


June 27, 2007
Exclusive Interview: Ted Nugent on High Fence Hunting
By Dave Hurteau & Chad Love
Simply put, is high fence hunting, "hunting?
Of course, if all the factors of escape and stealth are in play. Terrain, size, layout,
balanced animal populations, the very conditions that determine quality hunting
anywhere determine the quality of the experience, fenced or unfenced. The easiest deer I've ever killed were whitetails in Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota, due to these universal truisms, but lack of hunting pressure. Conversely, the most difficult deer I have yet to kill are found on my own SpiritWild Ranch in central Texas where for the last 21 days, I haven't killed jack squat. Go figure.
Does high fence hunting degrade the heritage of American hunting and the notion of fair chase, and respect for wildlife and the quarry?
There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions. There are those small minded individuals, a lunatic fringe if you will, that think many forms of legal hunting "degrade the heritage of American hunting." To their way of thinking, in-line muzzleloaders degrade our reputation. They consider scopes on same, treestands, compound bows, crossbows, deer drives, women afield, ad nauseam, as unethical methodologies. I've heard some real doozies out there and don't know whether to laugh or cry, they are so divisive and unsophisticated. I pray they become educated.
Do you personally prefer to hunt in enclosures or in the wild?
I prefer to hunt, period, and shall more and more each year everyplace I possibly can. I am a hunter.
Does the ready availability, for a price, of "monster bucks" in high fences affect the experience of hunting in the wild for those who cannot pay, or would not, hunt a high fence preserve?
Does the "ready availability" of monster bucks on open ground in Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Washington, or wherever they clearly flourish, change the dynamic of the overall "real" hunting experience? Of course not. Does hiring a guide in Alaska to hunt the mighty grizzly bear affect the experience? It is simply how it is, and I cannot imagine finding fault with any of it. Supply and demand, free choice, private property rights, good old American capitalism and entrepreneurialism are beautiful things.
Is high fence hunting in places like Idaho, or Colorado, where there are lots of public hunting opportunities, inappropriate? What about if the high fences block wild big game migration corridors or where domestic big game pose a disease threat to wild game herds?
Private property rights, supply and demand, freedom of choice, sustained yield and individual preference are the guiding forces in the America where I come from. Everybody knows that CWD & bovine TB are a direct result of our all-knowing government bureaucrats messing things up way back in 1967 and beyond. No believable evidence has ever been produced linking these diseases to fences.
Why do you or people that you know choose to hunt enclosed big game animals, rather than hunting in the wild? Is there a difference? In perception? in reality? (I know that you do hunt in the wild a great deal).
I gotta tell ya, your questions are loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias, almost as if you represented ABC news and its hippie dope smoking antihunting "journalists." That is quite a letdown coming from what was once a highly respected American hunting family magazine. I guide and outfit and hunt with 100s of great American hunters each fall with my Sunrize Safaris operation, and I am absolutely confident when I share with you that my hunters hunt every imaginable legal hunting we can find. We truly love it all.
I know that hunters need to stand together in the face of the anti-hunting forces. But I also see that those anti-hunting forces are given a great deal of fuel by pointing to "canned hunting" as a reason to attacks us. Do high fence operations create a public perception that hunting is just about killing, not about the experience of hunting and the conservation of wild game and wild places?
With all due respect, you don't know anyone who connects with a more or wider cross section of America in a public forum than I do each year. With my dedication to take the battle to the enemies' own trenches, I've conducted literally thousands of media interviews annually for more than 40 years; talkradio, newsradio, rock, sports, humor, everything from the BBC, Larry King and Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern and Bob and Tom, cooking wildgame with Dana Carvey and John Ritter on Conan O'Brian and David
Letterman. In these unprecedented mass media arenas the dialog and communication has been over-the-top positive in every instance because I don't back down nor compromise my absolutist stand on hunting, fishing, trapping and the 2nd Amendment. The antis are clearly a lunatic fringe that represent the laughing stock to ma & pa America. They are out to ban all hunting, and to be gullible and unsophisticated enough to think that giving up or joining them in condemning any single hunting methodology is pathetically out of touch. I implore you to ignore them. I consider the Troy Gentry/Cubby the Bear shooting incident an anomaly, but anti-hunters will love it. Does it indicate that somewhere, high fence hunting needs to develop some standards? The embarrassing Gentry incident is remembered by no one, except Troy. I read nearly all the reports back when it happened. Not only were "fences" not mentioned, the entire incident didn't even quality as a blip on the radar. A big zero.
Is there a high fence hunting experience that you personally would feel is objectionable? A place too small? Animals too tame? Where do we draw the lines? One of my best interviews concerns the "meeting place between livestock and hunting" Any thoughts on this?
Personally objectionable, yes. Too small -- of course. Too tame -- of course. Again, I repeat, though the word "tame" has never come into play, the calmest animals I have ever hunted were free ranging whitetails in Illinois where there was near zero hunting pressure. Would I do that again? Hell yeah!
Do you feel that the many high fence operations in existence now, and the growing numbers of them, represent a "privatization" of the hunting experience, as in Europe, and does that pose a threat to the "public resource" idea of wild big game that is a cornerstone of the unique American model of wildlife restoration and conservation?
Nope. All private hunting in America whether fenced or nonfenced is controlled by private landowners. America is blessed with vast public grounds, and I do wish the hunting industry and community would put forth the proper effort to open up every square inch of majestic big game country currently owned by "we the people" instead of the vulgar anti-American corruption currently in place where soulless bureaucrats
continue to charge American tax payers to hire killers of our game where we are not allowed to utilize it properly. That should be Job One for F&S and every sporting concern in America right now.
Is this controversy over high fence hunting operations going to have a negative effect on American hunting? Will more high fence operations make hunting in the wild less attractive? Make conservation of wild lands and habitat seem less important? Will it become the norm (it seems far more accepted now than it used to be)? What are the implications of that?
No. The powerful heart of the American hunter and adventurer is alive and well in this great land. Recruitment of this instinct in our young people is the most important guarantee for the future of conservation and the environment. My own Ted Nugent Kamp for Kids and its amazing volunteers have been doing just that for 20-plus years. SCI, NRA, NWTF, RMEF, DU, Delta Waterfowl, FNAWS, 4H, FFA, National Archery in Schools programs, NSSF, NFAA, and every sporting org out there are upgrading their mentorship programs and finally reaching out to more and more young Americans outside our sporting community. It is thrilling to note that my various TV productions, Surviving Nugent, Wanted Ted Or Alive, SuperGroup, and Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild have all achieved top ratings on not only OLN, CMT, and The Outdoor Channel, but wonderfully top-rated on the anti's networks of VH1 and MTV, every show celebrating, defending my gungho hunting, fishing,trapping, shooting lifestyle.
Comments (111)
i dont really agree with the high fence hunting at all, but the game ranches that have very little hunting pressure is free game baby
Studies have shown that may species travel over 7 miles in certain areas, high fences impede this "natural" behavior. These animals go where you allow, eat what you provide, you are ultimately raising livestock. Hunting has always been advantage to the prey, it is a true hunters goal to outsmart the game, high fences require the game to outsmart the hunter.What has happen to tradition? Is this a sign of the times, the Wal-Mart mentality of bigger, better, faster with less effort? Some of my best times in the field have ended without a shot fired.High fences are a disgrace to the hunters before us and a dangerous precedent to pass down to our children. These fences are the lines that separates hunters and killer, some love hunting, some love killing...
Want to know what this guy is really about? go to:www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/NEWS/605280336/1015/EDUCATION05By the way, I think he is an asshloe!
Want to know what this guy is really about? go to:www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/NEWS/605280336/1015/EDUCATION05By the way, I think he is an asshloe!
Fences? If someone feeds deer in an area where there isn't enough food or water to support more then a few deer and that herds numbers grow, you won't need fences to keep them around. They become canned by their own need for survival.
What amazes me is how ANYONE could think that Ted Nugent helps the cause of hunting by speaking on its behalf. This guy is an extremist nutball, and no, I'm not talking about hunting here. Among many other things, he's an extreme racist, and a borderline pedophile. He's made threatening comments about democratically elected officials--comments which would land any left-wing singer in jail in no time. He's called the troops who served in Vietnam "hippies." I could go on and on, but I won't. The issue of high-fence hunting is almost irrelevant here. The fact is that this guy hurts any cause that he supports.
Alright, so I read through this whole thing. And I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. First off my property is my property. My blood, sweat and tears provided land for myself and my family. For the same price I could have bought a small lot in a former whitetail heaven that was destroyed to build 50 houses. I made the choice where to live like many of those did who tresspass on my property did. I raise whitetails under strict government guidelines to ensure only the healthiest of animals can be sold and transported disease free. I sell to a 5000 acre ranch that is all premium whitetail habitat. How many people can say they hunt 5000 acres of prime habitat. Most in my part of the country hunt less than 100 and that is spaced out by houses and development. What is easier.........pinning down a deer to shoot in 5000 acres or 100? Fence or no fence the deer still need habitat. We pen animals everyday and slaughter them. We eat meat and meat has to be raised. Have you seen where your commercial livestock for McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Arbys, ect come from. These animals do not live the comfortable lives as the deer that are raised on our ranches. Men like MR. TED are hammered non stop just to get a rise and a story out of selfish magazines like this one. Is F&S going to join PETA next and contend all hunting? These ranches have made it possible for the guy who bought the house on a lot, rather than on his own land, to be able to hunt like the man who manages his own land. Simply put, we make our own choices in life. Don't bash a fellow sportsman for taking his own path!
Seems like a lot of you argue the definition of hunting. IE the pursuing and/or taking of game. BY that definition, high fenced hunting is hunting. Try asking a game warden. Seems like more of you do not understand much about the home ranges of the animals that you hunt. Many, in fact, the majority of them have home ranges of under a few square miles... Whitetail deer have a home range of around 300-400 acres. Ted's defense of the high fence seems offensive to a lot of you, and all of the PETA types. Personally, the high fence does bring some real advantages... IE... fewer poachers, fewer hunters per square mile, and a more controlled environment where animals can be fed a complete diet for their entire lives. A 170 whitetail has a chance to get to be 170 if the hunters will let him live to be 4.5 years old, although with high priced genetics, you can shave a year or 2 off of that. Point, most hunters would rather take a spike or forked horn than not get a deer. The high fence can resolve that by NOT taking young deer, but letting them thrive until they are older.Finally, my high fence went up when I found out how many animals i was losing to poachers. I was in a stand with my son when a scum poacher walked up the meadow, cussed me out,and threatened me. The game warden would not even take a report until I spent $7 a foot for 10 miles of high fence. Now he definitely will come over if I find evidence of poaching. My deer ( I did buy high quality stock) are older, healthier and in much better shape. I am certain that many here would fault me for the fence and for hunting inside my ten miles of fence, but a lot of you hunt "landlocked" deer without a problem. And a lot of you fish in stocked lakes without a problem. Seems like the fight should be with the anti's, and not over the semantics of what is "hunting." And I completely agree with the post above about the difficulty of hunting a 6.5 year old deer. We have deer taken almost every year that we have never seen before.Finally, please spend the $1.5M for land and another $300,000 for a fence to keep out ILLEGAL hunting, or spent an equal amount in perserving habitat in the way that you prefer before slamming the land owner that is protecting his property and exercising a legal and ethical way of hunting.
I amthe 5th generation owner of land that has ben in our family since the 1840's. My grandfather farmed some, raised cattle, goats and sheep. I am in the process of high fenceing the 1378 acres as we speak. with livestock prices being what they are, there is only one way for me to make the land pay and that is to high fence it and raise deer. There is no way that anyone in my area can manage buck deer to get them to that majic 6.5 yr mark on a low fenced place because the other landowners shoot them at 2.5 yrs old. The fence that I am building is to keep my neighbors out, not to keep the deer in. Most of you people speaking that anti high fence crap have never been there. I would bet that most of you have never hunted a high fence ranch and possibilly never hunted at all. I promise the 6.5 yr old bucks that we sell are much harder to harvest than any deer of less age anywhere. Alot of you are speaking from ignorance which is a bad place to begin any aurgument as you are sure to loose. Let Fredom ring, if you have the nerve and are not operating from a total state of igorance. You Go Ted!!!!!!
to sally with all respect shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about the right to bear arms only as protection...how the hell do you think our ancestors got food...they hunted for it...or murdered it....as you would say. hunting is not just some sport it is a way of life for thousands. i truly pray that GOD would put some common sence in your head before you speak on this topic again. without hunting our animals could not survive...the heards would not function proplally...hunting is a means of conservation at it's best as well as a means of gathereing and harvesting food. without hunting eachyear my family could not live...we save thousands of dollars on food thanks to the harvesting of big game animals. nothing is wasted and there are laws to ensure that...the wanton waste act prevents any hunter from wasting any eadiable portion of any game animal and those who ignore this law and kill animals jsut for sport wasting meat are a disgrace to our sport and name and should be cahrged for murder in my opionon either eat what you kill or donate it to a local charity or don't kill anything at all. so read up adn learn the facts before you speak up. thank you. also i can find no where in the bible where god condomes hunting if it were a sin he would have offered another means of collecting food for our ancestors!!! so don't try and use this as a argument it won't work...my pastor is a more avid hunter than me. adn we have spent hours researching this topic... so don't use it anymore...thank you.
untell recently i have felt high fence hunting to be a disgrace to hunting as well but through research and talking with high fence hunters have now found it to be just as or more challenging than hunting in the wild...given the right circumstances...i must agree with the nuge on all of this debate. i know if i had a ranch like ted's in texas i sure as hell would not think twice about hunting it. the only way to hunt exotic game in the states is on high fence ranches...and it is much cheaper than going all the way to their home land in africa or australia etc. so i say power to all you who do hunt high fence...it brings awarnece to our cause and sport and if people would stop being so ignoranta adn do their homwork before saying somethind we wouldn't be having this debate....know what you are talking about and know the facts before you speak or don't say anything at all.
