High Fence Hunting

ETHICS MATTER! I AM TRYING TO TEACH MY KIDS THE RIGHT WAY TO HUNT!... I guess there are some that think ethics no longer play a role....... Shooting an critter inside the feed lot is called " HUNTING".... Please.....If you will go and get a copy of the IDNR publication that they provide for the hunter education class, you will find a section about " ethics":......... I guess the STATE can save a few dollars just by deleting this section......... Hunting behind the fence is like like saying your a sub par golfer because you were 1 under at putt putt.......plezzzzzzzz..

Please Fellas...........

Our DNR Director has made a decision, I think we all should support that decision. I firmly beleive that Kyle Hupfer would go toe to toe with ANYONE to make things better for sporting folks in this state.

Just like sex for money, land based casinos and dog racing....they are O.K. for some states, but not Indiana. The same applies for High Fence hunting.....it's O.K. for some states, but I think the majority of Indiana citizens would perfer for it, NOT to be here.

There are plenty of High Fence opportunities around the country, some pretty close to Indiana, go at it if that's what your looking for.

Let me remind you.......the high fence industry had an opportunity here. It has been PROVEN that it is almost impossible to obey Indiana's *hunting* regulations inside the fence. In states that allow baiting, maybe hunting ranches fit better there. It appears by prior behavior that our DNR would have to DOUBLE or TRIPPLE their number of ICO's just to keep up with enforcement at these operations.

Look, Mr. Hupfer made a decision that he felt was BEST for Indiana and the sportingfolk who live here. I would ask everyone to support the directors decision,......... regardless. It's no longer a matter of if we should allow it or if we shouldnt....a decision has been made!

Are you suggesting that the truth of a statement is entirely dependent on who is making a statement and how that statement may benefit them? If so, then shouldn't we simply ignore the threat of CWD since it is mostly being used to scare people into banning high-fenced operations?



You couldn't be any more incorrect. The premise is that if your actions help the ARFs to further their goal of limiting hunting, then you are damaging hunting just as much as they are. Basically, both stem from such an overriding belief in the superiority of ones ideas that forcing those ideas onto everyone becomes not only acceptable but a goal.



Of course not, they are more than happy to use the "Holier Than Thou Art" attitudes of some hunters against us. The bottom line is that some individuals and some groups would rather people not hunt than hunt in a way that they disagree with. The idea that the end justifies any means is still very pervasive. All the ARFs have to do is sit back and laugh.


Recently I read a very interesting article by Thomas Sowell. The main focus of the article was environmentalists and liberal ideas, but it applies just as well to ARFs and "Holier Than Thou Art" type hunters. In addition to containing one of my all time favorite quotes it also contained the following quote which I will paraphrase below.

"Many crusades have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders."

Very apt isn't it?

Ethics are very important, but many of them are individual not universal, which is as they should be. Some people believe that is ethically superior to force these individual ethics onto others. I guess the question I would have to ask to those is: Which is more important, feeling ethically superior or preserving hunting for everyone?

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to eat beef, pork, mutton, or poultry if you are adamantly against killing anything inside of a fence. Perhaps I am wrong, but I fail to see how a guaranteed slaughter of domesticated animals inside of a fence is more ethical than the potential "killin" of non-domesticated animals inside of a fence.

No more hyprocritical then to say someone who is guarenteed a trophy buck is hunting.

Birddog, I would agree with that. I really don't have a problem with fenced hunting. But I don't have a problem with the stand the state has taken either. Basically I am sitting on the fence. I see Mbogos side of the argument as well as ones who want to stop them. Some strict guidelines for them to opperate would have been fine with me. Like what they proposed prior to declaring them illegal.

No, Jack I am not making any such assumption. I don't care about preserving high fence hunting, if the customer base were to disappear and the high fence operations were to go out of business on their own I would be completely indifferent. I do care about hunters using any means necessary to shut them down.

It has become a common reply that it is ok to work with ARFs on this issue as long as high fence hunting is stopped. At first glance that seems a reasonable statement, compelling even, but a little critical thinking should reveal this delusion for what it really is. The truth is ARFs don't really care about high fenced hunting. They are not trying to end high fence hunting, the are trying to end all hunting and all use of animals. They want equal if not superior rights for animals. That is what agreeing with the ARFs really means. The war is not over whether or not high fenced hunting should be allowed, that is a relatively small battle within the real war. The real war is whether or not using animals for any purpose should be allowed.

If someone wants to pay a large sum of money to have an easier chance to kill a large buck he is considered both greedy and lazy but it seems to me that people who demand for the state to make it easier for them to kill a large buck are just as guilty of being lazy and greedy. Actually I find it difficult to see how the person whose solution to the desire for a big buck is to shell out a large amount of his own cash is worse than the person whose solution is to reduce opportunity for everyone else.

I never saw any "working with" in the meetings I attended.

Both the ARFs and a lot of the sportsmen/women had a common goal of eliminating this type of operation, but there was no coordinated efforts made with the ARFs.. that I am aware of.

In this case "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend".

you can shoot your pen raised deer, holding corn chips in one hand to get him good and close and pistol in the other, JUST DON'T CALL IT HUNTING!! IT'S NOT!!