This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
Unfair Chase: Business is Booming at Places Where Sport Falls Short
A reprint of our August 2007 Conservation column, by Hal Herring. Read it, then answer this question: Should high-fence hunting operations be regulated at the federal level? Click here to vote.
Earl Butler has been on both sides of the hunting fence. Literally.
A big-game guide, Butler had spent years bringing elk hunters on packhorse hunts deep in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness before taking a job at Big Velvet Game Ranch in Montana in the mid 1990s. At first, Butler says, he welcomed the steady paycheck from taking clients into the high-fence enclosures to shoot huge domestic bull elk. But‑things started going sour when his boss announced an expansion in the operation, fencing in a section of his land that Butler knew was critical winter range for wild elk and mule deer. This was before chronic wasting disease (CWD) appeared on Montana game farms, but Butler had read about the disease problems of the elk industry in Canada.
What disturbed him most, though, was the contrast between real elk hunting and what was being fabricated at the ranch. “If the clients told me that they wanted it to be like a real hunt, the first day I’d drive them around a part where there were no elk, and we’d walk downhill along the ridges awhile. Then the next day, we’d drive up and get one.” Their primary interest lay in what the animals would score on the Boone and Crockett scale, says Butler. “The experience just doesn’t mean anything to them.”
Many hunters say they would never go after confined game. They call it “canned hunting” no matter how big the enclosure is and say it threatens the foundations of the sport. But those who pursue game at the estimated 1,000 high-fence operations across the country (there is no national regulatory system, so getting an exact number is impossible), and many who don’t, say it’s a choice left to the individual. The size of the enclosure, and the type of terrain inside, they feel, determines what is fair chase and what isn’t.
The operators of these high-fence hunting ranches say they are simply filling a demand for hunting opportunities in a world where public lands are swamped with hunters, wild big-game animals are taken long before they reach maturity, and complex regulations have killed the heart of the traditional experience. In a society where a lot of hunters are pinched for time, flush with cash, and eager for a very large trophy, such a business can be very successful. In 2000, Montana passed a controversial ballot initiative banning the practice of selling hunts for captive big-game animals. A total of 20 states have some laws to limit high-fence shooting operations, and most have enacted bans on importing domestic deer and elk in the wake of CWD problems on game farms in various states. But the high-fence industry continues to expand, driven by a market for “hunting experiences” targeting everything from hogs and bears to giant domestic bull elk and farm-raised bucks. Conflict in Elk Country Ranches located in America’s elk country are the sources of greatest concern and conflict because of the heightened risk of disease transmission, the blocking of crucial big-game migration corridors by high fences, and the strong belief that their imitations of a challenging wilderness hunt cheapens the real thing. In August 2006, as many as 160 domestic elk escaped from the Chief Joseph Idaho, a high-fence hunting operation near Yellowstone National Park. Their owner, Rex Rammell, a veterinarian and elk rancher, had long been in conflict with the Department of Agriculture officials charged with monitoring his breeding and trophy shooting operation. These elk lacked the tags required by law, and the escape was not reported; agriculture officials discovered it on a visit to the ranch. Rammell has since claimed that the elk could have been lured back into the repaired enclosure with their favorite treat of molasses-soaked barley, but Idaho wildlife officials did not give him the opportunity to try. Sharpshooters and hunters with special tags killed more than 30 of the fugitive elk, including one that had drifted into Wyoming. The escaped elk are believed to have been healthy, although questions remain over whether the introduction of their genetics into wild herds will cause harm. But the incident galvanized opposition to the high-fence hunting industry in Idaho. “This is the train wreck we’ve seen coming for a long time,” Steve Huffaker, then director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, told local newspapers. Doug Schleis, publisher of Wild Idaho News, wants the ranches outlawed. “The essence of elk hunting in our state is the experience of wild country and the effort it takes to hunt an elk,” he says. “Of 17 shooter-bull operations in Idaho, only six are bigger than 450 acres. We have one as small as 10 acres, one at 25 acres, one at 60 acres. The hunting public here doesn’t want this place to become like Texas.” The Lone Star Way Even though wildlife is considered a public resource in