Tom,a man-made lake or pond that has been stocked with fish is exactly the same as fenced in animals. They are placed there to be fished for. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just making the comparison. It has nothing to do with fish living out of water, there is water that is not in man-made reservoirs, or obstructed by dams and the fish naturally evolved there. I have to concede and agree with you on your meat eating friends that choose not to hunt and don't look down on others for hunting. I respect those people too as it is there choice and they also respect my choice. My target was the ones that choose not to hunt and also deny me my choice to hunt yet they still eat domestic farm raised meats.
this ted nut guy is a nut. HE IS ADDICTED TO THE POWER AND MURDERING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS. HE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY A PSYCHIATRIT, I SEE THIS STARTED IN HIS CHILDHOOD, HE ALSO NEEDS A PRIEST TO RELEASE HIS DEMONS. i DONT THINK HE has the right to be cruel to our animals, he needs to be educated. the bible teaches that a just man is kind to his animals. the 2nd amendment was not intended for this purpose. rt to bear arms is for protection of oneself and he is going to need it if i ever run into him.
this ted nut guy is a nut. HE IS ADDICTED TO THE POWER AND MURDERING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS. HE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY A PSYCHIATRIT, I SEE THIS STARTED IN HIS CHILDHOOD, HE ALSO NEEDS A PRIEST TO RELEASE HIS DEMONS. i DONT THINK HE has the right to be cruel to our animals, he needs to be educated. the bible teaches that a just man is kind to his animals. the 2nd amendment was not intended for this purpose. rt to bear arms is for protection of oneself and he is going to need it if i ever run into him.
This will be my last post. I cannot take the ignorance here any longer. I was away for a week and a half and buried my 18 year old dog yesterday. My brother and I did it together and it was the hardest thing I have ever done. I have buried far too many people in my 33 years and this was the worst. I will no longer try to convince you people of something you will never see.A dog is the most loyal thing on the planet. The only thing it cares about; besides eating and a few scratches here and there, is to please his or her master. That makes them totally unique on this planet. They do not have contempt in their heart. Only love, unless a gutless human changes that.There are three types of people.One type hates animals, or couldn't care less about them at all.The second type cares a little, but says they are just animals, or fish or bugs.The third type sees that all things should be given respect.Many of you fall into the third category.Now call me an idiot, an anti-hunter or whatever you please. I care not because my eyes have been opened much wider than any of you will ever know. I am totally appeased. Good bye.TomHunter & Animal Lover
high fence hunting is just that...hunting,till the space becomes to small then it's selective meat shopping,target practice,hunting tune up, call it what you will,there is nothing wrong with it.Are you kidding me? Wow, thats a wonderfull point. Hunting tune up? Meat shopping? We would all be better served if guys like you just didn't speak...period
Hey ever hunted in CA. Well there isn't much roaming space .Texas well they have 1000 of ac. inclosed ever see the terrain?There nothing wrong with Ted or myself or anyother hunter.Get real.Our hunting lands are being taken away from us worry about that.I'm a CA. it's getting worse try it with polosy and boxer and fienstien in your state.
F&SI sincerely believe big media is just that...BIG. The behind the seens owners are not for the outdoorsman such as Ted and Jim.I hunted one time behind high fence and the kill was too easy.That will be my last. Now I must lead with Boone & Crockett Club as a hunter/sportsman.I will not condemn those that hunt high fence. We have a greater call from our Creator that requires a moral and ethical way to hunt and harvest game.We need men of all walks to stand for our God given rights as free people. F&S needs to keep to hunting and fishing and NOT to big media anti-sportsman questions. Come on here....we folks that follow the media were not born yesterday. Who runs your board of directors anyway?Let us not be at each other heels. Strive together as a nation of FREE PEOPLE.
I see lots of anti hunters and peta heads are here !Bless us for we have TED[The NUGE] NugentKill and grill it ==BABY!!!
high fence hunting is just that...hunting,till the space becomes to small then it's selective meat shopping,target practice,hunting tune up, call it what you will,there is nothing wrong with it. the anti's are driving the wedge at this spot.the next battle if this method is stopped is hunting with dogs? bows? modern ammo?the tree hugging spinich eating anti's wont stop til its all banned.I'm a recreational beaver trapper and hunter.the last of the mohegans.all hunting is our RIGHT AS AMERICANS.
I have a question for ted - What then is your position on hunting via a computer from a livign room somewhere? I am a diehard hunter and trapper and I don't mean to whine as you say but this is one method I cannot endorse. Just curious.
HSUS IS VERY ACTIVE IN COLORADO!SPORTSMEN NEED TO UNITE AND FIGHT!I was at a meeting with them the other day. Even they said, "this is only the first step"! Believe it.
Humane Society of the United States is planning to progress with a ballot initiative in "08 (of course the same year as the general election and highest voter turnout) to outlaw what they so affectionatly call "canned hunts", or what F&S so affectionately calls "high fence hunting". Two peas in a pod as far as I am concerned. Sportsmen with friends like that... who needs enemies? Extremeist organizations like these are chipping away at not only hunting, but free enterprise. These ranchers are many times supplementing their income in this way because extremist's are making it harder and harder for them to make a living in animal agriculture. Allow me to again cite the HSUS and their efforts to force a farm animal confinement initiaitve down our thoats in '08.It is all sickening to me. I would be curious what a former cattle rancher turned game rancher would say to the same questions. I have alot of respect for The Nuge and agree with him on about everything. Just the same he lives in a different world than the common folks that are busting their tails to provide for their family.Thanks for nothing F&S... I knew there was a reason I stopped reading it years ago... Turns out i was right. I went to Fur Fish and Game. Now that is a real magazine with good information for real outdoorsmen!
Ethical hunting methods mean differnt things to differnt people.Ethics and morals are passed down from generation to generation. To some hunters, if its legal, its ethical. To others, if its morally right then its ethical.I would never take part in a canned hunt but I would hunt a high fenced ranch if it was big enough and I could afford to. But at the same time, I would not shoot a deer standing under a feeder at dinner time on a high fenced ranch either.I like Ted but I do have differing opinions on some issues with him. Im not saying he is wrong or right, Im saying I have a differnt opinion.To each there own. remember you morals.
Some think high fence hunting is alright as long as it's on 6,000 or more, but the fact remains that the wild game will remain within the fences. Yes, it will take much longer (if at all) to locate a trophy on large acerages, and yes one well might not realize fences were erected, yet the fact remains that game are restricted, be it a large or small area. To me it's just not the same. So far as the idea of keeping game within your own boundries to prevent adjoining land owners from harvesting "your" bucks doesn't hold water. Fences keep game in; they do not keep intruders out, especially on large acerage! If you manage your deer and crops correctly they will tend to stay put on large properties. Our hunting club leases 2,400 acres and manages winter and spring food plots. The deer basically stay put, but if they roam to other property, so what? This is part of hunting. I can agree that some partial fencing might be appropriate to keep wild hogs out, but why fence the whole area? Better yet, publically advertise a no limit, and free hog hunt between seasons.Did you hear about the young boy who killed a 1,052 pound "wild"hog here in Alabama? It was hunted on fenced property consisting of only 150 acres. It turned out the hog was domestic and was purchased from another family for breeding and "possibly hunting." The cost of the hunt: $1,500.00. I don't fault the young boy; he didn't know any better than what his father told him, but the father knew better. This IS NOT HUNTING! It gives all ethical hunters a bad name as well as Alabama.Hunting fenced property doesn't help our standing with the ant-hunting liberals who are spending thousands of dollars to end hunting. I think we should let this be our guide on determining the need for high fences rather than assured trophy hunting. And to those who advocate that "meat hunting" justifies fencing, do you not know that does are available anywhere, especially before the hunting pressure increases? Learn how to hunt! I like Ted and see some of his points, but lets be united for the sake of insuring our hunting heritage. Stay away from high fencing, if for no other reason but to deny the anti-hunting liberals a foothold!
For or against are opinons, and everybody has different ones. If you really read the artical then you should have noticed that he didnt REALLY say one way or the other. He simply stated the facts that it is leagl, and property owners have the right to a high fence. Whether we agree with certain things or not, we have to look at the big picture and choose our words carfully. If we dont, and the antis come across what has been said, then they will take that as ammunition and get away with what ever they can. Ted is doing a great job of protecting what we love. There are not many of us that have his vocabulary and the balls to stand up and say what needs to be said.LOVE YA TED!!! I LOVE WHAT YOU DO FOR THE AMERICAN OUTDOORSMAN.
Ok, so here we go is it right or not? Well its all in the eye of the beholder ! Personaly its not REAL hunting if its a farm. But the problems that I run into are that the deer move into totally unpressured areas that the antis own, and there they stay for the season,but its not only the antis that keep people out its also land owners that have had negative expieriences with dumb ass hunters that don't respect the wishes of the land owners. Instead of babbling on about who hunts with what mabey just lean over and smack that one dumb ass who u know that has messed up a good hunting spot for u. There is no doubt that we have to stick together no matter our opinions. And F&S who's side r u on this article is deffintley put a question mark in my mind if I will renew my subscription. Please help us don't hurt us!!!!!!!!!
I have hunted for forty years. I can go to the same spot on my 52 acres and find the same buck year after year. He knows I'm coming well before I get there, and eludes me time after time. They have put radio collars on deer and the ones who survive season to season move the least. You can be thirty yards from a mature buck and he will not move and you will never know he's there. It is their bedroom, dining room and living room and they know every inch. 500 acres is huge. My cousin owns a 500 acre farm in Michigan and we know every buck, but killing one after the first gun goes off at sunrise on opening day is another story. Everyone is friends until opening day and then nobody talks to each other. Stay on your side of the fence is the motto. Fenced in or not, it is still hunting... Ted, you rock!
True, the high fence means the animal can't escape the enclosed area. But if you're talking about several hundred acres with good cover, it can certainly elude you. I've hunted some of these and usually as soon as you get a glimps of the animals they're gone. Then you spend several hours trying to locate them again only to immediatly get busted again. It CAN be very difficult. I've also seen some examples of very easy hunting in high-fenced ranches.I basically boils down to is a good operator can set you up for as challenging of hunting as you want. Remember that hunting is very different to different people. Me, I like it all.
This is amazing stuff. It's nice to see Nugent exposed for what he is - anti-conservation and anti-wild habitat.But don't take my word for it. You can read Nugents anti-wildlands rant in his congressional testimony here:http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/resources/hii41004.000/hii41004_0.HTMNugent has been anti-wild and pro-high fence hunting for years.His position hangs like a dark cloud over the entire sport of hunting.
I am honestly surprised in a good way that so many people disagree with Ted Nugent. This guy is should never be considered a hunting "spokesman". And for everyone that wants to cancel their F&S subscription-fine. Todays hunting is a changing world. Nowdays hunters are not all racist, closeminded fanatical right wingers who want to control their lands like dictators. The hunter of today is more of a moderate and far more intellectual than of yesterday. Todays hunter lives on 1/4 acre and realizes that we don't live in an all or nothing black and white world.
How many of you narrow interest hunters, who want to see restrictions and boundaries on what other hunters do, eat hamburger you bought at a restaurant or eat meat from the grocery store?Where DO you draw the line on how your table meat is obtained?I grew up on a farm. We'd take calves, name them, raise them, train them to lead, show them at fairs, then kill, butcher and eat them. Killing animals is where meat comes from.Time for some of you to get off your high horses and barbeque them.
If it's legal and something you want to do go for it!if it's not for you fine.united we stand,divided we fall!WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
Lets talk EthicalHow bout when Ted took that 100 yard shot on the spanish goat in Hawaii, running shot even. Hot Damn, that was cool.100 yard shots for everyoneEspecially within an enclosure, they you may find the wounded animal.Teds the best!
Everyone here should read Brian Preston's post today. The middle paragraph is the best thing anyone has said so far. It is exactly what we should all recognize.Kick ass Brian. You are 100% right.
Ted,If you can honestly say that you would see no difference in taking your child to hunt on gameland, or vast un-fenced private acreage, from taking them on a fenced in hunt of any kind you have lost your mind.You basically say in your answers to the questions asked by F&S, THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. IS THAT HOW THE OTHERS ON THIS BLOG FEEL.IS THERE NO DIFFERENCE. DO YOU NOT PREFER ONE OVER THE OTHER, AND IF SO, IS THE ONLY REASON BIGGER ANTLERS OR HORNS? PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER HONESTLY.
So, honestly thoughtful,If something is legal then it is morally right huh? If something is legal it could never be proven to be negative and then made illegal. You people should think before you type. Is there nothing ''legal'' you find repulsive?Someone please use some facts and thought to tell me how honest debate over something ''opens the door for peta''.Seriously. You guys keep screaming that, but no one offers anything at all useful to substantiate the remark. Stop making comments without anything to back it up.I think that showing that some hunters want to see some things changed shows peta that there are better and brighter minds than those of you who say ''love it or leave it'' or ''if it is legal it is ok'' This also shows them there are people out there who will honestly debate them and do what our country is known for...Debate, council, more debate and then legislation. If all you have is the same few words and repeating that something is legal, you have already lost.Your arguments are weak and exactly the opposite of what we need. Sure you can say peta will see divisiveness, but there is divisiveness in every matter on the planet.Here is a tip for those of you who get mad and type the first thing that comes to your mind.When you read something that makes you mad, here is the most important thing you can do. Get off your axx and walk away from your cpu. Then think a while, then when the anger subsides, come back and type. If all you have to say is the same negative, ignorant bullshxx. Go back to school and re-educate yourselves.
How a person 'hunts' is up to that person so long as no laws and no one's rights are violated. Bashing any hunting leads to the demise of all hunting, it's opening the door a little more for PETA and HSUS to get in and ban hunting one step at a time- remember that- and when in some states wolves eat what's left of the wild game, ranches may be the only place where herds can be seen or replenished. So much misinformation about game farms is sad- very sad- all of it!
Furthermore,Dave,I know many non-hunters, fortunatley they are not hippocrats that eat farmed meat and look down upon people that hunt for their meat; and I have no resentment towards them at all.The only non-hunters I have a problem with are those that eat meat or products with meat in them and look down their noses at those of us that choose to hunt for our food. They simply hire someone to do their dirty work.Try debating with those that believe differently than you, to some common ground; instead of branding them right off as this or that.Oh, and ''fat celled little minds''Dude, I eat meat everyday and that makes no sense either.
DAVE,UNTIL FISH CAN LIVE OUT OF WATER YOUR ARGUMENT THERE IS TERRIBLY WEAK AT BEST. Fencing animals is in no way comparable to fish in a lake. And to the remark about non-hunters ''trying not to eat for awhile.''What?That makes even less sense.Do they not eat?That is the worst take I have seen yet. Please try to explain that one.
First off, why would anyone want to listen to anything Ted Nugent has to say?He has to have his imbecils from his pay per view web site to "vote for ted" on the Outdoor Channel Golden Moose Awards for favorite hunting show. He can't be voted on like others that deserve it, they have to promote it on his web site to go and vote for him.He and his wife has to have his imbecils from his pay per view web site bash the NRA because they don't have a banner hung up with Teds picture on it like other celebrities. Call them, write them, email them, if no results threaten them with membership.The so called "father of the year" in Michigan, preaching family values, all the while fathering a child with a New Hampshire woman while married to his wife Shemane.Why in the world would anyone listen to this lunitic? Unless you enjoy racist comments, filthy language and old and tired cliches.YOWZA, THE BEAST IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE BEAST, CHIMPS & WHORES, EAT ME, SUB CHIMPS.Ted, you are a walking and talking embarrasment.
