I was intrigued today by a headline posted on Field & Stream's website. The article mentions that North Dakota is bringing forth a referendum on banning hunting in high-fenced areas (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/10/north-dakotas-possible-high-fence-ban-garners-national-attention). This is an issue of much contention in the hunting community and I have friends that fall strongly on each side of the aisle. If one is to approach this topic rationally, there are weighty pros and cons on the issue.
Pros
-Wildlife management is much easier on high-fenced properties
-Selective breeding can lead to large trophies
-Deer farming (not to mention exotics) is a multi-million dollar industry that reintroduces money into the outdoor sphere
-Access to public land and free-use private land is dwindling
-Hunts may be set up so that the handicapped or special needs hunter can enjoy the experience
Cons
-Promotes "trophy-centric" attitudes
-Compromises wild nature of game animals
-Detracts from the overall experience of hunting by limiting difficulty
-Creates a negative image for anti-hunters to feed on
-May lead to increased spread of potentially deadly diseases
-Promotes instant gratification when hunting
-Belittles the unique history that hunting has with regard to the development of mankind
-Promotes emphasis on monetary value of a living animal
-May limit hunting access to only the wealthy
I have to say that my experiences with high-fenced hunts have been very negative. I have never paid for a high-fence hunt, but I have had them given to me and they have never left me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Rather, I was left angry, saddened, and with a uneasy feeling deep in the pit of my stomach. With that being said, I have friends who raise deer for such enterprises. They themselves are not unethical when it comes to hunting.
Society changes. This is what has driven and created this craze of high-fenced hunting. There once was a time not so very long ago when a person could walk countless miles across private property and the landowners would gladly allow you to do so. That time has come and gone. Now landowners frequently charge obscene trespass fees. The natural alternative is to hunt public land. The problem there lies in the fact that much of the public land is literally crawling with other hunters. A recent trip with friends to Deep Fork WMA found us bumping into two other hunters, with additional vehicles piling into the area as we were leaving. Was there game in the area? Absolutely. Did we see any? Absolutely not. This is the conundrum of hunting in modern times. Hunting, whether we like it or not, is quickly becoming a rich man's sport.
What is the solution to such a problem? I cannot claim to have the answer. It is tempting to say that when acreages are large enough that high-fence hunting can be legitimate. I am not going to say that. There comes a time when we must discern the difference between game and stock. If you purchase an animal and release it into an enclosure it cannot by any reasonable means be considered game. If we accept this fact can a person who kills such an animal in an enclosure call himself (or herself) a hunter? No. The title can only be butcher. Again, it is tempting (oh so tempting!) to say that hunting in an enclosure by a youth or otherwise special needs person is legitimate. We must consider what actions are taken by these "hunters" in the course of harvesting their animal. Do those actions truly fall in line with those most associated with a hunter? Did they scout the area, build a blind or hang a stand, spend countless hours sitting without avail? The ugly truth is that they often do not. Instead, they write a check. They let the guide or ranch hand drive them to a stand that they have never seen before and shoot an animal whose granddaddy was named "Cowabunga", cost $450,000, and scored 567 3/4" Boone & Crockett.
I am sometimes frustrated by hunting. Strike that, I am often frustrated by hunting. For example, I am on a bit of a hard streak right now and haven't seen a deer in quite some time (over two weeks). This is not the first time that this has happened to me. There have been years when I literally hunted until I was on the verge of hypothermia and did not see any deer. Oftentimes I would simply quit for a while and go back later. After successfully harvesting my quarry later (sometimes much later) I always looked back and appreciated how hard I had worked to put my hands on such a glorious animal and how this rare gift was a true treasure. Who can say that when they shoot an animal in a pen?
In the end there are only a few suggestions I can give.
>Learn what it is to appreciate the entire process of the hunt, not just the killing or the antler size
>Promote restoration and conservation so that future generations can enjoy public land
>Resurrect the lost art of hunting small game. This is a suggestion that I feel strongly about. When I was a child people lived to hunt different small game species. You would know certain people as a "squirrel-hunter" or a "rabbit-hunter" or a "coon-hunter". Where have all these people gone? No one pays any attention to small game these days.
>Learn to make use of the full bounty of a harvested animal. Sure, a big rack looks good on a wall, but what about a backstrap seared perfectly on the grill or a pair of moccasins made of out of supple buckskin? If we utilize the full bounty we will appreciate the animal much more than just admiring antler measurements.