Texas, it is not illegal to fence it in, as it would be in other states. Gameproof fences have been used as a deer management tool here, and to harbor various exotic big-game animals, for decades. “In the late 1960s we started to see these fences used by landowners who wanted to manage their deer, to keep overpopulated deer herds out,” says Kirby Brown, the executive vice president of the Texas Wildlife Association, a group including hunters, landowners, and wildlife advocates. “It’s not like out West here, where big game has to migrate to winter range, or travel some big distance to feed. The average home range of a whitetail here is about 640 acres, one square mile. So, in my opinion, high fences are not the issue here. The size of the enclosure does make a difference—it’s not very sporting when you can see the fence on the other side.” The problem with the Texas model, Brown acknowledges, is that there is a tendency to raise deer like livestock and then try to hunt them like wild big game. Mike McGee believes that he has found one solution to that problem at his high-fenced Dead Man’s Pass Ranch near Del Rio, Texas. McGee runs a whitetail breeding program in pens on the ranch, separate from the 4,800-acre hunting enclosure. “I put one of our breeder bucks in a 7-acre pen with 10 does—I can tell you that you’d like to come back in your next life as a buck on our ranch—and when he’s done, we’ll dart him again and put him somewhere he can rest up for another year. The does are then released onto the main ranch. It’s the same thing they do with cattle or sheep.” McGee stresses that the experience at Dead Man’s Pass is about far more than just killing a trophy deer. “A lot of our clients are looking for all the things that go with it—shooting pool, throwing washers, pigging out on really good food.” Business is booming, McGee says. “People call here who say they would not hunt high-fence, but I usually convert about 80 percent of them. There are more people wanting to buy hunts than there are hunting operations.” Apart from hunting, or a part of it? None of that makes sense to Jim Posewitz, retired wildlife biologist for the state of Montana, director of Orion: The Hunter’s Institute, and author of Inherit the Hunt: A Journey into American Hunting, which is often used as a text in hunter-education classes across the nation. “There is an evil seed buried here,” Posewitz said in a discussion of high-fence hunting. “By selling these facsimiles of real wild animals, these people degrade the whole reality of hunting. They strip away the concept that man the hunter is engaged in an important activity. Suddenly, what was wild is domestic, what was difficult to obtain is easy, what was once valuable is trivial. It is a tremendous threat on many levels.” Although animals in high-fence operations are almost always evaluated on the Boone and Crockett Club scale (which is also used to determine the harvest price), the club will not list any domestic animal, or any animal taken behind high fences, in its book of wild big-game records. Several years ago, responding to the proliferation of huge-horned, pellet-fed domestic elk and deer, B&C issued a statement specifically banning canned-hunt animals from record-book consideration if they have been “transported for the purpose of commercial shooting” or are “confined by artificial barriers, including escape-proof fenced enclosures.” Merle Shepard, vice president of the Safari Club International, takes a broad view of the situation, one that makes room for both the traditionalist hunters who would never shoot a domestic game animal, and the hunters who might want to take a trophy behind the fences. “I’ve been working for 10 years to try and find a way for those two groups to coexist,” he says. According to Shepard, a recent poll taken by SCI revealed an interesting contradiction. “Basically, 83 percent of the people polled thought that you should have the right to hunt behind high fences. But that same group said that they would not participate in the activity themselves.” Shepard echoes many high-fence operators and many sportsmen when he says that this conflict should be resolved within the hunting community. “We have to tolerate each other, because as we fragment into smaller and smaller groups, we make an easier target for the antihunters out there.” The debate is far from over. In a recent Internet hoax, a massive 566 B&C bull elk was shown in a dramatic photo captioned with a claim that it was killed by a bowhunter in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, the very region where Earl Butler guided pack-string hunts. The bull did green-score 566 before shrinkage, but it had never seen a wilderness of any kind, having been raised, and shot with a rifle, on a game farm in Quebec. As the story unfolded, photos of the same bull, alive on the farm and eating placidly out of what appeared to be a dog dish, were discovered and circulated. Hunters following the hoax made up a nickname for the animal, which would have been revered had it truly grown to such magnificent size in the wilderness. They called it the Alpo Bull.
