high fenced "preserve" hunt

[deerhunter_98520]

i was lookin on youtube at rosie hunts and came across these guys...$23,900 for a 490''-500'' bull 
220'' deer  is $21,800...this is rediculous!  ...they turn them loose around june or july...i guess i will never understand these
they say its a "fair chase" enviroment 

http://www.silvertine.ca/dates--rates-2012.html

[Hunterman]

That sounds just about the right cost for a day hunt in Washington next year   

Hunterman(Tony)

[deerhunter_98520]

after a day of chasing rosies on the coast here i feel like i should be makin that much for workin so hard 

[carpsniperg2]

There is many styles of high fence hunting and preserve hunting. Some are way more fair chase then any. There are some real junk hunts out there and there are some great ones. Look at starky in oregon thousands of acres all inside a fence. Those elk are very mush fair chase hunts. It just depends on the people running it and the area people are hunting in. I have seen the good and the bad sides of it. When they turn more into a harvest then a hunt then you have a problem and its not even close to hunting.

[MtnMuley]

I beg to differ. There are NO high fence hunts that are are by any means, "very much fair chase hunts".

[lokidog]

That sounds just about the right cost for a day hunt in Washington next year   

Hunterman(Tony)

Yeah and that's only for the state fees on "public" ground......   

[carpsniperg2]

I beg to differ. There are NO high fence hunts that are are by any means, "very much fair chase hunts".

You can beg to differ all you like. If you want to say a 20,000 acre preserve is not a very much fair chase hunt you have no idea

[bobcat]

I don't care so much if it's non-native big game species that are being "hunted" inside a fence, but I'm 100% against any kind of high fence hunting for native species of deer and elk in this country. Which I guess would mainly be Rocky Mountain elk and whitetail deer. Wildlife is supposed to belong to the public, not fenced in and used for the profit of landowners.

[lokidog]

The guy we hunted deer with in SK last fall had a high fence elk hunt he offered on his ranch.  It was a square mile, 640 acres.  He said he had to cross fence it as many of the "hunters" never even saw the elk in their week long hunts.

IMHO, 640 or 320 acres, not much of a hunt, as mentioned by Carp, 20,000 acres is a big difference.  Not sure I would do one either way though, personally.

[blackveltbowhunter]

I don't care so much if it's non-native big game species that are being "hunted" inside a fence, but I'm 100% against any kind of high fence hunting for native species of deer and elk in this country. Which I guess would mainly be Rocky Mountain elk and whitetail deer. Wildlife is supposed to belong to the public, not fenced in and used for the profit of landowners.

   That about sums it up perfect!

[MtnMuley]

I beg to differ. There are NO high fence hunts that are are by any means, "very much fair chase hunts".

You can beg to differ all you like. If you want to say a 20,000 acre preserve is not a very much fair chase hunt you have no idea

Good luck convincing anybody with any common sense on that statement. There's no such thing as high fences in fair chase hunting. With your wealth of information, I'd have figured you knew that.

[JimmyHoffa]

I don't care so much if it's non-native big game species that are being "hunted" inside a fence, but I'm 100% against any kind of high fence hunting for native species of deer and elk in this country. Which I guess would mainly be Rocky Mountain elk and whitetail deer. Wildlife is supposed to belong to the public, not fenced in and used for the profit of landowners.

So, are you suggesting that WDFW or some agency should remove all the native wildlife on a highfence operation?  (Not trying to be an azz here, just curious)  If it is private property I see no reason why the owners shouldn't be allowed to fence it, then manage what resources they have.  Is the issue that the animals can no longer leave to be hunted on adjacent public property?  I don't see why the owners shouldn't benefit if they are assuming the responsibility of the animals (food, range, security).  Since it is private property, the land and animals on it are not able to be hunted without owner approval, so I don't see the issue if it is a herd of 5 animals or 5,000 in the fence used for a commercial hunting operation.  Since it's private, I just assume it is a housing development or a military base or something.
But, it is kind of difficult to define how public property (animals) in this case are landlocked by private ownership.  Should there be a reimbursement to the WDFW for the original animals that are taken out of circulation by the fence?  My opinion is that animals should be viewed as a resource similar to trees or rocks or oil...whoever owns the land owns the resource on it--if an animal moves to a different area then it changes ownership. 

[MtnMuley]

You can own the land, but you CANNOT own the wildlife that uses it.

[deerslyr]

 

[carpsniperg2]

Thank you for the compliments. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. If there is a fence then it can never be 100% fair chase. By no means am I saying that it can ever be 100% fair chase. I said "very much fair chase" in the fact that you have to hunt for the animal. A elk in 20,000 acres, I know for a fact that I could not kill one everytime I hunted. Some people might think they can but I would love to see it. Everyone will have there own ideas. I know that I am one of the few guys with my wealth of information on hunting and guiding and differnt trips around the world Know that some hunts are more fair chase then others. That is my idea and by no means does anyone have to share this idea.