"this has to qualify as the dumbest statement made"Whatever. My statement is based in English and American common law. Open access to *unposted* private property is the standard in most states. It doesn't give rights to minerals, water, or trees, but fauna are public property. Look in your state's G&F laws if you doubt it.The question then becomes, does a private landowner have the *right* to deny anyone access to public property when the person hunting that "property" has obtained a license that permits hunting. IMO the answer is "no."Just because you own a hunk of ground does not mean you get to control access to same or to resources on it. It's true for water rights, it's true for mineral rights, and it's (morally anyhow) true for hunting.BTW, I'm not saying you should not be allowed to post your land. Go for it, but if you post your land so that you can prevent others from accessing publically owned resources, you should not be allowed to access them either.I also happen to agree with Nugent, despite the fact that he is not the best representative for these sorts of issues. I don't have a problem with High Fence. I am convinced that bad management practices rather than the Fences themselves can cause CWD. This is true of pretty much all livestock industries. That is why free ranging bison sometimes get brucillosis from livestock."i have a very small place - 28 acres - with hunters on three sides. it makes no difference the food plots i put out because by the end of opening weekend a large percentage of the deer i have been feeding have been shot by adjacent hunters."Too bad. Those deer do not belong to you. You have no right to privileged access, IMO."if i had the available money i would fence my little place just to give myself and my wife an opportunity to shoot one of the deer we feed all summer. unfair and unsportsman like?"I would not call it unfair or unsportsmanlike. I do think that if you want exclusive access to deer you should high fence your land and raise deer domestically. The free ranging ones do not belong to you. They belong to every citizen in your state."call it what you want but with the amount of hunting pressure in some areas it is not just a matter of putting in the time, it just comes down to pure luck as to whether a deer is even going to be available to harvest."Tell me about it. I hear you. Been there done that. Most years I don't get a deer. I don't live in a state where they're overrunning the Lawn & Garden department at Home Despot or whatever.But that's the price one pays and in some ways that is what makes it fun. If deer were as easy to get as beef chuck, might as well buy it in a store."that IF we let our horses out in the pastures to feed durring deer season we attach hunter orange ribbons to their mane and tails in an attempt to keep them from being shot."Separate issue in my opinion. I've heard urban legends about this sort of thing but never heard of a factual case where someone mistakenly shot a horse or cow thinking it to be a moose or deer. I got phrases for that sort of stuff; criminal mischief; malicious destruction of property, &c. If someone shoots your horse, prosecute the SOB."we are like most people - buying this house with the acres we are strapped. if i could buy another 30 i would, if i could afford to go to a ranch and hunt i would, fenced or not."Again I hear you. Talk about strapped. I am paying down a house on .17 acres. That's all I have. I hunt public land. I'm saving for the day when I relocate and own more land. I don't think I'll ever get to the 30 acre mark. But if I do, I won't post or fence the land. I will certainly fence my garden though! ;)
I think what this all boils down to is this.Whether its dog hunting or high fence hunting or hunting over bait, some people just want a more honest approach; or more reasonable methods to hunting. The other folks just want to lump us into bed with peta.Great defense though. I guess?Can you do no better?
Indiana Eddie,You feed deer and want to fence them in and shoot them? So you are a shooter, not a hunter?This sounds about as exciting and sporting as catching hybrid largemouths out of a 50 ft by 50 ft stockpond. Forget the test of skill and woodsmanship, forget communing with the Earth, by God I just want to shoot something!
Just how much fence are we talking about? Deer needing to roam? Whitetail deer are territorial animals. You can see them in the same place at almost the same time everyday. Their range is not that large. In every lake in America that stems from a dam people are fishing for "fenced in" fish but nobody is crying about that. Is it because everyone has access? Are we really arguing about "Joe" having deer on his property and I can't hunt them? Wah! Wah! It would seem that people that fence their property for the purpose of raising animals to hunt should have the same rights and courtesies of people that fence their land and raise cattle for market. The end result is the same. Food on the table! Deer are public property? Why does my private insurance have to cover public liability for damages in a car-deer collision? And on top of that I can't have the deer because it's public property? The ecosystem? We are, like it or not, in the food chain, usually at the top, not always. It's our place in the ecosystem to foster the environment for our benefit. Eating is beneficial, meat and potatoes! I agree with Ted 100% just based on that fact alone. Anti-hunters should try not eating for a while and see if it changes their fat-celled little minds.
first off - Mike Diehl - "if you fence off your property you should not be allowed to hunt deer on public land"? this has to qualify as the dumbest statement made. i have a very small place - 28 acres - with hunters on three sides. it makes no difference the food plots i put out because by the end of opening weekend a large percentage of the deer i have been feeding have been shot by adjacent hunters. if i had the available money i would fence my little place just to give myself and my wife an opportunity to shoot one of the deer we feed all summer. unfair and unsportsman like? call it what you want but with the amount of hunting pressure in some areas it is not just a matter of putting in the time, it just comes down to pure luck as to whether a deer is even going to be available to harvest. the hunting pressure is to the point that IF we let our horses out in the pastures to feed durring deer season we attach hunter orange ribbons to their mane and tails in an attempt to keep them from being shot. we are like most people - buying this house with the acres we are strapped. if i could buy another 30 i would, if i could afford to go to a ranch and hunt i would, fenced or not.
Just like Ted, I'm a hunter too. I live to hunt. But high-fenced hunting is not hunting. I know. I've done it. In a big (10,000 acre) enclosure. And you know what? It's not right, and I'll never do it again. Even if the animal has ample means to evade and escape, it can never leave this "pen." Wildlife belongs to the people, all the people, not some rich guy who fences it in. And one more thing: most of these high-fence operations (including Ted's, I'd be willing to bet) use feeders extensively. I suppose feeding and baiting this livestock doesn't make it any easier either, right? Give me a break!
To all of those who toil and toil over horns. Bigger antlers bigger horns thats all you see anymore. You see no beauty - only inches.You are a spoiled child on his birthday with too many presents that DOES NOT KNOW THE VALUE OF A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!Work your brains out for bigger horns and hang them in your office. Forget that the hunt is for the meat and not to kill its beauty.But the next time you argue with your wife, if you have one that still speaks to you, over a new pair of shoes, or new jewelryremember one other thing my friend.Your horn collection makes you no more different from her than that little spoiled crying child who's come to the end of his presents.
Can those of you who think any argument about hunting is fueling peta ever draw a line. Where do you say enough is enough? Can you?Do you find no other matters in life that are legal, aside from hunting, that you would change?Do you support anything so blindly that you would turn your eyes to anything? Because thats how you are coming off.
People said...''love it or leave it''When other men and women fought for your mother's right to vote.
Like many who disagree with Ted on this issue, I have respect for the great contributions he has made to getting kids into the outdoors and defending our hunting heritage.Besides the demonstrated disease risk, and the violation of nearly every tenant of the North American Wildlife Management Model, we need to remember who decides our fate as hunters. Almost 90% of the VOTING public doesn't hunt. The good news is that to date, the majority of non-hunters still have enough respect for our role in proper wildlife that they support us at the poles. Every formal survey and common sense says that support for shooting animals inside an escape proof fence of ANY size is near zero amongst these folks.Author Jim Posewitz said it best "tolerance of the lowest ethical standards for the sake of unity, simply demeans us all"If you want to see what this industry is really all about I recommend you take a look at the Bellar Trial video at real-hunters.com
Hey Thumper,My God dude!Gameland is the same as high fence. Roll another one pal.On gameland a deer can run off the area onto someone's property and I can't hunt it anymore. I can't track it anymore, I can't shoot it. Game over; unless IT DECIDES TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY.I cannot belive you actually needed that explained to you. And I cannot believe I actually explained it.
ONE LAST THING!I AM VERY PLEASED THAT THE MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS BLOG DISAGREE WITH TED.ALL OF YOU THAT WANT HIGH FENCE HUNTING; YOU SHOULD TAKE SOLACE IN THAT.Now its off to Websters you go.Off you go now.
Britton,PETA HUH?Do you think your wife or mother should have equal rights?THEN THANK YOUR GOD THAT SOMEONE DIDN'T STICK TOGETHER AND SPOKE UP IN DISAGREEMENT.Although I am starting to see a pattern here on these blogs.It appears the same people that support dog hunting, support high fence hunting, it appears that the same people that support killing pretty much anything that moves, support doing it in any way legal; with no regard at all to its ethics.LOTS OF THINGS HAVE BEEN LEGAL AT SOME POINT IN THIS WORLD AND HAVE LATER BEEN FOUND TO BE HARMFUL TO US, ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THINGS CHANGE FOR GOOD REASON; IF WE ARE LUCKY.I wonder if these same people even want equal rights in this country.I SAY YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE DEATH OF HUNTING. YOU ARE THE FUEL FOR PETA WITH YOUR HORRID METHODS. SHOW THEM HOW YOU TREE AN ANIMAL AND KILL IT DEFENSELESS.SHOW THEM THAT A FEW INCHES OF ANTLER IS ''ALL THE DIFFERENCE'' YOU TWIRPS, SHOW THEM HIGH FIVES AND CHEERS AT THE FEET OF A FRESHLY KILLED ANIMAL! SHOW THEM AN ANTLER JOUST WITH YOUR ANTLERS! SHOW THEM YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS WHEN YOUR DOGS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOW THEM HOW YOU CHARGE ENOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE TO BUY A CAR; TO KILL A DEER. SHOW THEM YOUR WASTE! SHOW THEM YOUR IGNORANCE! SHOW THEM YOUR INABILITY TO COMPROMISE AND YOU ARE DONE!
Again...all of you that say we have to stick together and support all hunting.FREAKING STOP IT!HAVE ANY OF YOU REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.Saying we have to stick together on any issue that faces our civilization is false. It is unproductive, it leaves problems unsolved. It leaves fools unchecked.ANYONE WITH A FXXXING ATTITUDE LIKE ''LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT''GET OVER YOURSELF! YOUR AN ARROGANT FOOL. YOUR IDEALS ARE COP-OUTS! I CANNOT SAY IT ANY LOUDER! COP OUTS!How would you feel if a way of hunting you loved was threatened; really? If stand hunting or dog hunting were outlawed. If it actually became law. BY YOUR LOGIC YOU WOULD HAVE TO JUST SIT BY AND ACCEPT IT AND STICK WITH YOUR FELLOW HUNTERS, BECAUSE THEY HAD, BY OUR DEFINITIONS OF LAW, ELECTED OFFICIALS; WHO IN TURN MADE THE DECISIONS THAT OUTLAWED YOU FAVORED FORM OF HUNTING.BUT YOU WOULD NOT STICK WITH THE DECISION WOULD YOU??!YOU WOULD RAISE HELL BECAUSE YOU DISAGREED!!!!!EVOLVE! GET SMARTER! REALIZE OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT BE WHERE IT IS WITHOUT DISAGREEMENT AND FXXXING COMPROMISE!
Oh Ted,It isn't the size of the pen either my delusional friend. Its the FACT that the animal cannot escape from the pressure of the guides that know exactly where they are. NOT TRUE HUNTING.Get an 8pt on public land, no bait, no stand, no hounds, no guide; with a muzzleloader. Then those of you that would criticize me can speak.
We are now on the verge of change!! It is wonderful to read how devided all of you animal murderers have become. Given your statements here, it will be easier than expected to dismantle your ways. Everyone who disagrees with Ted Nugent, please, please come join us at www.peta.org and together, we'll defeat all of the hunters and gun owners of America!!
Uncle Ted Supporter,You are apparently smarter than me.You called me an idiot. I think I will cry. I will waste no time on you except to remind you to evolve.
High fence hunting is a personal property rights issue legally and a personal choice personally.You elitists that think your definition of "hunting" is the right one are simply full of yourself & completely wrong.I have hunted from tree stands at high fence operations, and from ground blinds, and done some spot & stalk. The spot & stalk was the hardest. Just like in Utah for mule deer or elk.I can take any one of you to some of the high-fence preserves that I enjoy and I promise some of you wouldn't be able to find your way out in a few days.Shame on most of you, you help the HSUS every day in their effort to ban all hunting, just by arguing amongst yourselves. If you don't like high fence hunting, don't do it, but who the hell do you think you are to tell me I can't?As usual, Nugent is right on all points, again.
I love to hunt. I've hunted wll over. It's the game that makes the hunt a challenge or not a challenge. If you hunt plains game in Africa, you see the game a mile or more away and stalk within high power rifle range. It's pretty easy SOMETIMES. It couldn't be made any easier with fences, only a bit quicker because you'd have to drive less to get within stalking distance. The rifle is what makes this kind of hunting "easier". Wanna ban rifle hunting? Some would like to. I support ALL hunting.Some think it's unethical to hunt over baited areas, yet they think nothing's wrong with haning a treestand in an oak tree surrounded by acorns, or putting a blind up next to a food plot.Smart 21st century hunters have figured out how to maximize the productivity of their limited hunting time. Enclosure hunting properly structured and managed is a logical, ethical and extremely satisfying extension of that.
There's no such thing as canned hunting. All hunting is high-fence hunting, it's just a matter of proportion. When you hunt public land you are high-fence hunting...you just paid for it with your tax dollars instead of up front. The interviewer was obviously not interested in a discussion of the topic as his bias is obvious at the outset. This was an opportunity to hit Mr. Nugent with loaded questions and watch the backlash.It's a shame that a venerable publication like F & S has now resorted to tabloid journalist tactics, instead of having an honest and informative discussion on a topic which many people (hunters and non-hunters alike) need an education. The responses posted thus far make that obvious...no one wants to learn or is interested in changing their opinion. Sad really - it will ultimately be the end of hunting in America if things don't change. Thankfully we have people like Ted Nugent who aren't afraid to educate people, no matter what might be said about them.
I agree with ted. Hunting is hunting and if I want to kick out a few bucks to up my chances that is my bussiness.That said ted sounds like an idiot. He flustered under presure and made his reasonable defense of high fence hunting sound like it was from some right wing conspirtist.
Funny how the "Real Ted Nugent" is a link to an ALF SITE. See guys, the AR terrorists are watching and looking.