While Jim Posewitz is a respected man for his point of view, he is wrong to impose his personal beliefs on others through efforts to create laws to ban activities concerning personal business and property rights. I would also have to disagree with him in his assessment that "It is a tremendous threat on many levels". Canned hunting is not a threat at any level really. If you don't want to call it hunting, then don't. If you think it is unethical and doesn't involve "fair chase" then so be it but that doesn't mean that as Americans we should go about creating legislature banning it from those who see things differently.
As Safari Club International points out, 83% of people don't think fenced hunting should be banned, that's because they believe that we have rights and those rights supersede personal ethics battles. They also point out that the majority of those same people wouldn't participate in hunting behind fences.
Doesn't this tell us that high-fence hunting isn't the big threat to the future of hunting as some would like us to believe?
Why not put money, energy and effort into stopping poaching and drugs and alcohol associated hunting. These are real issues that threaten hunting.
Leave the property rights and ethics issues up to the individual within the laws of public safety and wildlife protection and concentrate our efforts into educating hunters and recruiting new ones.
As with many things in this country, if high-fence hunting is so bad, then a good education program that will teach hunters about the real thrills of hunter vs. game animal, then canned hunting will cease to exist.
Posted by: Tom Remington | July 09, 2007 at 01:26 PM
To me, the thought of killing a huge elk in a pen is not appealling. However, more legislation and regulations is only going to create problems and potentially drive some hunters away from the sport. I savor the 'hunting experience'. However, the things I love about hunting might differ from what others love. I can't see where or why I have the right to force my feelings on others. I have the right to state my opinion (which I have no hesitation in doing), but no right to force it on anyone else. If you want to hunt in a pen, more power to you - we just probably won't run into each other at camp.
Posted by: darrell | July 09, 2007 at 05:51 PM
I'll never hunt in a high fenced enclosure. I'll never pay a rancher to hunt on his land either. I choose the public land, and it is not at all over-hunted or over-crowded. However, I do think the freedom to do so should always be there. No freedom should be taken away.
Posted by: Gunz4Evr | July 10, 2007 at 09:24 AM
High fence hunting is sissy hunting. All you fat ATV riders need to strap on a pair of hiking boots and a pack and walk. This is not real hunting. It should be banned.
Posted by: Matt Mallery | July 10, 2007 at 05:12 PM
I wouldn't call it hunting, more like meat gathering..
Posted by: Jarrod | July 11, 2007 at 01:25 PM
While I am not totally convinced that his heart is in the wrong place there is considerable information about the agenda of Jim Posewitz, the Orion Institute and International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that I find very disturbing.
Since the white paper; Model for North American Fish and Wildlife Management; first became the marching order of most Fish and wildlife managers. Concerns have been raised so that the newest editions such as on Orion website are prefaced with greater appreciation and touting of the need for hunting to stay in the mix. However the main themes are still htere and include;
Elimination of commercial wildlife markets: while the model has a 1 liner about preserving hunting, trapping & fishing someone explain to me how trapping will exist other than by either govt. subsidy or commercial support.
Democracy of hunting; As I understand it this originally meant as opposed to aristocratic practices where as the game belonged to the king and crown and was let to those of privilege. Not the same as all people, all access, all places by the decree of the government. Or possibly letting the 92% non hunting and partial anti base decide!
Wildlife as an international resource, smells strongly of a UN takeover. The socialization of wildlife as an international resource and calling for public support to replace the dwindling sportsmen's dollars and increase the bureaucratic budget of wildlife management will undoubtedly dissolve the small amount of influence and control sportsmen currently hold over wildlife agencies and put it in the hands of the unknowing and currently uninterested American public and thus surrender it to the anti's that have tried to gain influence for years.
Wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purpose; Please define legitimate: the "new model" specifically states aggressive action to avoid outcry. Obviously due to productions, promotions and considerable efforts by a few F&WL officials, and organizations and agencies pushing the new model, "canned hunting" has been the broad brush to paint and stop all cervid ranching and high fenced hunting as a public outcry and immoral or unethical activity. How does it differ from bird preserves? Is prairie dog shooting legitimate it is cheaper and scientificly more sound to poison them. What about pay lakes (commercial, artificially inflated numbers, not natural or fair)? Will it be legitimate to shoot deer when they can be scientifically controlled by a more humane means such as birth control?
