SCI Position on Fenced Hunting & Fair Chase

[BillCartwright]

I know SCI is a pretty big organization, but I myself never viewed them as a working man's club so to speak. A lot of what I like to call high dollar hunters. Guys that drop $20k on a grizzly hunt at will, etc. I found this article interesting and wonder if we will see the likes of P&Y or B&C issuing a statement.

SCI Position on Fenced Hunting & Fair Chase

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The North American Hunting Preserves - Fair Chase Standards

May 2006

Recreational hunting and the concept of “fair chase” has been linked for as long as recreational hunting has existed. However, the terms and conditions of what constitutes “fair chase” when hunting is conducted within a high fenced area has never been fully or clearly defined.

SCI believes that the following conditions must be met, or exceeded, in order for the concept of “fair chase” to apply for hunting mammals within high fenced areas in North America:

· The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer.
· The hunting property shall provide escape cover that allows the animals to elude hunters for extended periods of time and multiple occurrences. Escape cover, in the form of rugged terrain or topography, and/or dense thickets or stands of woods, shall collectively comprise at least 50% of the property.
· The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property.
· The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.
· Animals that are to be hunted must exhibit their natural flight/survival instincts.
· No zoo animals, exhibited animals or tame animals are to be hunted.
· No hunting or selling of hunting rights to a specified animal.
· Hunting methods employed cannot include driving, herding or chasing animals to awaiting hunters.
· Every effort must be made to utilize all meat commonly consumed from a taken animal.

The minimum amount of land necessary to meet these requirements varies by region, terrain and habitat type. Setting a standard minimum area is unlikely to be realistic. However, SCI recommends that state/provincial wildlife management agencies work with the operators and the hunting community within their area to establish specific regulations to guide the operation of hunting preserves.

[ncboman]

I agree. Members of SCI tend to be very well heeled, far and away a different class than my meager hunting means allows.

While I almost gag at the thought of such definition, I guess it's time has come and actually I'm kinda glad, mostly for my own greedy reasons.

SCI hunters tend to be big on Africa and large exotics, which is fine by me. I think the more big money is diverted away from whitetails, the longer my style of hunting will survive.

That they pursue to clean up their yard is a good idea as none of us want the overall sport hurt by unethical canned hunt operations.

[freedomrules3]

so they are basically backing high fence hunting as ethical and fair chase. this sorta makes me scratch my head . i guess they feel a need to backup some of what most of their members do.
my thoughts are that most of the so called experts who hunt urban and penned deer wouldnt stand a chance in a wild setting with unfamiliar territory. i'd love to see some give it a try on some of the places i hunt or have hunted. kinda makes ya wonder who the real experts really are, the guy who pays to hunt bountiful land with pets or someone who roughs it and starts from scratch

anyone can pay for a hunt with guarenteed success .... only a certain few can get it done without feeders or some other means to attract the deer to their doorstep ;D. I'll stick with the way i hunt and wouldnt back an organization that condones high fence hunting of any sort.

[Twanger]

freedomrules3 said:

my thoughts are that most of the so called experts who hunt urban and penned deer wouldnt stand a chance in a wild setting with unfamiliar territory.

Most of their hunts in the 'wild' seem pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel.

I've never seen an African SCI-sponsored hunt that didn't follow this script:

PH - There's a fine looking animal.
Hunter - (looks behind him) Where?
PH - (Still facing forward) There. (points) Third bull from the back. Here, use my shooting sticks. Get ready. Wait for him to clear the others. Range is about 100 meters. Safety off? Steady! Ok, take him.
Hunter - Blam.
PH - Fine shot.
Hunter - Wonderful hunt! (looks at watch) Time for tea!

This is so different from the way I hunt, they might as well be hunting on Mars.

[Buckfever]

"This is so different from the way I hunt, they might as well be hunting on Mars. "

LOL

[shoreman]

· The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.

We call those animals "pets" around here.

[ncboman]

You guys sound like a bunch a 2yr old whiney hineys, refusing to even look at viable options that may keep the antihunters at bay.

Unless you have pockets enough to buy all the land in the US, fenced operations are a fact and are here to stay. Ignoring and belittling will not change anything other than opinions regarding your narrow position.

As to the comment about SCI hunters not being able to cut it on 'wild' deer, I'm quite sure you wouldn't want some of these guys converging on Worcester County to hunt every day while we work. The SCI hunters on tv shows are the small minority as it is a big organization and at least some of the members can hunt as well as anyone.

Am I for high fenced operations? Absolutely not.

Do I understand that they will exist regardless? Yes

Given that high fenced operations do exist, why is it so difficult to at least acknowledge some resemblence to fair chase be regulated into the game?

No one is proposing these animals be allowed into the P&Y Club records so it's not a personal threat to what I hold value in however the way they(SCI) conduct themselves may play a part in how ALL hunters are regulated. To that end, I'm all for them cleaning their own house.