In response to the question about standing together about anti's, here is my take."Canned Hunting" is basically a term created by anti hunters in order to push how they want the public to perceive all hunting within an enclosed facility to be. While high fence facilities vary, legislation to restrict such usually is designed to affect all facilities and not just those occassional "black eye" facilities that can give the majority a bad name.The public's perception of high fence hunting is most challenged by two simple facts. One - The vast majority of Americans do not hunt, and thus, like with any endeavor which does not hold one's interest, they may possess limited knowledge of hunting which can make them vunerable to being misled, which anti hunting factions have a long track record of attempting to capitalize upon. Two - As long a hunters remain apathetic, expecially those who hunt high fence ( or for that matter any other specific venue ) and allow anti hunting factions to present high fence as they want the public to perceive it without hunters challenging that presentation, then high fence will remain threatened.Remember that the anti's will use anything they can get their hands on as fodder for an attack, and that the media often has an obsession with bad news, thus that one "black eye" facility is what makes the headlines and not the other 99% that quietly go about their business in a respectable manner. However because that "black eye" facility grasps the attention, it doesn't always mean that any perception drawn from such will be an accurate one.Lies by anti's are not limited to what they call "canned hunting". In 1996 they tried to pass off a dog that lost a leg in a vehicle collision as a trapping victim to push for a ban on trapping in Massachusetts. In 2004 they tried to pass off 15 year old poaching footage from Oregon as bear hunting with hounds in Maine in an attempt to push for a ban on bear hounding. Recently peta has tried to pass off the very same footage as a depiction of bear hunting to queen Elizabeth II of England. Thus since high fence hunting as a rule is not represented truthfully by the hsus' manifestation video which shows an animal with one arrow in its rump and another arrow through its rear leg ... then why should we concede "high fence" when they have proven that their agenda includes lying attacks on any aspect of hunting which they may see a vunerability with ?
If it's inside a fence and can't get out, then IT'S NOT HUNTING!It's a farm.I don't care if you kill it or even if you shoot it. It's just an animal, you can even make up your own lie but none of that makes it hunting Ted.Some of these "hunters" would be better placed in Future Farmers of American instead of the hunting community. Just shooting your 4H project don't make you a hunter.
this magazine is a disgrace to all hunters and anyone that continues to subscribe after this interview might as well join the anti hunters. all the people that agree with hal herring might as well start sending their money in to PETA. you are basically giving them ammunition to use against us REAL hunters, trying to divide us. if you agree with high fence hunting awesome if not dont speak out in order to fuel their fire
Ted's 100% right. Hunting is about personal preferences and property rights. If you want to determine how to hunt, BUY your own land and do as you please. The reason high fences go up is because many "hunters" have no self control. I am not going to spend the price of 10,000 acres of prime habitat and the protein feeding program to support trophy production and then have 10 acre owners line up on my boundaries and skim my best deer for pennies on my dollar. Nope, I'm high fenced and happy. And no one's gonna change that.
Boy, that Ted sure would make a great polititian, answering questions with questions and dodging them with the best of 'em.
Here's a link to the real Ted. Some of his ignorant rants!http://www.nocompromise.org/news/000731c.html
Ted's still an idiot!
Ted is a Great spokesman for hunters everywhere don't be to quick to dismiss his thoughts, all of his answers have some merit, having said that You and I do not have to agree. For me High Fence hunting is simply unacceptable at any price. I will continue to be a advocate of almost all kinds of hunting and Ted.
Different people have different ethics. Some people lie. Every salesman I have ever met falls into this category. Some people steal. Ever carried a pen home from work? Some people cheat on their wives. President Carter did it in his heart and felt guilty. Some people shoot animals entrapped in small areas. Hogzilla anyone? There is a gray area between hunting a 20,000 acre ranch in Texas encircled with a fence and shooting a "wild boar" on 160 acres. America is the home of the free. Free to decide for ourselves what is right. If you can shoot a scoped crossbow during archery season and not feel bad about it, it is your decision. I have shot pen raised pheasant on an army base for cash. They were very tasty... Leave the Motor City Madman alone!!! Ted, you rock.
Fellow blood brothers and hunters, hunting game on open range land over high-fenced property is a matter of personal choice, not a question of ethics. I would rather hunt the majestic American bison on the open plains of Colorado, Nebraska, or South Dakota instead of a private ranch with high game fences because I consider a hunt to be the spiritual pursuit of man's most fundamental and primal instinct. For me, to hunt any other way diminishes the experience and lessens the nobility of my trophy.That said, I am proud to stand with Uncle Ted on this issue. His responses are consistent with the finest hunting traditions and highest ethical standards. This entire debate over high fence hunting is a red herring designed to make hunting more palatable to a small, highly vocal and visible minority of Stalinists who advocate the mass slaughter of the very game that they claim to protect. It is disappointing that F&S, a publication dedicated to the proliferation of hunting and hunter's rights, is promoting diviseness among hunters who must stand united at a time when our rights and priviledges are under assault from the Stalinist left.
I agree with Ted on this.Many of the comments above sound like emotional knee jerk reactions to a hot topic that the posters have probably never experienced first hand. I have and can say that my experiences have been some of the toughest hunting I have ever done. I also consider every animal I bring to bag a "trophy". It does not matter to me if it came off a large tract of public land or off 500 acres of high fenced private land. I still hunted that property and earned that animal.
It is with a profound sadness that I write this.To abandon your brothers or sisters in the name of appeasement will be the downfall of hunting. Just because you don't do or like a particular form of hunting is ultimately slitting your own throat.And as far as CWD, Ted is right, it had nothing to do with fences, it had everything to do with the poor care given the animals inside the fences. Before proposing to ban another form of hunting why not propose holding those that provide that form of hunting to a higher standard of care for those animals?
I respect whatever legal pursuit private land owners do with their own property.I like it when land owners enclose their property and charge people to hunt on their property.I like it when people spend their money on hunting enclosures.I like it when land owners make a profit from their hunting enclosure.I respect Ted Nugent for stating his opinion, regardless what others may think of it.I like it that Ted Nugent is the de facto spokesman for the hunting community because of his knowledge, wit and passion.
By the way. For those interested in the FACTS of the origin of CWD, and it's timeline. The info is avialable HERE:http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.timeline
Where to begin. Fist of all the essence of America is freedom and the essence of freedom is private property rights. Nugent has this exactly right whether the subject is hunting or patent law, or the free enterprise system.Secondly, Hal's lengthy diatribe on the CWD episode in Wisconsin is a true story but does not contradict Nugent's assertion which is patently obvious that FENCES did not cause CWD. Bad management practices and criminal behavior did.Wisconsin has not moved to outlaw private preserve hunting.Hunters of all preferences, species, methods and means must learn that if we do not hang together and support each other, we will all hang separately and our heritage will vanish. That is the essence of Nugent's message, and it is an undeniable truth.Nobody should be foolish enough to think that appeasement of the animal rights wackos will in any way diminish their desire to achieve their ultimate goal which is the elimiation of ALL HUNTING!
Not to date myself too much, but, I do remember the CBS show "Guns of Autum" where they showed a guy shooting a buffulo in an enclosed space after it was released into a small pen. I do believe that even "Uncle" Ted would dislike this operation and that is what it sounded to me like the writer was trying to get Ted to admit. Just how small is too small? Well I don't know and I think it depends on the operation. I love to hunt upland birds and I have just as much fun shooting released birds on a game farm behind a good dog as I do wild birds out in the open. I suppose this too is really hunting a high fenced enclosure so to speak, but it is fun. Ted! I too enjoy hunting every chance I get and I think the key word here is HUNTING. I believe you can hunt behind a high fence as well as you can in the open, but again it depends on the area and the species. God Bless You Ted and all you do for us.
No! Wrong idea. High fence my ass. If we put up high fences it will take out the roming aspect that deer let alone bucks need and thrive on. Not allowing a deer to rome is like saying a baby can't cry. It's part of their nature to rome. What happens if there is a break out of CWD. What will we do. It originated with deer in captivity. Lets not make it worse!!!!!!!!
KM,I could not have said it better brother. I have had enough of "the Nuge" It seems as though, lately, when I read another interview, catch an episode of spirit of the wild, ect ect "The Nuge" is becoming more and more the over emotional, delusional, over defensive small minded, big mouth **** that I certainly would not want representing me or anyone else in regard to hunting. Oh and the damn yankees sucked
p.s. F&S dont make me cancel my subscription.
TomHunter & Animal LoverYour an Idiot.
I'm NOT sorry: hunting for trophies on game farms is very weak. go ahead and shoot all the animals you want inside a fence. then show off that big trophy as if it harvested in real hunting adventure. i have unlimited respect for those of us who harvest our animals in the free-ranging world, zero respect for those who don't (since you obviously are not respecting the animal you will kill).Nuge, you're great for speaking out on most other things, but high fences are the easy way out and it is not real no matter how you try to explain things away.you think we shoould be teaching our kids this false sense of reality. dollars spent at "game farms" would be best spend on the wild resources that we all own, the way america decided it should be in the begining. remember that??
High fence hunting is for fools too bound up by their egos to realize that a true trophy is only as valuable as the amount of work it took to harvest.If you want to kill something in a pen for fun, go ahead. Just don't call it hunting.
"People want to steal what I have developed, because they are too lazy or unwilling to pay the price to their own place."You have not developed anything. Unless you purchased domestic deer and raised them, the deer on your land do not belong to you. If your property is not posted you deserve what you get. If it is posted, you should not be allowed to hunt public property (deer) on your posted land.
Thanks for your contribution Dave!!
ted was part of a supergroup called damn yankees back in the nineties. tommy shaw (formerly of STYX) was lead vocals.The alternative genre of music exploded with Nirvana and sadly hair metal began to die.
I agree with the Nuge. Several questions here were loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias. It is sad to see who is in the editor's chair at F&S. Furthermore, Dave has been living in New York state for too long. I've started to get irritated by his liberal bias on many issues recently.
And to all those who think the only reason some of us are against high fence hunting because we don't have the money or we are jealous.YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO bush TOO LONG!I bet about 95% of you INHERITED YOUR LAND, from someone who inherited from someone else FROM SOMEONE WHO FREAKING STOLE IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. YOUR BORDERS ARE FALSE AND YOUR MINDS ARE WEAK. If so you live on stolen land that you did not earn. Sorry - inheriting something might make you the LAWFUL owner, but someone may just declare manifest destiny on your axx too one day. WATCH OUT!Finally - start listening to REASONS some of us have against some of the more debatable forms of hunting. We are trying to help, if you listened and thought before you responded with emotion alone,you might just find your way out of that rut.
what is with everybody picking on the Nuge lately?
To Ted,I know, as though he would care even if he did read this blog. But I will be going home to burn my copy of ''Kill it & Grill It''.I liked the book because of its creative, somewhat ludicrous writing and the recipes were top notch. But he has major issues.One. He is far too arrogant in his approach to debating those that would take our hunting from us.TED - IF EVERYONE INVOLVED IN A HEATED DEBATE OVER HUMAN RIGHTS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS OR WHATEVER STARTED THROWING AROUND CRAP LIKE...''Supply and demand, free choice, private property rights, good old American capitalism and entrepreneurialism are beautiful things''Women and minorities would not have the right to vote, african americans would still be slaves, etc. etc. etc.YOUR ARROGANT, ELITIST ATTITUDE SUCKS YOU FREAKING OVERPAYED OVERUSED BRAGGART. See, I can throw together a bunch a crazy words to make a useless point and confuse people too. No use - no good.I used to think I wanted you to speak for me and thought that your stances on hunting and fishing for your food was excellent. You are right about that. Our food is tainted and fresh game is the answer. But after some contemplation of your harsh words and ascertations that everyone should be doing just that - I REALIZED YOU WERE TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH.I don't know of many people at all that can sustain themselves off what little land they may own. Not because of lack of ability, but lack of land and resources. Hey Ted, I hunt on gameland, not private property; and so do most folks I know. We don't have thousands of dollars to spend on land to sustain ourselves - not to mention to blow on freaking canned trophy hunts.You are totally wrong. Please stop speaking out now. We don't want your ''help'' anymore.Oh, one more thing...''There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions.''Right...Do you even know whats coming out of your pie-hole anymore?So anyone who disagrees with you is small minded huh?I think you need to crank that amp up a bit DUDE, because becoming deaf and mute would be a relief for the rest of us.TomHunter & Animal Lover
God, Guns and Rock and Roll, Ted!!! You said it RIGHT! It is what is and no one fools themselves when going "hunting" in a high fence. I do it for meat, along with spending time with family and friends, period! Overcrowding on public lands and the adventure to do something different calls me north to upper Michigan to shoot a Russian Boar (with bow, mind you). The price is right and the meat is great. I'm far from rich to own 100's of acres but the 10 acres I do have brings home the vension. Oh, by the way I hunt pheasant game farms too. ALOT less hunting pressure and I bring home meat. I guess some people only go after big racks and getting thier name in some kind of record book.
Tom and Evan I couldn't agree with your posts more. I still like Ted and he does do a lot for hunting and hunters rights but there are times like this that the "polititian" comes seeping out instead of the guy driving to the U.P. in his Bronco with the zebra paint job, called by the "spirit of the WILD", I don't think Fred Bear ever hunted inside a high fence even when he was 80, right?
I agree with Ted about 85%. I know of high fence areas that are over 6000 acres and some that are only a few hundred. Each are a different as night and day. The larger try every thing in their power to keep the animal population in check to help stop the spread of CWD. They have hunts of all kind, Trophy paid hunts to free hunts for their employees and families to shot the smaller buck and over populated doe. Whatever is needed to maintain a healthy herd. And believe me, if these animals smell, hear or see you, they are gone as far away as they can get. Much like an animal in the wild. It is the smaller operations that over populate there herd so they can shot as many animals as possible to make as much money as possible that is hurting this business. I drove by one such small operation one evening and saw a very nice 12 point standing inside a fenced in area of approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. Two days later this deer was on the front page of the sports section of the local newspaper. "Dr. so and so" harvests another trophy. Ted is right and Ted is wrong. There are good and bad. If we the people don't take a stand, the only people that will be hunting is the rich and famous. But I think that is many years away.
I back Ted in all he said 100%, no one should back down from this issue and he is right. We need to stop helpping the Anti hunting world and help our own hunting world. Its just a choice and no one makes you hunt, it is our God given right to do so.God bless TedMike Moyer
I've hunted both wild Alaska with no guide and fenced operations in Florida. For deer, we lease 1600 acreas in SC. To me, hunting is hunting. I do agree with Ted, the pressure put on animals has a dramatic effect on how difficult it is to kill an animal. If you want difficult, try public land in SC. Our deer season goes from Aug. 15 to Jan 1 with a four deer per day limit. These deer are shy. Yet, in Alaska, some of the caribou literally walked through the camp.To sum it all up, do what you feel is right; and let the other people do what is legal and they feel is ethical. We need to support all hunting and all methods of hunting. We must stick together.