Allocation of wildlife by law: What allocation to whom for what purpose? And not to whom for what purposes?
Wildlife must be managed based on sound science: This science is interpreted by those we currently hope are looking out for "our (hunters) best interest. Not so. Wildlife Science dictates the most natural balance of wildlife only with consideration for man in the model as a necessary evil, to pay for, and be used as a tool to restore it to a "natural balance."
The New "Model for Fish and Wildlife Management" is in fact "based" upon the process that turned North American Wildlife around and brought it to where it is today. However the "model" has been somewhat redefined and with emphasis on portions that might not have been or were very secondary in the original model.
Yes this is alarmist stuff and not necessarily exactly what is currently on our doorstep or even the intention of the designers but it is undeniable that the "new model" is made up and controlled and promoted by scientist and bureaucrats; and it is heavy on science and government, heavy on moving away from control by any other than themselves, gaining other sources of revenue, how far into the future before "commercialization" be interpreted as the state selling wildlife via licenses to consumptive users?)
The oft cited hero of this "model" TR had this to say regarding bison; from Hunting Trips of a Ranchman Sketches of Sport on the Northern Cattle Plains Theodore Roosevelt
CHAPTER VIII
THE LORDLY BUFFALO
GONE forever are the mighty herds of the lordly buffalo........
.................While the slaughter of the buffalo has been in places needless and brutal, and while it is to be greatly regretted that the species is likely to become extinct, and while, moreover, from a purely selfish standpoint many, including myself, would rather see it continue to exist as the chief feature in the unchanged life of the Western wilderness; yet, on the other hand, it must be remembered that its continued existence in any numbers was absolutely incompatible with any thing but a very sparse settlement of the country; and that its destruction was the condition precedent upon the advance of white civilization in the West, and was a positive boon to the more thrifty and industrious frontiersmen. Where the buffalo were plenty, they ate up all the grass that could have supported cattle. The country over which the huge herds grazed during the last year or two of their existence was cropped bare, and the grass did not grow to its normal height and become able to support cattle for, in some cases two, in others three, seasons. Every buffalo needed as much food as an ox or cow; and if the former abounded, the latter perforce would have to be scarce. Above all, the extermination of the buffalo was the only way of solving the Indian question. As long as this large animal of the chase existed, the Indians simply could not be kept on reservations, and always had an ample supply of meat on hand to support them in the event of a war; and its disappearance was the only method of forcing them to at least partially abandon their savage mode of life. From the standpoint of humanity at large, the extermination of the buffalo has been a blessing. The many have been benefited by it; and I suppose the comparatively few of us who would have preferred the continuance of the old order of things, merely for the sake of our own selfish enjoyment, have no right to complain."
I for one find due cause to worry about those who quote and make today's policy on the words of heroes of the past. The leaders giving us TR as our hero and uniting us under his words, may be leading us to the same conclusion TR came to here! (Substitute buffalo for hunter)
Posted by: mike | July 11, 2007 at 02:20 PM
If I could go on a high fence "hunt" for free I personaly would turn it down,down,down!! there is no way in hell I would ever "hunt" like that. Those that do are meerly paying big money for big game heads to hang on their wall so they can try to get anyone who doesn't know better what a "GREAT HUNTER" they are!! People like that and the people who cater to them are the biggest BUBBA SCUM to ever call themselves "hunters". This includes you too Ted, Fred Bear is gonna stick a arrow up your *** when you go on the big hunt forevermore.
Posted by: WaltSmith | July 11, 2007 at 09:32 PM
ALL high fence hunting should be banned, not regulated. we true sportsman do not need high fence pseudo hunters in our ranks. they sicken me as they should all true outdoorsman, whether you hunt,fish or whatever.
Posted by: brent | July 12, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Walt Smith is dead on!
Posted by: alabamahunter | July 12, 2007 at 02:59 PM
In reality it all comes down to size of the enclosure and if the animals are treated like livestock. There are huge enclosures in Texas in which you could not walk from one side to the other in a week, in those enclosures with wild animals it is ok anything less is not.