Some could argue that the eastern shore is a high fence operation, fenced in by water; a perfect place to lease up the land, release African game into, and charge big bucks to hunt.

As I stated in the beginning, I'm glad these guys are more exotic game driven and I'm all for them going that route and leaving the whitetails for us. I think some consideration of the overall situation is in order. Much of the public land on the lower eastern shore was previously leased by clubs and if big money came into the picture, I'm almost sure it could go that way again with money hungry politicians involved.

I'd say, be careful what you try to outlaw or those affected may be hunting behind your house in the future ... and posting us out.

[BillCartwright]

The part I found real funny about this statement SCI made is that the thing pretty much contadicts itself from the get go. Now correct me if I am wrong but does this;

"The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer"

not contradict this;

"The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property"

To me the first statement supports an animal being purchased and moved behind a fence for the purpose of killing. I guess once moved in with other animals it could be consider part of a breeding herd, but still.

I'm not even sure why they would make a statement. I know it was likely made because SCI recognizes how and what most of their members hunt, african game, exotics and high fenced ranches which attracts most of the attention from the likes of PETA and other anti-hunting organizations.

I'd rather kill a 90" buck on public land than a 200" grain and mineral fed giant any day.

[ncboman]

I assume they propose that an animal living in an area for 6 months has time to become familiar with escape routes, etc, before hunting begins.

The 'part of a breeding herd' inclusion confuses me a little.

[BillCartwright]

I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish with the statements made. Cleaning house may be the best way to describe it.

I know that hunting behind fences is here to stay, as I think most hunters are aware. Best I can figure is SCI making this statement was a way for them to say the way most of their members hunt is okay because this is their belief/stance on "Fair Chase" standards, while covering the "Canned/Penned" hunt is unacceptable in a couple of their statements.

As seen in Indiana during the last 12 months or so, I think we will see many states step up and put on the books what is acceptable and unaccpetalbe in the way of hunting operations. Call it the Jimmy Houston rule. I was glad to see that SCI supported that wildlife agencies stay involved with the oversight and regulation of this particular industry. Just this year on the ballot in Kentucky, game management was on the ballot in regards to whether it stayed within the KDFWR or if it should become part of the agriculture department. I cringe when I think about our deer herds being managed by the ag department.

[Rock Chuck]

I just can't get too excited about high fence 'hunting' as long as it's recognized as not real hunting. Pen raised deer are a farm crop, just like cattle. If a guy wants to pay a few grand to shoot someone's cow, it's his business. I don't have a problem with a farmer taking money from some dork and letting him shoot his livestock.

Look at it this way. If a guy pays several $K to hunt a high fence, he's not going to outbid you for your lease where he might have to work for his antlers. Consider it a reduction in competition.

Dick

[ncboman]

rockchuck said:

I just can't get too excited about high fence 'hunting' as long as it's recognized as not real hunting.
Dick

Well, ... that's debate material.

It may not fit within P&Y guidelines but surely you acknowledge there are SOME high fence ranches where the hunting itself is just as real as anyplace. Some of the ranches in south Tx offer no guarantees.

[Rock Chuck]

I've never hunted in TX so all I know is hearsay. But, no matter how big the ranch, the game in TX is still privately owned as far as I know. That makes it livestock in a manner of speaking. The rancher can still charge a fee whether it's guaranteed or not. He can still import breeding stock whether it's a whitetail or a hereford. It's just a matter of how he chooses to slaughter his animals, by butcher or by shooter.

Dick

[ncboman]

rockchuck said:

I've never hunted in TX so all I know is hearsay. But, no matter how big the ranch, the game in TX is still privately owned as far as I know. That makes it livestock in a manner of speaking. The rancher can still charge a fee whether it's guaranteed or not. He can still import breeding stock whether it's a whitetail or a hereford. It's just a matter of how he chooses to slaughter his animals, by butcher or by shooter.

Dick

Everything you posted there applies to free range animals as well as those behind fences. Are you suggesting there is no fair chase hunting in Texas at all because of who is perceived as owning the game?

You imply the ranchers can slaughter any or all their deer at will just like livestock. I submit it easier said than done. ;D

[Twanger]

ncboman said:

You imply the ranchers can slaughter any or all their deer at will just like livestock. I submit it easier said than done. ;D

Ha! Ain't that the truth. I hunted a 330 acre ranch in Texas for 4 days a few years ago and the rancher was telling me about this and that monster buck, but I never actually saw any of the big bucks. I was the only one hunting the ranch, and it hadn't been hunted that year, so I can't blame hunting pressure. I did take a young 7 pointer on the last day, but it was a consolation prize. Deer behind fences can certainly make themselves scarce when they want to.