It seems to me that the non-hunters would be happy to have enclosed hunting. That way all their wild animals would have a better chance of survival. I agree with the comment about asking a kennel owner if it is good for the dogs. Or a hog farm owner if it stinks. You get my drift? I am a hunter/angler and am very glad to live in a free country. One where I can pursue wild game as my ancestors did to help establish this great nation. Or, if I could afford it, use my one week off a year and go to a place where I could be sure of bagging something.My point is, I Have A Choice! If I have to ask my neighbor if I can hunt this place or that, then I don't have the freedom of choice.
This is all about people jealous of others who will not purchase their own property or prepare good habitat. I think the problem is that people who are against high fence because they want to have the benefit of the land owner who is providing quality habitat for his land by food plots and keeping people out to reduce stress on the wildlife. I am constantly having to run poachers off of our farm, they come onto our land and scout then wait until we are gone and come in and shoot anything that moves. They have even started driving through our property on their ATVs to drive the deer on to the neighboring property where they’re friend or relatives are waiting to shoot them. I have been in my blind and had people park their trucks on the road and walk in right where I am set up, no orange vest, like they own the place and start arguing with me that they have permission to be there. I should put up a high fence to keep people out! It’s my farm, I paid for, my food plots I planted my habitat I set aside from agriculture. People want to steal what I have developed, because they are too lazy or unwilling to pay the price to their own place. People always want something good without having to pay for it, there is nothing in our constitution guaranteeing that. I think anyone who owns private property should get to do what they want, if high fence is causing CWD then who cares the animals are all in the enclosures anyway it’s their problem. If you can’t afford it on your own get your friends and family together and buy it collectively.God bless America,
Hey Bob, I'm a bit curious ... what exactly did F&S do to Zumbo? Other than have Petzal defend the man's right to free speech after Outdoor Life fired him for saying negative things about black rifles?
I agree with Ted 100%. I too am a hunter. When the opportunity arises to hunt, I hunt. High fence hunting doesnt necessarily mean shooting a deer in a 10' x 10" cage. I think what truly does bother me more than anything here, is the direction Field & Stream is beginning to take. Recently, F&S took a hard line, liberalistic ideological stance against another great hunter and outdoorsman, Jim Zumbo. In reality, Mr. Zumbo, like Ted Nuggent, gave their opinion. F&S reacted to Mr. Zumbo by firing him! Since F&S has decided they are in the publishing business to dictate what they feel is fact, (which I call sensorship), are they going to continue this trend in all facets of hunting and fising? Next they will disgaree with Craig Boddington on which is the best Cape Buffalo gun, and sensor him! Just to let the liberal fringe at F&S know,I will not be renewing my subscription after this one runs out. If I want socialistic sensorship in what I can and cannot read or hear, I will simply tune in to CNN. We dont need another left wing, closed minded group of facists telling us what is right and wrong, according to their narrow minded beliefs. Get a life F&S, it is people like Jim Zumbo and Ted Nuggent that made your magazine great. Not your own limited experiences.
While I like the majority of Nugent's comments, I find his rationalization for "high-fence" hunting to rank right up there with the pillaging of treasures by ol' Hearst simply because "I got the money to do it". Go to any Sports Expo and look at the prices of guided hunts. Many average hunters are already priced out. However, does "high-fence" hunting differ that much from state Fish & Game Depts stocking farm/ hatchery raised fish into lakes, streams and ponds to justify the cost of licenses?
Wow! You guys are on a roll this year killing all the heros. First Zumbo, now Nugent. Good thing we have F&S and Outdoor Life to tell how to think!
I believe the questions put to Mr. Nugent were fair. In spite of his over the top reaction (don't shoot the messenger Ted ), I see no 'hidden agenda'by the writer.The privatization of hunting land is a return to the European model, and high fence hunting is the ultimate example of this trend in America. Federal public lands are increasingly being 'protected' by Wilderness designations from California to Virginia promoted by enviro groups. Wilderness policy greatly restricts hunter (and angler) access unless one owns a horse or cares to drag a deer out a couple miles on foot.Hunting for the average income American is being priced out of reach on private lands, and public lands are slowly but surely becoming less accessible, especially for older hunters, women or young people who may not care to or be able to walk for miles.I believe Mr. Nugent is missing or sidestepping these points in the interview. He missed a great opportunity to speak out on behalf of 'average' hunters.Phil
well, whattya know... you ask an owner of a high fence ranch what he thinks about high fence hunting and he nearly explodes with desire to tell you how great it is!yrs-Evan!
sorry ted. simply cannot agree. a high-fenced animal is still captive, whether it is on five acres or five hundred. a captive elk cannot change zip codes when shot at like a free range animal could.
I much appreciate Mr. Nugent’s contribution here, and I enjoyed our exchange. I have a lot of respect for what he's done as a musician and for hunting. However I don’t want to be a party to misleading readers.From Mr. Nugent's interview:"Everybody knows that CWD & bovine TB are a direct result of our all-knowing government bureaucrats messing things up way back in 1967 and beyond. No believable evidence has ever been produced linking these diseases to fences."That’s an utterly false statement. F&S covered the Buckhorn Flats CWD infection last month--where the game farm owner kept stalling Wisconsin wildlife and ag officials--selling hunts from an enclosure that showed "shooter buck" after "shooter buck" to be infected with the disease, which has cost wildlife officials millions of dollars of public money to try and address- and then of course, someone cut the fence at buckhorn flats and let the rest of the deer free...in the "breeding enclosure, officials finally liquidated the herd and found 60 of 76 does infected with CWD.Look at the shipments of infected domestic elk across the west in the past ten years, hundreds of them, shooter bulls killed in Colorado and found to be infected. Look at the bovine TB epidemic that occurred on Canadian game farms in the 90's. The ‘gubmint” did it? Give me a break.And to say that all opponents of game farm trophy shooting are "small minded" -- what do you think Teddy Roosevelt would have said to Mr. Nugent about that? We may live in a time where public figures can say things that are not true, express opinions that are based in wishful thinking or emotion, and express them so loudly, and with such certainty and in- your- face aggression, that those opinions overwhelm the thoughts and efforts of more thoughtful and intelligent people, but that does not give those opinions any more truth or validity. You can call a cow's tail a leg, and shout all day that a cow has five legs. You can ridicule the people who question that, call ‘em names, question their loyalty to the group, use all the old tricks, - that cow still only has four legs, little buddy.The high fence debate is not going to be won by who yells the loudest.Thanks,Hal Herring
I respect what Ted does for the american shooter and hunter. He does dedicate a large portion of his time and energies to these causes. It doesn't hurt that he makes a nice living from them as well. Ted's American dream works for him.For the average hunter/shooter, the ability to pursue these sports are dwindling @ an ever increasing rate. Private land is being locked up in leases, gun ranges are disappearing and hunters are aging.Without the average Joe, hunting and shooting will all but disappear in this country.Then the high fence, crossbow, in-line muzzleloader, black rifle debates will be pointless, because there will be no one to care.
What an idiot!. High fence hunting, game ranches, etc are a disgrace to hunting and terrible for the ecosystem.
Post a Comment
i dont really agree with the high fence hunting at all, but the game ranches that have very little hunting pressure is free game baby
Studies have shown that may species travel over 7 miles in certain areas, high fences impede this "natural" behavior. These animals go where you allow, eat what you provide, you are ultimately raising livestock. Hunting has always been advantage to the prey, it is a true hunters goal to outsmart the game, high fences require the game to outsmart the hunter.What has happen to tradition? Is this a sign of the times, the Wal-Mart mentality of bigger, better, faster with less effort? Some of my best times in the field have ended without a shot fired.High fences are a disgrace to the hunters before us and a dangerous precedent to pass down to our children. These fences are the lines that separates hunters and killer, some love hunting, some love killing...
Want to know what this guy is really about? go to:www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/NEWS/605280336/1015/EDUCATION05By the way, I think he is an asshloe!
Want to know what this guy is really about? go to:www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/NEWS/605280336/1015/EDUCATION05By the way, I think he is an asshloe!
Fences? If someone feeds deer in an area where there isn't enough food or water to support more then a few deer and that herds numbers grow, you won't need fences to keep them around. They become canned by their own need for survival.
What amazes me is how ANYONE could think that Ted Nugent helps the cause of hunting by speaking on its behalf. This guy is an extremist nutball, and no, I'm not talking about hunting here. Among many other things, he's an extreme racist, and a borderline pedophile. He's made threatening comments about democratically elected officials--comments which would land any left-wing singer in jail in no time. He's called the troops who served in Vietnam "hippies." I could go on and on, but I won't. The issue of high-fence hunting is almost irrelevant here. The fact is that this guy hurts any cause that he supports.
Alright, so I read through this whole thing. And I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. First off my property is my property. My blood, sweat and tears provided land for myself and my family. For the same price I could have bought a small lot in a former whitetail heaven that was destroyed to build 50 houses. I made the choice where to live like many of those did who tresspass on my property did. I raise whitetails under strict government guidelines to ensure only the healthiest of animals can be sold and transported disease free. I sell to a 5000 acre ranch that is all premium whitetail habitat. How many people can say they hunt 5000 acres of prime habitat. Most in my part of the country hunt less than 100 and that is spaced out by houses and development. What is easier.........pinning down a deer to shoot in 5000 acres or 100? Fence or no fence the deer still need habitat. We pen animals everyday and slaughter them. We eat meat and meat has to be raised. Have you seen where your commercial livestock for McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Arbys, ect come from. These animals do not live the comfortable lives as the deer that are raised on our ranches. Men like MR. TED are hammered non stop just to get a rise and a story out of selfish magazines like this one. Is F&S going to join PETA next and contend all hunting? These ranches have made it possible for the guy who bought the house on a lot, rather than on his own land, to be able to hunt like the man who manages his own land. Simply put, we make our own choices in life. Don't bash a fellow sportsman for taking his own path!
Seems like a lot of you argue the definition of hunting. IE the pursuing and/or taking of game. BY that definition, high fenced hunting is hunting. Try asking a game warden. Seems like more of you do not understand much about the home ranges of the animals that you hunt. Many, in fact, the majority of them have home ranges of under a few square miles... Whitetail deer have a home range of around 300-400 acres. Ted's defense of the high fence seems offensive to a lot of you, and all of the PETA types. Personally, the high fence does bring some real advantages... IE... fewer poachers, fewer hunters per square mile, and a more controlled environment where animals can be fed a complete diet for their entire lives. A 170 whitetail has a chance to get to be 170 if the hunters will let him live to be 4.5 years old, although with high priced genetics, you can shave a year or 2 off of that. Point, most hunters would rather take a spike or forked horn than not get a deer. The high fence can resolve that by NOT taking young deer, but letting them thrive until they are older.Finally, my high fence went up when I found out how many animals i was losing to poachers. I was in a stand with my son when a scum poacher walked up the meadow, cussed me out,and threatened me. The game warden would not even take a report until I spent $7 a foot for 10 miles of high fence. Now he definitely will come over if I find evidence of poaching. My deer ( I did buy high quality stock) are older, healthier and in much better shape. I am certain that many here would fault me for the fence and for hunting inside my ten miles of fence, but a lot of you hunt "landlocked" deer without a problem. And a lot of you fish in stocked lakes without a problem. Seems like the fight should be with the anti's, and not over the semantics of what is "hunting." And I completely agree with the post above about the difficulty of hunting a 6.5 year old deer. We have deer taken almost every year that we have never seen before.Finally, please spend the $1.5M for land and another $300,000 for a fence to keep out ILLEGAL hunting, or spent an equal amount in perserving habitat in the way that you prefer before slamming the land owner that is protecting his property and exercising a legal and ethical way of hunting.
I amthe 5th generation owner of land that has ben in our family since the 1840's. My grandfather farmed some, raised cattle, goats and sheep. I am in the process of high fenceing the 1378 acres as we speak. with livestock prices being what they are, there is only one way for me to make the land pay and that is to high fence it and raise deer. There is no way that anyone in my area can manage buck deer to get them to that majic 6.5 yr mark on a low fenced place because the other landowners shoot them at 2.5 yrs old. The fence that I am building is to keep my neighbors out, not to keep the deer in. Most of you people speaking that anti high fence crap have never been there. I would bet that most of you have never hunted a high fence ranch and possibilly never hunted at all. I promise the 6.5 yr old bucks that we sell are much harder to harvest than any deer of less age anywhere. Alot of you are speaking from ignorance which is a bad place to begin any aurgument as you are sure to loose. Let Fredom ring, if you have the nerve and are not operating from a total state of igorance. You Go Ted!!!!!!
to sally with all respect shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about the right to bear arms only as protection...how the hell do you think our ancestors got food...they hunted for it...or murdered it....as you would say. hunting is not just some sport it is a way of life for thousands. i truly pray that GOD would put some common sence in your head before you speak on this topic again. without hunting our animals could not survive...the heards would not function proplally...hunting is a means of conservation at it's best as well as a means of gathereing and harvesting food. without hunting eachyear my family could not live...we save thousands of dollars on food thanks to the harvesting of big game animals. nothing is wasted and there are laws to ensure that...the wanton waste act prevents any hunter from wasting any eadiable portion of any game animal and those who ignore this law and kill animals jsut for sport wasting meat are a disgrace to our sport and name and should be cahrged for murder in my opionon either eat what you kill or donate it to a local charity or don't kill anything at all. so read up adn learn the facts before you speak up. thank you. also i can find no where in the bible where god condomes hunting if it were a sin he would have offered another means of collecting food for our ancestors!!! so don't try and use this as a argument it won't work...my pastor is a more avid hunter than me. adn we have spent hours researching this topic... so don't use it anymore...thank you.
untell recently i have felt high fence hunting to be a disgrace to hunting as well but through research and talking with high fence hunters have now found it to be just as or more challenging than hunting in the wild...given the right circumstances...i must agree with the nuge on all of this debate. i know if i had a ranch like ted's in texas i sure as hell would not think twice about hunting it. the only way to hunt exotic game in the states is on high fence ranches...and it is much cheaper than going all the way to their home land in africa or australia etc. so i say power to all you who do hunt high fence...it brings awarnece to our cause and sport and if people would stop being so ignoranta adn do their homwork before saying somethind we wouldn't be having this debate....know what you are talking about and know the facts before you speak or don't say anything at all.