Posted by: Joshua | July 12, 2007 at 05:18 PM
But where do you draw the line?
Posted by: jmb | July 12, 2007 at 05:46 PM
I once made the mistake of going on a High Fence hunt in Charlotte, Texas. The guide took me out to the blind where several bucks had been baited in. The bucks were magnificent to look at but it made me sick when he started saying you can have this one for $2,500, that one for $3,000, etc. I ended up not taking one and offended my hunting partners by not doing so because we had already paid "high rental" for use of the land; but, I consider it a lesson learned. I am proud to be a Texas and feel we will get this ironed out. Property owners should have "rights" but it shouldn't be called fair chase hunting as Aldo Leopold defined it.
Posted by: Walt Chapman | July 13, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I started hunting the weekend after September 11, 2001 when I went on a wild turkey hunt in New Mexico on public land. I taught myself to find the big birds by reading, going to seminars and not missing a fall or spring hunt for six years. A world record bird would mean less than nothing to me from a turkey farm. I felt a hundred feet tall when I carried my year old jake out of the Gila National Forest this spring.
Posted by: Chad Taylor | July 13, 2007 at 02:03 AM
Hell Yeah Walt. You hit it right on the head!
Posted by: SMARTER | July 13, 2007 at 04:11 PM
No Joshua your wrong. It isn't the size of the enclosure, ITS THE FACT THAT THE ANIMAL CANNOT ELUDE THE PURSUIT. GUIDES ARE PAID TO KNOW THE AREA, NO MATTER THE SIZE AND GET THE ''hunter''
the ''trophy''. You are wrong.
Posted by: | July 13, 2007 at 04:14 PM
A 4pt deer on gameland without bait or dogs or fences is far more impressive than any of you sick, shxt-headed trophy hunters.
Go kill your $3,000 rack and brag to your ignorant friends about how hard it ws to climb the fence.
High fence hunters - coma mierda.
Posted by: | July 13, 2007 at 04:16 PM
I hate the idea of fence hunts personally I would rather shoot a spike up in the mountains. But as long as every deer hunting show on tv and every deer hunting mag on the shelves only shows trophy deer many folks "who arn't taught at a young age that hunting is about the experience" will continue to go off and spend loads of money fueling this industry to try and impress there peers cause they shot a deer in a pen. of coarse their story is probably much better though.
Posted by: Brad | July 13, 2007 at 04:30 PM
High fence hunting-not on your life!!Montana has banned it and Idaho should do the same and soon.
Rex Rammell, the owner of the eastern Idaho ranch that had about 200 elk escape in 2006, has sold his ranch and is now running for the U.S. Senate. If he works as well in the Senate as he managed his captive elk,he would fit right in with the group in Washington , DC. They are all familiar with fences and loopholes.
As to the question on the Feds regulating high fence problem--I say no!! hell, they can't even agree on a fence on the Mexican border. The states CAN solve this problem if they want to.
Posted by: Jack Fisher | July 13, 2007 at 10:39 PM
There is only ONE excuse for high fence and that is to protect large ranches or hunting leases from the guys who buy 10 acre plots along the typical low cattle fence and bring in every friend and relative they know to shoot every deer that happens to hop the fence from the large ranch. That happens in Texas. BUT my solution to that is for the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TP&W) department to issue landowners deer permits based on their land acreage and quality to hold deer. Those land owners permits would have to be matched up with hunting tags. That would end the low acreage killing zones. It might also inhibit poaching, because it would be so much harder to do if you had to have a permit from a landowner to go with your deer tag. TP&W is already learning to use regulations in some parts of the state to minmize the harvest of immature deer (antler spread restrictions). Issue the landowner permits and antler restrictions state wide and then BRING DOWN THE FENCES!
Posted by: Drew Houston TX | July 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Fenced hunting of any sort should be outlawed nationwide. High fence hunting plots , no matter the size, interfere with the natural movements of all game species. All game species are exactly like water, belonging to all and property of none.
