Ban it! Thats not hunting. Period.

Outlaw it nationwide. Put a steep fine on every big game animal in the fenced zone for every day after the ban takes effect.

Maybe some of you should try it and see for yourself before bashing it. You are no worse than the PETA people, condemning something you know nothing about. Get charged by a wild boar there & then tell me it's nothing like real hunting. Spend some time with amputees from Iraq who have hunted there and then tell me it serves no purpose. Bring a friend who has never hunted before and does not know if they are interested in it and convert them to being a hunter after trying it and then tell me it des not help us to add members to our sport. Gril a giant, juicy steak from there that even the Mrs. loves the non gamey taste of and is now happy that you hunt and you no longer fight over hunting trips and then tell me it serves no purpose.

Bunch of armchair quarterbacks, all of you!

I have never hunted in an enclosure. A friend has an outrageous boar mount he took with his bow. It was a year before he let on that he killed it inside a compound. He was embarassed to admit it. He said it was the only time and that he would not likely do it again. His closing thought: "It just didn't seem right."

As for the issue of the government regulating or banning such activity via the ballot box, my only thought is "back up" and think this through.

IF the anti's see success on their agenda through the ballot box, they will not stop. Incrementalism will take hold and bit by bit, regulation by ballot box will make modern hunting a thing of the past.

Imagine a scenario where Fair Chase is ruled to not include trail cameras, scopes, scents, lures, calls, etc. I suppose if PETA and the HSUS had their way in the ballot box, hunting and fishing would only be allowed with wood spears while barefoot.

Beware the ballot box - the voter is easily swayed by emotional appeals from activists.

Honest question - How many of you who are so adamantly against "high fence" hunts have ever been to a high-fence operation?

Very few of these businesses operate under the conditions that have been so blatantly stereotyped by the anti-hunting movement. Despite the propaganda, they're not all comprised of an acre or two of open pastureland with a bunch of tame animals standing around to eat out of your hand before you shoot them. Yes, it is often a much easier hunt and generally a guaranteed kill, it's not quite what's portrayed in the media.

While the challenge of hunting on a high-fence ranch may not appeal to everyone, it's obviously suitable to enough people that the industry is growing. I'm not likely to be one of those customers, but I'm not going to sit in judgement of someone else who is.

Regardless, the movement against high-fence hunting is nothing less than a well-orchestrated ploy by the antis to further divide hunters over something that should be a non-issue.

The general public supports hunting if hunters eat what they kill. They're honestly not that interested in whether we shot it in a deep canyon miles from civilization, from a treestand over a food plot, or from the back of a safari vehicle in the Texas Hill Country. The general public doesn't know the difference and they really don't want to know. Try to kill it humanely and cleanly, and eat what you kill... that's all they want to hear.

Instead of fighting amongst ourselves and deepening the "ethical" divide, why not focus on educating the public about "high fence" hunts to let them see that it's not a case of someone standing in a one acre pasture shooting an animal as the cage door is opened? It IS an easier way to hunt (usually), and doesn't necessarily incorporate all the skills and knowledge that one might use hunting in the wilderness, but to whom does that really matter? Only to hunters.

Doesn't anyone get it? You start legistlating based on personal ethics, then that road leads only to disaster for us and the sport. "Hey, I'm all for banning high fence hunting because I don't like it."

"Hey, I'm all for banning feeders and bait because I don't like it."

"Hey, I'm all for banning hound hunting because I don't like it."

"Hey, I'm all for banning bowhunting because I don't like it."

Banning high fence hunting is not going to make the antihunters go away. It's not going to salvage our public image in the eyes of non-hunters either. What it will do is establish the fact that, if the antis can drive a big enough wedge between us, they can achieve their goals... one step at a time.

I never have and never will go on a fenced hunt, but it would seem that the size of the enclosure would determine weather the hunt was sporting. I don't want to ban hunting anywhere, but it seems we should find a minimum standard for game that gives the prey animals a fair chance to escape. I find that fencing trophy deer into 50 acres and charging $10,000 for them abhorrent- as well as being terrible public relations.

Good grief Harold -

"Beware the ballot box" is a cautionary statement - not a call for totalitarianism.

It is an expression of concern about voters who can be whipped into an emotional frenzy without regard to hard facts. We experienced it here in Ohio with dove hunting years ago.

Actually, Walt, I fall under neither of the categories you so willingly broadbrush (zoo keeper or rich and lazy). I don't even hunt high-fence ranches. But I do support their existence, if only because there's nothing wrong with them.

The ones who make any organization or group of people look bad are the folks who would make ignorant and prejudicial statements like the one you just posted, Walt. It shows that you're unwilling to separate the facts from the lies in propaganda... thus you're easily swayed by it.

What is a "real" hunter, Walt? Because unless you hunt naked and armed only with your teeth and fingernails, someone will find fault with your methods too.

I do hunt naked and I'm armed with way more than my fingernails. you phillip just cannot take a side in this which makes me believe that you're truly for canned hunts. Either that or you just can't hunt on your own and can't afford one. Take a stand lil man.

Lets see what it takes to do a fair chase.....

It takes time. I've been deployed, on FTX, or in training for every hunting season for the last 5 years. Before joining the Army I worked full time for a company that only gave 5 days of leave a year. Most of my time was take up with obligations to my family, church, and school. On average I get 6 hours on 2 saturdays a year to hunt. That's not enough to ever stand a chance at fair chase hunting.

It takes land. In northern Ohio the public hunting lands look like Walmart parking lots. There are 397 hunters per game animal. There are 3 major hunt clubs that have leased over 90% of the farm lands in the Lorain, Erie, Cuyohogah tri-county area. Black River Hunt Club was accepting applications to the 27 year waiting list. I'm 35 and no male has made it past 58 in my family before dieing of cancer.

It takes experance. I inherited my guns after my dad died. I never hunted with him because by the time I was old enough he was on O2 with a lung removed. I learned to hunt by walking around stupid with a gun hoping something would work out because nobody showed me a thing.

It takes a willingnes to loose and shrug it off and call it part of the sport. I lost every year for 7 years straight on an estimated 27 hunts. There is a fine line between fishing and standing on a peir looking stupid. There is a fine line between hunting and just getting lost in the woods like a fool.

I wish I had all of the blessing that the high and mighty fair chase ethics committee has. For now I'm booked for my chance to shoot a goat in a pen. Please, do contact me when you care so much about your ethics to invite me to hunt with you. I can be reached at james.e.thayer@us.army.mil Until then I'll be here defending your right to pass your judgement on me, from here at Q-West Base Camp Iraq.