Tom,a man-made lake or pond that has been stocked with fish is exactly the same as fenced in animals. They are placed there to be fished for. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just making the comparison. It has nothing to do with fish living out of water, there is water that is not in man-made reservoirs, or obstructed by dams and the fish naturally evolved there. I have to concede and agree with you on your meat eating friends that choose not to hunt and don't look down on others for hunting. I respect those people too as it is there choice and they also respect my choice. My target was the ones that choose not to hunt and also deny me my choice to hunt yet they still eat domestic farm raised meats.
this ted nut guy is a nut. HE IS ADDICTED TO THE POWER AND MURDERING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS. HE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY A PSYCHIATRIT, I SEE THIS STARTED IN HIS CHILDHOOD, HE ALSO NEEDS A PRIEST TO RELEASE HIS DEMONS. i DONT THINK HE has the right to be cruel to our animals, he needs to be educated. the bible teaches that a just man is kind to his animals. the 2nd amendment was not intended for this purpose. rt to bear arms is for protection of oneself and he is going to need it if i ever run into him.
this ted nut guy is a nut. HE IS ADDICTED TO THE POWER AND MURDERING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS. HE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY A PSYCHIATRIT, I SEE THIS STARTED IN HIS CHILDHOOD, HE ALSO NEEDS A PRIEST TO RELEASE HIS DEMONS. i DONT THINK HE has the right to be cruel to our animals, he needs to be educated. the bible teaches that a just man is kind to his animals. the 2nd amendment was not intended for this purpose. rt to bear arms is for protection of oneself and he is going to need it if i ever run into him.
This will be my last post. I cannot take the ignorance here any longer. I was away for a week and a half and buried my 18 year old dog yesterday. My brother and I did it together and it was the hardest thing I have ever done. I have buried far too many people in my 33 years and this was the worst. I will no longer try to convince you people of something you will never see.A dog is the most loyal thing on the planet. The only thing it cares about; besides eating and a few scratches here and there, is to please his or her master. That makes them totally unique on this planet. They do not have contempt in their heart. Only love, unless a gutless human changes that.There are three types of people.One type hates animals, or couldn't care less about them at all.The second type cares a little, but says they are just animals, or fish or bugs.The third type sees that all things should be given respect.Many of you fall into the third category.Now call me an idiot, an anti-hunter or whatever you please. I care not because my eyes have been opened much wider than any of you will ever know. I am totally appeased. Good bye.TomHunter & Animal Lover
high fence hunting is just that...hunting,till the space becomes to small then it's selective meat shopping,target practice,hunting tune up, call it what you will,there is nothing wrong with it.Are you kidding me? Wow, thats a wonderfull point. Hunting tune up? Meat shopping? We would all be better served if guys like you just didn't speak...period
Hey ever hunted in CA. Well there isn't much roaming space .Texas well they have 1000 of ac. inclosed ever see the terrain?There nothing wrong with Ted or myself or anyother hunter.Get real.Our hunting lands are being taken away from us worry about that.I'm a CA. it's getting worse try it with polosy and boxer and fienstien in your state.
F&SI sincerely believe big media is just that...BIG. The behind the seens owners are not for the outdoorsman such as Ted and Jim.I hunted one time behind high fence and the kill was too easy.That will be my last. Now I must lead with Boone & Crockett Club as a hunter/sportsman.I will not condemn those that hunt high fence. We have a greater call from our Creator that requires a moral and ethical way to hunt and harvest game.We need men of all walks to stand for our God given rights as free people. F&S needs to keep to hunting and fishing and NOT to big media anti-sportsman questions. Come on here....we folks that follow the media were not born yesterday. Who runs your board of directors anyway?Let us not be at each other heels. Strive together as a nation of FREE PEOPLE.
I see lots of anti hunters and peta heads are here !Bless us for we have TED[The NUGE] NugentKill and grill it ==BABY!!!
high fence hunting is just that...hunting,till the space becomes to small then it's selective meat shopping,target practice,hunting tune up, call it what you will,there is nothing wrong with it. the anti's are driving the wedge at this spot.the next battle if this method is stopped is hunting with dogs? bows? modern ammo?the tree hugging spinich eating anti's wont stop til its all banned.I'm a recreational beaver trapper and hunter.the last of the mohegans.all hunting is our RIGHT AS AMERICANS.
I have a question for ted - What then is your position on hunting via a computer from a livign room somewhere? I am a diehard hunter and trapper and I don't mean to whine as you say but this is one method I cannot endorse. Just curious.
HSUS IS VERY ACTIVE IN COLORADO!SPORTSMEN NEED TO UNITE AND FIGHT!I was at a meeting with them the other day. Even they said, "this is only the first step"! Believe it.
Humane Society of the United States is planning to progress with a ballot initiative in "08 (of course the same year as the general election and highest voter turnout) to outlaw what they so affectionatly call "canned hunts", or what F&S so affectionately calls "high fence hunting". Two peas in a pod as far as I am concerned. Sportsmen with friends like that... who needs enemies? Extremeist organizations like these are chipping away at not only hunting, but free enterprise. These ranchers are many times supplementing their income in this way because extremist's are making it harder and harder for them to make a living in animal agriculture. Allow me to again cite the HSUS and their efforts to force a farm animal confinement initiaitve down our thoats in '08.It is all sickening to me. I would be curious what a former cattle rancher turned game rancher would say to the same questions. I have alot of respect for The Nuge and agree with him on about everything. Just the same he lives in a different world than the common folks that are busting their tails to provide for their family.Thanks for nothing F&S... I knew there was a reason I stopped reading it years ago... Turns out i was right. I went to Fur Fish and Game. Now that is a real magazine with good information for real outdoorsmen!
Ethical hunting methods mean differnt things to differnt people.Ethics and morals are passed down from generation to generation. To some hunters, if its legal, its ethical. To others, if its morally right then its ethical.I would never take part in a canned hunt but I would hunt a high fenced ranch if it was big enough and I could afford to. But at the same time, I would not shoot a deer standing under a feeder at dinner time on a high fenced ranch either.I like Ted but I do have differing opinions on some issues with him. Im not saying he is wrong or right, Im saying I have a differnt opinion.To each there own. remember you morals.
Some think high fence hunting is alright as long as it's on 6,000 or more, but the fact remains that the wild game will remain within the fences. Yes, it will take much longer (if at all) to locate a trophy on large acerages, and yes one well might not realize fences were erected, yet the fact remains that game are restricted, be it a large or small area. To me it's just not the same. So far as the idea of keeping game within your own boundries to prevent adjoining land owners from harvesting "your" bucks doesn't hold water. Fences keep game in; they do not keep intruders out, especially on large acerage! If you manage your deer and crops correctly they will tend to stay put on large properties. Our hunting club leases 2,400 acres and manages winter and spring food plots. The deer basically stay put, but if they roam to other property, so what? This is part of hunting. I can agree that some partial fencing might be appropriate to keep wild hogs out, but why fence the whole area? Better yet, publically advertise a no limit, and free hog hunt between seasons.Did you hear about the young boy who killed a 1,052 pound "wild"hog here in Alabama? It was hunted on fenced property consisting of only 150 acres. It turned out the hog was domestic and was purchased from another family for breeding and "possibly hunting." The cost of the hunt: $1,500.00. I don't fault the young boy; he didn't know any better than what his father told him, but the father knew better. This IS NOT HUNTING! It gives all ethical hunters a bad name as well as Alabama.Hunting fenced property doesn't help our standing with the ant-hunting liberals who are spending thousands of dollars to end hunting. I think we should let this be our guide on determining the need for high fences rather than assured trophy hunting. And to those who advocate that "meat hunting" justifies fencing, do you not know that does are available anywhere, especially before the hunting pressure increases? Learn how to hunt! I like Ted and see some of his points, but lets be united for the sake of insuring our hunting heritage. Stay away from high fencing, if for no other reason but to deny the anti-hunting liberals a foothold!
For or against are opinons, and everybody has different ones. If you really read the artical then you should have noticed that he didnt REALLY say one way or the other. He simply stated the facts that it is leagl, and property owners have the right to a high fence. Whether we agree with certain things or not, we have to look at the big picture and choose our words carfully. If we dont, and the antis come across what has been said, then they will take that as ammunition and get away with what ever they can. Ted is doing a great job of protecting what we love. There are not many of us that have his vocabulary and the balls to stand up and say what needs to be said.LOVE YA TED!!! I LOVE WHAT YOU DO FOR THE AMERICAN OUTDOORSMAN.
Ok, so here we go is it right or not? Well its all in the eye of the beholder ! Personaly its not REAL hunting if its a farm. But the problems that I run into are that the deer move into totally unpressured areas that the antis own, and there they stay for the season,but its not only the antis that keep people out its also land owners that have had negative expieriences with dumb ass hunters that don't respect the wishes of the land owners. Instead of babbling on about who hunts with what mabey just lean over and smack that one dumb ass who u know that has messed up a good hunting spot for u. There is no doubt that we have to stick together no matter our opinions. And F&S who's side r u on this article is deffintley put a question mark in my mind if I will renew my subscription. Please help us don't hurt us!!!!!!!!!
I have hunted for forty years. I can go to the same spot on my 52 acres and find the same buck year after year. He knows I'm coming well before I get there, and eludes me time after time. They have put radio collars on deer and the ones who survive season to season move the least. You can be thirty yards from a mature buck and he will not move and you will never know he's there. It is their bedroom, dining room and living room and they know every inch. 500 acres is huge. My cousin owns a 500 acre farm in Michigan and we know every buck, but killing one after the first gun goes off at sunrise on opening day is another story. Everyone is friends until opening day and then nobody talks to each other. Stay on your side of the fence is the motto. Fenced in or not, it is still hunting... Ted, you rock!
True, the high fence means the animal can't escape the enclosed area. But if you're talking about several hundred acres with good cover, it can certainly elude you. I've hunted some of these and usually as soon as you get a glimps of the animals they're gone. Then you spend several hours trying to locate them again only to immediatly get busted again. It CAN be very difficult. I've also seen some examples of very easy hunting in high-fenced ranches.I basically boils down to is a good operator can set you up for as challenging of hunting as you want. Remember that hunting is very different to different people. Me, I like it all.
This is amazing stuff. It's nice to see Nugent exposed for what he is - anti-conservation and anti-wild habitat.But don't take my word for it. You can read Nugents anti-wildlands rant in his congressional testimony here:http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/resources/hii41004.000/hii41004_0.HTMNugent has been anti-wild and pro-high fence hunting for years.His position hangs like a dark cloud over the entire sport of hunting.
I am honestly surprised in a good way that so many people disagree with Ted Nugent. This guy is should never be considered a hunting "spokesman". And for everyone that wants to cancel their F&S subscription-fine. Todays hunting is a changing world. Nowdays hunters are not all racist, closeminded fanatical right wingers who want to control their lands like dictators. The hunter of today is more of a moderate and far more intellectual than of yesterday. Todays hunter lives on 1/4 acre and realizes that we don't live in an all or nothing black and white world.
How many of you narrow interest hunters, who want to see restrictions and boundaries on what other hunters do, eat hamburger you bought at a restaurant or eat meat from the grocery store?Where DO you draw the line on how your table meat is obtained?I grew up on a farm. We'd take calves, name them, raise them, train them to lead, show them at fairs, then kill, butcher and eat them. Killing animals is where meat comes from.Time for some of you to get off your high horses and barbeque them.
If it's legal and something you want to do go for it!if it's not for you fine.united we stand,divided we fall!WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
Lets talk EthicalHow bout when Ted took that 100 yard shot on the spanish goat in Hawaii, running shot even. Hot Damn, that was cool.100 yard shots for everyoneEspecially within an enclosure, they you may find the wounded animal.Teds the best!
Everyone here should read Brian Preston's post today. The middle paragraph is the best thing anyone has said so far. It is exactly what we should all recognize.Kick ass Brian. You are 100% right.
Ted,If you can honestly say that you would see no difference in taking your child to hunt on gameland, or vast un-fenced private acreage, from taking them on a fenced in hunt of any kind you have lost your mind.You basically say in your answers to the questions asked by F&S, THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. IS THAT HOW THE OTHERS ON THIS BLOG FEEL.IS THERE NO DIFFERENCE. DO YOU NOT PREFER ONE OVER THE OTHER, AND IF SO, IS THE ONLY REASON BIGGER ANTLERS OR HORNS? PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER HONESTLY.
So, honestly thoughtful,If something is legal then it is morally right huh? If something is legal it could never be proven to be negative and then made illegal. You people should think before you type. Is there nothing ''legal'' you find repulsive?Someone please use some facts and thought to tell me how honest debate over something ''opens the door for peta''.Seriously. You guys keep screaming that, but no one offers anything at all useful to substantiate the remark. Stop making comments without anything to back it up.I think that showing that some hunters want to see some things changed shows peta that there are better and brighter minds than those of you who say ''love it or leave it'' or ''if it is legal it is ok'' This also shows them there are people out there who will honestly debate them and do what our country is known for...Debate, council, more debate and then legislation. If all you have is the same few words and repeating that something is legal, you have already lost.Your arguments are weak and exactly the opposite of what we need. Sure you can say peta will see divisiveness, but there is divisiveness in every matter on the planet.Here is a tip for those of you who get mad and type the first thing that comes to your mind.When you read something that makes you mad, here is the most important thing you can do. Get off your axx and walk away from your cpu. Then think a while, then when the anger subsides, come back and type. If all you have to say is the same negative, ignorant bullshxx. Go back to school and re-educate yourselves.
How a person 'hunts' is up to that person so long as no laws and no one's rights are violated. Bashing any hunting leads to the demise of all hunting, it's opening the door a little more for PETA and HSUS to get in and ban hunting one step at a time- remember that- and when in some states wolves eat what's left of the wild game, ranches may be the only place where herds can be seen or replenished. So much misinformation about game farms is sad- very sad- all of it!
Furthermore,Dave,I know many non-hunters, fortunatley they are not hippocrats that eat farmed meat and look down upon people that hunt for their meat; and I have no resentment towards them at all.The only non-hunters I have a problem with are those that eat meat or products with meat in them and look down their noses at those of us that choose to hunt for our food. They simply hire someone to do their dirty work.Try debating with those that believe differently than you, to some common ground; instead of branding them right off as this or that.Oh, and ''fat celled little minds''Dude, I eat meat everyday and that makes no sense either.
DAVE,UNTIL FISH CAN LIVE OUT OF WATER YOUR ARGUMENT THERE IS TERRIBLY WEAK AT BEST. Fencing animals is in no way comparable to fish in a lake. And to the remark about non-hunters ''trying not to eat for awhile.''What?That makes even less sense.Do they not eat?That is the worst take I have seen yet. Please try to explain that one.