Posted by: G. E. Werner | July 17, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Fenced hunting isn't hunting. Period. There's no hunt involved! High fence hunters are nothing more than slobhunters and it sickens me that this is what hunting has become. There's nothing wrong with banning the practice and ensuring that hunting have a moral code.
I also have a problem that are these people who run these places and screw around breeding the animals to get monster bulls and you end up with bad genes and elk/red deer crosses. Then the animals break loose - like they did in Idaho - and you have all tese animals infecting native populations. They had to send sharpshooters out and track them down because they didn't even know if they had CWD.
And they have exotic hunts where they buy animals from dealers and the animals have very little fear of people. the guides set food out at the same time every day and all the "hunter" has to do is show up. That's not hunting.
Posted by: Ryan H | July 18, 2007 at 03:54 PM
Everyone who says "we need to stick together and not fight among ourselves or the anti's will get us" are just afraid of any type of confrontation. it's a cheap argument.
you don't want to confront the ones who are demoralizing hunting who shoot THE PUBLIC'S game animals behind fences (supposedly wild animals are considered a public resource), then you don't want a confrontation with "the anti's" because you're afraid they'll shut hunting down, so you want everyone to accept canned-hunting so that nonhunters and anti's believe that we all think it is acceptable, which ethically it should not be.
so we should accept can-hunting so that hunting doesn't get shut down all together??!! whatever happened to America's hunting heritage. isn't it based on family, friends, and the Great Outdoors? how did, or will you, introduce your children to the outdoors?
you need not know a thing about hunting in order to kill an animal behind a fence.
wildlife is not here for our financial gain.
Posted by: josh | July 19, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Yep, I just got back from construction on our new cabin. There are seven of us who used to share an old over head camper and an 8x12 cabin with 2 bunk beds. Now we can have 4 bunk beds with a kitchen. Pure luxury. Of course we now have more room to take the wife and kids. Do the Big Fence hunters get to take their family, drive on the lease where they want, when they want? When your 10 year old takes his first shot, but you can not find the deer, it is a lesson learned- not lost. I will gladly and willingly take the doe and leave the big 8 point and spike for the boys or wife. After all- it all goes through the meat grinder the same way, but you can't develop a taste for the family pet.
Posted by: Rick | July 22, 2007 at 05:28 PM
Most people do not even understand highfence hunting. I have hunted high fences and my property limits are highfenced. there are no crossfences, no pens(other than for the dogs) and the ranch constists of about 5,000 acres(typicl range of a while tail is 650sq acres. Would consider this fair chase. Where I live you couldnot find a mature buck anywhere except with rare occaisions. NONE OF THESE DEER ARE ANYWHERE NEAR TAME ON THE RANCH. All the deer breed naturaly, and about twice a year we leave the gates open for 1-2 months at a time, to allow the deer to leave, repopulating the area with mature bucks and does with great genetics. Not to mention the ones that get out on their own. I do not sell hunts or sell deer, and most of the hunters that hunt on our property are family and friends.
The only hunts that are sold is hog hunts(they tear up a lot of stuff) no kill no pay and you can kill as many as you want. You only pay for food and lodging. We dont advertise and is mostly word of mouth, so we dont make much from it at all. I shoot hogs year round. On a ranch this size or even one as small as 800 acres I would think it would be completely fair chase. If they are. Before we started raising deer, our family had raised cattle for 20 years(the original reason for our Highfece). If you have a problem with it let it be, no one is making you hunt on it. Am i'm sure that most of you that are agaisnt it, though you wouldn't admit to this, probably have a problem with people who purchase large amounts of land. which means less available for suburban hunters.unless they know some one(and most do). we have caught and prosocuted for tresspassing, and have had deer poached from the country road. That is where the real problem lies. All of the beer drinkin slobs that go out half drunk and/or shoot every living thing in site. All those people who dont practice safe hunting methods. I agree with Tom Remington and Jarrod. There are bigger things to worry about. and if your doing on your own private property and not trying to profit from it, is it still wrong?
Posted by: calm_one | July 26, 2007 at 01:59 PM
---so why is your high-fence necessary then?
Posted by: josh | July 26, 2007 at 02:30 PM