|
Post by steiny on Aug 21, 2005 10:57:55 GMT -5
Hey gundude, when you open up that cat house will you offer discounts to board members ? ;D
You are correct in saying that we have alot in common and simply have some disagreements on this matter. No problem, this is America, we can disagree. The problem w/ internet discussion, is that you only see the written word, no expression, tone of voice, etc. Posts that may seem mean spirited in many cases were not intended that way. I don't have any hard feelings one way or the other with anyone here. This board is simply for entertainment and something to do when it's hot as heck outside and you're awaiting hunting season. Also, you can learn a thing or two here.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 22, 2005 7:44:32 GMT -5
Those of you who say you would never hunt behind a fence but dont beleive they should be shut down are full of crap. Mbogo you say it did more harm than good Care to explain that ? Also these places do not bring in tourism dollars at all, maybe a gas station and that is about it. These guys come in stay at the lodge at the preserve and eat meals prepared at the preserve and then they go home. After they paid the owner twenty thousand dollars to corner the deer for them. My Family owns alot of land and i guarantee you if we fenced it in i could kill any deer on the property in just a couple of hours. 911, I will go through it again. The only thing that has changed is that high fenced operations can no longer sell hunts. They can still raise deer and other animals and sell them for meat. So not only is the potential risk of disease not lessened in the least but the deer are still being killed. The deer go from potentially being shot when mature to a guaranteed slaughter. The only victory that can be claimed is that it is not called hunting. Perhaps that is enough for the self-righteous, self-appointed hunting ethicists out there, but it seems such a little "victory" to sacrifice yet another form of hunting for. I have never hunted behind a fence but if I do decide to hunt a ranch in Texas, South Africa, or New Zealand then I could care less about what others think. I do find that statement to be tremendously funny, all things and all PEOPLE considered. Your last statement only serves to underline the profound ignorance of deer behavior research. This research along with the observations of several prominent whitetail behaviorists shoot holes through that myth. Go ahead and fence, it will not help you to kill a deer especially not a big buck. Gundude, the deer are dead just the same and likely treated no better so I fail to see the ethical high road in this. PETA will no doubt use the same image that many of you opposed to high fenced hunting use. You are doing the same damage that you fear they will do in the hopes that they will not continue. PETA's intent is the elimination of the use of all animals for all purposes, you can not appease them. Attempting to do so only encourages them to try for more. While you are busy proclaiming that all high-fenced operations operate like Bellar's die, PETA will be busy saying that all hunters are like those on the videos. Then they will turn your support in the high fence issue and use it against you to show that you agree with them that all but a few hunters behave this way. The truth is no limit to PETA. They are perfectly willing to fabricate stories and use outright lies to further their agenda. They are even willing to sacrifice the animals they proclaim to care about if it lines their coffers and furthers their agenda. During college I worked at a chicken farm involved in egg production. I saw first hand how PETA operates and what appeasing them brings when my company tried to get "animal friendly" status so we could sell our eggs to McDonald's. Lastly, I do understand where you all are coming from, but disagreements aside stop for a moment and take a look at your posts, how you act, and how you respond to our dissenting posts. Is that how you want to be seen by the public? Would you want your children or grandchildren to read some of these replies and ask you to explain some of the words? I'm perfectly willing to continue with a reasoned factual debate on here if anyone is interested but if it is just going to be more of the same vitriolic attacks then I am finished.
|
|
|
Post by raporter1 on Aug 22, 2005 9:14:49 GMT -5
Do not claim to be an expert on this subject but from what I have heard from those of you with experience in this area it would seem the main difference is the Texas and African hunts would be those hunts are for game that occurs naturally on the land (Born and allowed to range free on that land) as opposed to being born in captivity and hand raised. Than turned loose in a small enclosure to be killed by someone who was not willing to do the work it takes to take a wild trophy.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 23, 2005 6:19:43 GMT -5
In Africa (mostly South Africa) the native species of animals on ranches are stocked, allowed to reproduce naturally, then managed. A few ranches offer non-native deer but I'm not sure if the are self-sustaining given the climate. New (often larger) native species are added as the ranch grows and poachers are curtailed.
In New Zealand, all of the big game species are non-native and most are self-sustaining, the possible exceptions being whitetails and elk. The success of the red stag is the cause of game ranches here. After the Kiwi governement began trying to eradicate the non-native animals using helicopters and sharpshooters several of the larger landowners decided to fence their lands to protect the stags there on.
In Texas it is entirely dependent on the particular ranch, and the species being discussed. Very few are completely self-sustaining but most are at least partially if not mostly so.
|
|