First off, why would anyone want to listen to anything Ted Nugent has to say?He has to have his imbecils from his pay per view web site to "vote for ted" on the Outdoor Channel Golden Moose Awards for favorite hunting show. He can't be voted on like others that deserve it, they have to promote it on his web site to go and vote for him.He and his wife has to have his imbecils from his pay per view web site bash the NRA because they don't have a banner hung up with Teds picture on it like other celebrities. Call them, write them, email them, if no results threaten them with membership.The so called "father of the year" in Michigan, preaching family values, all the while fathering a child with a New Hampshire woman while married to his wife Shemane.Why in the world would anyone listen to this lunitic? Unless you enjoy racist comments, filthy language and old and tired cliches.YOWZA, THE BEAST IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE BEAST, CHIMPS & WHORES, EAT ME, SUB CHIMPS.Ted, you are a walking and talking embarrasment.
"this has to qualify as the dumbest statement made"Whatever. My statement is based in English and American common law. Open access to *unposted* private property is the standard in most states. It doesn't give rights to minerals, water, or trees, but fauna are public property. Look in your state's G&F laws if you doubt it.The question then becomes, does a private landowner have the *right* to deny anyone access to public property when the person hunting that "property" has obtained a license that permits hunting. IMO the answer is "no."Just because you own a hunk of ground does not mean you get to control access to same or to resources on it. It's true for water rights, it's true for mineral rights, and it's (morally anyhow) true for hunting.BTW, I'm not saying you should not be allowed to post your land. Go for it, but if you post your land so that you can prevent others from accessing publically owned resources, you should not be allowed to access them either.I also happen to agree with Nugent, despite the fact that he is not the best representative for these sorts of issues. I don't have a problem with High Fence. I am convinced that bad management practices rather than the Fences themselves can cause CWD. This is true of pretty much all livestock industries. That is why free ranging bison sometimes get brucillosis from livestock."i have a very small place - 28 acres - with hunters on three sides. it makes no difference the food plots i put out because by the end of opening weekend a large percentage of the deer i have been feeding have been shot by adjacent hunters."Too bad. Those deer do not belong to you. You have no right to privileged access, IMO."if i had the available money i would fence my little place just to give myself and my wife an opportunity to shoot one of the deer we feed all summer. unfair and unsportsman like?"I would not call it unfair or unsportsmanlike. I do think that if you want exclusive access to deer you should high fence your land and raise deer domestically. The free ranging ones do not belong to you. They belong to every citizen in your state."call it what you want but with the amount of hunting pressure in some areas it is not just a matter of putting in the time, it just comes down to pure luck as to whether a deer is even going to be available to harvest."Tell me about it. I hear you. Been there done that. Most years I don't get a deer. I don't live in a state where they're overrunning the Lawn & Garden department at Home Despot or whatever.But that's the price one pays and in some ways that is what makes it fun. If deer were as easy to get as beef chuck, might as well buy it in a store."that IF we let our horses out in the pastures to feed durring deer season we attach hunter orange ribbons to their mane and tails in an attempt to keep them from being shot."Separate issue in my opinion. I've heard urban legends about this sort of thing but never heard of a factual case where someone mistakenly shot a horse or cow thinking it to be a moose or deer. I got phrases for that sort of stuff; criminal mischief; malicious destruction of property, &c. If someone shoots your horse, prosecute the SOB."we are like most people - buying this house with the acres we are strapped. if i could buy another 30 i would, if i could afford to go to a ranch and hunt i would, fenced or not."Again I hear you. Talk about strapped. I am paying down a house on .17 acres. That's all I have. I hunt public land. I'm saving for the day when I relocate and own more land. I don't think I'll ever get to the 30 acre mark. But if I do, I won't post or fence the land. I will certainly fence my garden though! ;)
I think what this all boils down to is this.Whether its dog hunting or high fence hunting or hunting over bait, some people just want a more honest approach; or more reasonable methods to hunting. The other folks just want to lump us into bed with peta.Great defense though. I guess?Can you do no better?
Indiana Eddie,You feed deer and want to fence them in and shoot them? So you are a shooter, not a hunter?This sounds about as exciting and sporting as catching hybrid largemouths out of a 50 ft by 50 ft stockpond. Forget the test of skill and woodsmanship, forget communing with the Earth, by God I just want to shoot something!
Just how much fence are we talking about? Deer needing to roam? Whitetail deer are territorial animals. You can see them in the same place at almost the same time everyday. Their range is not that large. In every lake in America that stems from a dam people are fishing for "fenced in" fish but nobody is crying about that. Is it because everyone has access? Are we really arguing about "Joe" having deer on his property and I can't hunt them? Wah! Wah! It would seem that people that fence their property for the purpose of raising animals to hunt should have the same rights and courtesies of people that fence their land and raise cattle for market. The end result is the same. Food on the table! Deer are public property? Why does my private insurance have to cover public liability for damages in a car-deer collision? And on top of that I can't have the deer because it's public property? The ecosystem? We are, like it or not, in the food chain, usually at the top, not always. It's our place in the ecosystem to foster the environment for our benefit. Eating is beneficial, meat and potatoes! I agree with Ted 100% just based on that fact alone. Anti-hunters should try not eating for a while and see if it changes their fat-celled little minds.
first off - Mike Diehl - "if you fence off your property you should not be allowed to hunt deer on public land"? this has to qualify as the dumbest statement made. i have a very small place - 28 acres - with hunters on three sides. it makes no difference the food plots i put out because by the end of opening weekend a large percentage of the deer i have been feeding have been shot by adjacent hunters. if i had the available money i would fence my little place just to give myself and my wife an opportunity to shoot one of the deer we feed all summer. unfair and unsportsman like? call it what you want but with the amount of hunting pressure in some areas it is not just a matter of putting in the time, it just comes down to pure luck as to whether a deer is even going to be available to harvest. the hunting pressure is to the point that IF we let our horses out in the pastures to feed durring deer season we attach hunter orange ribbons to their mane and tails in an attempt to keep them from being shot. we are like most people - buying this house with the acres we are strapped. if i could buy another 30 i would, if i could afford to go to a ranch and hunt i would, fenced or not.
Just like Ted, I'm a hunter too. I live to hunt. But high-fenced hunting is not hunting. I know. I've done it. In a big (10,000 acre) enclosure. And you know what? It's not right, and I'll never do it again. Even if the animal has ample means to evade and escape, it can never leave this "pen." Wildlife belongs to the people, all the people, not some rich guy who fences it in. And one more thing: most of these high-fence operations (including Ted's, I'd be willing to bet) use feeders extensively. I suppose feeding and baiting this livestock doesn't make it any easier either, right? Give me a break!
To all of those who toil and toil over horns. Bigger antlers bigger horns thats all you see anymore. You see no beauty - only inches.You are a spoiled child on his birthday with too many presents that DOES NOT KNOW THE VALUE OF A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!Work your brains out for bigger horns and hang them in your office. Forget that the hunt is for the meat and not to kill its beauty.But the next time you argue with your wife, if you have one that still speaks to you, over a new pair of shoes, or new jewelryremember one other thing my friend.Your horn collection makes you no more different from her than that little spoiled crying child who's come to the end of his presents.
Can those of you who think any argument about hunting is fueling peta ever draw a line. Where do you say enough is enough? Can you?Do you find no other matters in life that are legal, aside from hunting, that you would change?Do you support anything so blindly that you would turn your eyes to anything? Because thats how you are coming off.
People said...''love it or leave it''When other men and women fought for your mother's right to vote.
Like many who disagree with Ted on this issue, I have respect for the great contributions he has made to getting kids into the outdoors and defending our hunting heritage.Besides the demonstrated disease risk, and the violation of nearly every tenant of the North American Wildlife Management Model, we need to remember who decides our fate as hunters. Almost 90% of the VOTING public doesn't hunt. The good news is that to date, the majority of non-hunters still have enough respect for our role in proper wildlife that they support us at the poles. Every formal survey and common sense says that support for shooting animals inside an escape proof fence of ANY size is near zero amongst these folks.Author Jim Posewitz said it best "tolerance of the lowest ethical standards for the sake of unity, simply demeans us all"If you want to see what this industry is really all about I recommend you take a look at the Bellar Trial video at real-hunters.com
Hey Thumper,My God dude!Gameland is the same as high fence. Roll another one pal.On gameland a deer can run off the area onto someone's property and I can't hunt it anymore. I can't track it anymore, I can't shoot it. Game over; unless IT DECIDES TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY.I cannot belive you actually needed that explained to you. And I cannot believe I actually explained it.
ONE LAST THING!I AM VERY PLEASED THAT THE MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS BLOG DISAGREE WITH TED.ALL OF YOU THAT WANT HIGH FENCE HUNTING; YOU SHOULD TAKE SOLACE IN THAT.Now its off to Websters you go.Off you go now.
Britton,PETA HUH?Do you think your wife or mother should have equal rights?THEN THANK YOUR GOD THAT SOMEONE DIDN'T STICK TOGETHER AND SPOKE UP IN DISAGREEMENT.Although I am starting to see a pattern here on these blogs.It appears the same people that support dog hunting, support high fence hunting, it appears that the same people that support killing pretty much anything that moves, support doing it in any way legal; with no regard at all to its ethics.LOTS OF THINGS HAVE BEEN LEGAL AT SOME POINT IN THIS WORLD AND HAVE LATER BEEN FOUND TO BE HARMFUL TO US, ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THINGS CHANGE FOR GOOD REASON; IF WE ARE LUCKY.I wonder if these same people even want equal rights in this country.I SAY YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE DEATH OF HUNTING. YOU ARE THE FUEL FOR PETA WITH YOUR HORRID METHODS. SHOW THEM HOW YOU TREE AN ANIMAL AND KILL IT DEFENSELESS.SHOW THEM THAT A FEW INCHES OF ANTLER IS ''ALL THE DIFFERENCE'' YOU TWIRPS, SHOW THEM HIGH FIVES AND CHEERS AT THE FEET OF A FRESHLY KILLED ANIMAL! SHOW THEM AN ANTLER JOUST WITH YOUR ANTLERS! SHOW THEM YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS WHEN YOUR DOGS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOW THEM HOW YOU CHARGE ENOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE TO BUY A CAR; TO KILL A DEER. SHOW THEM YOUR WASTE! SHOW THEM YOUR IGNORANCE! SHOW THEM YOUR INABILITY TO COMPROMISE AND YOU ARE DONE!
Again...all of you that say we have to stick together and support all hunting.FREAKING STOP IT!HAVE ANY OF YOU REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.Saying we have to stick together on any issue that faces our civilization is false. It is unproductive, it leaves problems unsolved. It leaves fools unchecked.ANYONE WITH A FXXXING ATTITUDE LIKE ''LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT''GET OVER YOURSELF! YOUR AN ARROGANT FOOL. YOUR IDEALS ARE COP-OUTS! I CANNOT SAY IT ANY LOUDER! COP OUTS!How would you feel if a way of hunting you loved was threatened; really? If stand hunting or dog hunting were outlawed. If it actually became law. BY YOUR LOGIC YOU WOULD HAVE TO JUST SIT BY AND ACCEPT IT AND STICK WITH YOUR FELLOW HUNTERS, BECAUSE THEY HAD, BY OUR DEFINITIONS OF LAW, ELECTED OFFICIALS; WHO IN TURN MADE THE DECISIONS THAT OUTLAWED YOU FAVORED FORM OF HUNTING.BUT YOU WOULD NOT STICK WITH THE DECISION WOULD YOU??!YOU WOULD RAISE HELL BECAUSE YOU DISAGREED!!!!!EVOLVE! GET SMARTER! REALIZE OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT BE WHERE IT IS WITHOUT DISAGREEMENT AND FXXXING COMPROMISE!
Oh Ted,It isn't the size of the pen either my delusional friend. Its the FACT that the animal cannot escape from the pressure of the guides that know exactly where they are. NOT TRUE HUNTING.Get an 8pt on public land, no bait, no stand, no hounds, no guide; with a muzzleloader. Then those of you that would criticize me can speak.
We are now on the verge of change!! It is wonderful to read how devided all of you animal murderers have become. Given your statements here, it will be easier than expected to dismantle your ways. Everyone who disagrees with Ted Nugent, please, please come join us at www.peta.org and together, we'll defeat all of the hunters and gun owners of America!!
Uncle Ted Supporter,You are apparently smarter than me.You called me an idiot. I think I will cry. I will waste no time on you except to remind you to evolve.
High fence hunting is a personal property rights issue legally and a personal choice personally.You elitists that think your definition of "hunting" is the right one are simply full of yourself & completely wrong.I have hunted from tree stands at high fence operations, and from ground blinds, and done some spot & stalk. The spot & stalk was the hardest. Just like in Utah for mule deer or elk.I can take any one of you to some of the high-fence preserves that I enjoy and I promise some of you wouldn't be able to find your way out in a few days.Shame on most of you, you help the HSUS every day in their effort to ban all hunting, just by arguing amongst yourselves. If you don't like high fence hunting, don't do it, but who the hell do you think you are to tell me I can't?As usual, Nugent is right on all points, again.
I love to hunt. I've hunted wll over. It's the game that makes the hunt a challenge or not a challenge. If you hunt plains game in Africa, you see the game a mile or more away and stalk within high power rifle range. It's pretty easy SOMETIMES. It couldn't be made any easier with fences, only a bit quicker because you'd have to drive less to get within stalking distance. The rifle is what makes this kind of hunting "easier". Wanna ban rifle hunting? Some would like to. I support ALL hunting.Some think it's unethical to hunt over baited areas, yet they think nothing's wrong with haning a treestand in an oak tree surrounded by acorns, or putting a blind up next to a food plot.Smart 21st century hunters have figured out how to maximize the productivity of their limited hunting time. Enclosure hunting properly structured and managed is a logical, ethical and extremely satisfying extension of that.
There's no such thing as canned hunting. All hunting is high-fence hunting, it's just a matter of proportion. When you hunt public land you are high-fence hunting...you just paid for it with your tax dollars instead of up front. The interviewer was obviously not interested in a discussion of the topic as his bias is obvious at the outset. This was an opportunity to hit Mr. Nugent with loaded questions and watch the backlash.It's a shame that a venerable publication like F & S has now resorted to tabloid journalist tactics, instead of having an honest and informative discussion on a topic which many people (hunters and non-hunters alike) need an education. The responses posted thus far make that obvious...no one wants to learn or is interested in changing their opinion. Sad really - it will ultimately be the end of hunting in America if things don't change. Thankfully we have people like Ted Nugent who aren't afraid to educate people, no matter what might be said about them.
I agree with ted. Hunting is hunting and if I want to kick out a few bucks to up my chances that is my bussiness.That said ted sounds like an idiot. He flustered under presure and made his reasonable defense of high fence hunting sound like it was from some right wing conspirtist.
Funny how the "Real Ted Nugent" is a link to an ALF SITE. See guys, the AR terrorists are watching and looking.
