer, but a lot different than a blockade.

I can understand how you can make your argument with land size, it's still an enclosure and put up to contain deer to me though. If someone owns that much property they can't have similar quality deer through management without putting up the fences? I disagree with that.

You and I see a difference in the fence,
The deer just sees a fence.
R

[:-]That'sdeepman... I'm gonna have to get a beer and think about that. That soundslike a Chinese Proverb or something.

I have always heard that in the Midwest, deer tend to stay within a 1 mile square area. But, I would think that if they are not confined, their range may be further under various circumstances. However, I am curious whether or not the 1 square mile rule of thumb works in other environments where water sources and food sources may be more scattered. Any insights??

NY,
Nothing like a boring friday at work and thoughtfull discussion. At least it is boring today.
Hunter ethics can be difficult. 90% we probably all agree on, there are varying shades on some of the rest. To some, hunting on a greenfield is bad, to others, it's not. To some, hunting over corn is bad, to others, it is not. Hunting Deer with dogs, using modern firearms with scopes, treestands, you name it, somebody has an idea that this or that is not "ethical". You ought to get in on some of the discussions that bowhunters have. The compound guys think that crossbows are evil, the recurves think compounds are just vertical versions of crossbows and the lonbow guys think they are ALL evil modern contraptions and not good.
Botom line is that we all need to support each other and as long as it doesn't cross clear lines of ethics help each other out. That is why I asked the basic question, at what point does an enclosed area "become" ethical. To some, you, the opinion is that it never is. Ok, my opinion is different, no problem. We discussed it and can continue constuctive, zen like, philosophical positions.
Hank