In response to the question about standing together about anti's, here is my take."Canned Hunting" is basically a term created by anti hunters in order to push how they want the public to perceive all hunting within an enclosed facility to be. While high fence facilities vary, legislation to restrict such usually is designed to affect all facilities and not just those occassional "black eye" facilities that can give the majority a bad name.The public's perception of high fence hunting is most challenged by two simple facts. One - The vast majority of Americans do not hunt, and thus, like with any endeavor which does not hold one's interest, they may possess limited knowledge of hunting which can make them vunerable to being misled, which anti hunting factions have a long track record of attempting to capitalize upon. Two - As long a hunters remain apathetic, expecially those who hunt high fence ( or for that matter any other specific venue ) and allow anti hunting factions to present high fence as they want the public to perceive it without hunters challenging that presentation, then high fence will remain threatened.Remember that the anti's will use anything they can get their hands on as fodder for an attack, and that the media often has an obsession with bad news, thus that one "black eye" facility is what makes the headlines and not the other 99% that quietly go about their business in a respectable manner. However because that "black eye" facility grasps the attention, it doesn't always mean that any perception drawn from such will be an accurate one.Lies by anti's are not limited to what they call "canned hunting". In 1996 they tried to pass off a dog that lost a leg in a vehicle collision as a trapping victim to push for a ban on trapping in Massachusetts. In 2004 they tried to pass off 15 year old poaching footage from Oregon as bear hunting with hounds in Maine in an attempt to push for a ban on bear hounding. Recently peta has tried to pass off the very same footage as a depiction of bear hunting to queen Elizabeth II of England. Thus since high fence hunting as a rule is not represented truthfully by the hsus' manifestation video which shows an animal with one arrow in its rump and another arrow through its rear leg ... then why should we concede "high fence" when they have proven that their agenda includes lying attacks on any aspect of hunting which they may see a vunerability with ?
If it's inside a fence and can't get out, then IT'S NOT HUNTING!It's a farm.I don't care if you kill it or even if you shoot it. It's just an animal, you can even make up your own lie but none of that makes it hunting Ted.Some of these "hunters" would be better placed in Future Farmers of American instead of the hunting community. Just shooting your 4H project don't make you a hunter.
this magazine is a disgrace to all hunters and anyone that continues to subscribe after this interview might as well join the anti hunters. all the people that agree with hal herring might as well start sending their money in to PETA. you are basically giving them ammunition to use against us REAL hunters, trying to divide us. if you agree with high fence hunting awesome if not dont speak out in order to fuel their fire
Ted's 100% right. Hunting is about personal preferences and property rights. If you want to determine how to hunt, BUY your own land and do as you please. The reason high fences go up is because many "hunters" have no self control. I am not going to spend the price of 10,000 acres of prime habitat and the protein feeding program to support trophy production and then have 10 acre owners line up on my boundaries and skim my best deer for pennies on my dollar. Nope, I'm high fenced and happy. And no one's gonna change that.
Boy, that Ted sure would make a great polititian, answering questions with questions and dodging them with the best of 'em.
Here's a link to the real Ted. Some of his ignorant rants!http://www.nocompromise.org/news/000731c.html
Ted's still an idiot!
Ted is a Great spokesman for hunters everywhere don't be to quick to dismiss his thoughts, all of his answers have some merit, having said that You and I do not have to agree. For me High Fence hunting is simply unacceptable at any price. I will continue to be a advocate of almost all kinds of hunting and Ted.
Different people have different ethics. Some people lie. Every salesman I have ever met falls into this category. Some people steal. Ever carried a pen home from work? Some people cheat on their wives. President Carter did it in his heart and felt guilty. Some people shoot animals entrapped in small areas. Hogzilla anyone? There is a gray area between hunting a 20,000 acre ranch in Texas encircled with a fence and shooting a "wild boar" on 160 acres. America is the home of the free. Free to decide for ourselves what is right. If you can shoot a scoped crossbow during archery season and not feel bad about it, it is your decision. I have shot pen raised pheasant on an army base for cash. They were very tasty... Leave the Motor City Madman alone!!! Ted, you rock.
Fellow blood brothers and hunters, hunting game on open range land over high-fenced property is a matter of personal choice, not a question of ethics. I would rather hunt the majestic American bison on the open plains of Colorado, Nebraska, or South Dakota instead of a private ranch with high game fences because I consider a hunt to be the spiritual pursuit of man's most fundamental and primal instinct. For me, to hunt any other way diminishes the experience and lessens the nobility of my trophy.That said, I am proud to stand with Uncle Ted on this issue. His responses are consistent with the finest hunting traditions and highest ethical standards. This entire debate over high fence hunting is a red herring designed to make hunting more palatable to a small, highly vocal and visible minority of Stalinists who advocate the mass slaughter of the very game that they claim to protect. It is disappointing that F&S, a publication dedicated to the proliferation of hunting and hunter's rights, is promoting diviseness among hunters who must stand united at a time when our rights and priviledges are under assault from the Stalinist left.
I agree with Ted on this.Many of the comments above sound like emotional knee jerk reactions to a hot topic that the posters have probably never experienced first hand. I have and can say that my experiences have been some of the toughest hunting I have ever done. I also consider every animal I bring to bag a "trophy". It does not matter to me if it came off a large tract of public land or off 500 acres of high fenced private land. I still hunted that property and earned that animal.
It is with a profound sadness that I write this.To abandon your brothers or sisters in the name of appeasement will be the downfall of hunting. Just because you don't do or like a particular form of hunting is ultimately slitting your own throat.And as far as CWD, Ted is right, it had nothing to do with fences, it had everything to do with the poor care given the animals inside the fences. Before proposing to ban another form of hunting why not propose holding those that provide that form of hunting to a higher standard of care for those animals?
I respect whatever legal pursuit private land owners do with their own property.I like it when land owners enclose their property and charge people to hunt on their property.I like it when people spend their money on hunting enclosures.I like it when land owners make a profit from their hunting enclosure.I respect Ted Nugent for stating his opinion, regardless what others may think of it.I like it that Ted Nugent is the de facto spokesman for the hunting community because of his knowledge, wit and passion.
By the way. For those interested in the FACTS of the origin of CWD, and it's timeline. The info is avialable HERE:http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.timeline
Where to begin. Fist of all the essence of America is freedom and the essence of freedom is private property rights. Nugent has this exactly right whether the subject is hunting or patent law, or the free enterprise system.Secondly, Hal's lengthy diatribe on the CWD episode in Wisconsin is a true story but does not contradict Nugent's assertion which is patently obvious that FENCES did not cause CWD. Bad management practices and criminal behavior did.Wisconsin has not moved to outlaw private preserve hunting.Hunters of all preferences, species, methods and means must learn that if we do not hang together and support each other, we will all hang separately and our heritage will vanish. That is the essence of Nugent's message, and it is an undeniable truth.Nobody should be foolish enough to think that appeasement of the animal rights wackos will in any way diminish their desire to achieve their ultimate goal which is the elimiation of ALL HUNTING!
Not to date myself too much, but, I do remember the CBS show "Guns of Autum" where they showed a guy shooting a buffulo in an enclosed space after it was released into a small pen. I do believe that even "Uncle" Ted would dislike this operation and that is what it sounded to me like the writer was trying to get Ted to admit. Just how small is too small? Well I don't know and I think it depends on the operation. I love to hunt upland birds and I have just as much fun shooting released birds on a game farm behind a good dog as I do wild birds out in the open. I suppose this too is really hunting a high fenced enclosure so to speak, but it is fun. Ted! I too enjoy hunting every chance I get and I think the key word here is HUNTING. I believe you can hunt behind a high fence as well as you can in the open, but again it depends on the area and the species. God Bless You Ted and all you do for us.
No! Wrong idea. High fence my ass. If we put up high fences it will take out the roming aspect that deer let alone bucks need and thrive on. Not allowing a deer to rome is like saying a baby can't cry. It's part of their nature to rome. What happens if there is a break out of CWD. What will we do. It originated with deer in captivity. Lets not make it worse!!!!!!!!
KM,I could not have said it better brother. I have had enough of "the Nuge" It seems as though, lately, when I read another interview, catch an episode of spirit of the wild, ect ect "The Nuge" is becoming more and more the over emotional, delusional, over defensive small minded, big mouth **** that I certainly would not want representing me or anyone else in regard to hunting. Oh and the damn yankees sucked
p.s. F&S dont make me cancel my subscription.
TomHunter & Animal LoverYour an Idiot.
I'm NOT sorry: hunting for trophies on game farms is very weak. go ahead and shoot all the animals you want inside a fence. then show off that big trophy as if it harvested in real hunting adventure. i have unlimited respect for those of us who harvest our animals in the free-ranging world, zero respect for those who don't (since you obviously are not respecting the animal you will kill).Nuge, you're great for speaking out on most other things, but high fences are the easy way out and it is not real no matter how you try to explain things away.you think we shoould be teaching our kids this false sense of reality. dollars spent at "game farms" would be best spend on the wild resources that we all own, the way america decided it should be in the begining. remember that??
High fence hunting is for fools too bound up by their egos to realize that a true trophy is only as valuable as the amount of work it took to harvest.If you want to kill something in a pen for fun, go ahead. Just don't call it hunting.
"People want to steal what I have developed, because they are too lazy or unwilling to pay the price to their own place."You have not developed anything. Unless you purchased domestic deer and raised them, the deer on your land do not belong to you. If your property is not posted you deserve what you get. If it is posted, you should not be allowed to hunt public property (deer) on your posted land.
Thanks for your contribution Dave!!
ted was part of a supergroup called damn yankees back in the nineties. tommy shaw (formerly of STYX) was lead vocals.The alternative genre of music exploded with Nirvana and sadly hair metal began to die.
I agree with the Nuge. Several questions here were loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias. It is sad to see who is in the editor's chair at F&S. Furthermore, Dave has been living in New York state for too long. I've started to get irritated by his liberal bias on many issues recently.
And to all those who think the only reason some of us are against high fence hunting because we don't have the money or we are jealous.YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO bush TOO LONG!I bet about 95% of you INHERITED YOUR LAND, from someone who inherited from someone else FROM SOMEONE WHO FREAKING STOLE IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. YOUR BORDERS ARE FALSE AND YOUR MINDS ARE WEAK. If so you live on stolen land that you did not earn. Sorry - inheriting something might make you the LAWFUL owner, but someone may just declare manifest destiny on your axx too one day. WATCH OUT!Finally - start listening to REASONS some of us have against some of the more debatable forms of hunting. We are trying to help, if you listened and thought before you responded with emotion alone,you might just find your way out of that rut.
what is with everybody picking on the Nuge lately?
To Ted,I know, as though he would care even if he did read this blog. But I will be going home to burn my copy of ''Kill it & Grill It''.I liked the book because of its creative, somewhat ludicrous writing and the recipes were top notch. But he has major issues.One. He is far too arrogant in his approach to debating those that would take our hunting from us.TED - IF EVERYONE INVOLVED IN A HEATED DEBATE OVER HUMAN RIGHTS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS OR WHATEVER STARTED THROWING AROUND CRAP LIKE...''Supply and demand, free choice, private property rights, good old American capitalism and entrepreneurialism are beautiful things''Women and minorities would not have the right to vote, african americans would still be slaves, etc. etc. etc.YOUR ARROGANT, ELITIST ATTITUDE SUCKS YOU FREAKING OVERPAYED OVERUSED BRAGGART. See, I can throw together a bunch a crazy words to make a useless point and confuse people too. No use - no good.I used to think I wanted you to speak for me and thought that your stances on hunting and fishing for your food was excellent. You are right about that. Our food is tainted and fresh game is the answer. But after some contemplation of your harsh words and ascertations that everyone should be doing just that - I REALIZED YOU WERE TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH.I don't know of many people at all that can sustain themselves off what little land they may own. Not because of lack of ability, but lack of land and resources. Hey Ted, I hunt on gameland, not private property; and so do most folks I know. We don't have thousands of dollars to spend on land to sustain ourselves - not to mention to blow on freaking canned trophy hunts.You are totally wrong. Please stop speaking out now. We don't want your ''help'' anymore.Oh, one more thing...''There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions.''Right...Do you even know whats coming out of your pie-hole anymore?So anyone who disagrees with you is small minded huh?I think you need to crank that amp up a bit DUDE, because becoming deaf and mute would be a relief for the rest of us.TomHunter & Animal Lover
God, Guns and Rock and Roll, Ted!!! You said it RIGHT! It is what is and no one fools themselves when going "hunting" in a high fence. I do it for meat, along with spending time with family and friends, period! Overcrowding on public lands and the adventure to do something different calls me north to upper Michigan to shoot a Russian Boar (with bow, mind you). The price is right and the meat is great. I'm far from rich to own 100's of acres but the 10 acres I do have brings home the vension. Oh, by the way I hunt pheasant game farms too. ALOT less hunting pressure and I bring home meat. I guess some people only go after big racks and getting thier name in some kind of record book.
Tom and Evan I couldn't agree with your posts more. I still like Ted and he does do a lot for hunting and hunters rights but there are times like this that the "polititian" comes seeping out instead of the guy driving to the U.P. in his Bronco with the zebra paint job, called by the "spirit of the WILD", I don't think Fred Bear ever hunted inside a high fence even when he was 80, right?
I agree with Ted about 85%. I know of high fence areas that are over 6000 acres and some that are only a few hundred. Each are a different as night and day. The larger try every thing in their power to keep the animal population in check to help stop the spread of CWD. They have hunts of all kind, Trophy paid hunts to free hunts for their employees and families to shot the smaller buck and over populated doe. Whatever is needed to maintain a healthy herd. And believe me, if these animals smell, hear or see you, they are gone as far away as they can get. Much like an animal in the wild. It is the smaller operations that over populate there herd so they can shot as many animals as possible to make as much money as possible that is hurting this business. I drove by one such small operation one evening and saw a very nice 12 point standing inside a fenced in area of approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. Two days later this deer was on the front page of the sports section of the local newspaper. "Dr. so and so" harvests another trophy. Ted is right and Ted is wrong. There are good and bad. If we the people don't take a stand, the only people that will be hunting is the rich and famous. But I think that is many years away.
I back Ted in all he said 100%, no one should back down from this issue and he is right. We need to stop helpping the Anti hunting world and help our own hunting world. Its just a choice and no one makes you hunt, it is our God given right to do so.God bless TedMike Moyer
I've hunted both wild Alaska with no guide and fenced operations in Florida. For deer, we lease 1600 acreas in SC. To me, hunting is hunting. I do agree with Ted, the pressure put on animals has a dramatic effect on how difficult it is to kill an animal. If you want difficult, try public land in SC. Our deer season goes from Aug. 15 to Jan 1 with a four deer per day limit. These deer are shy. Yet, in Alaska, some of the caribou literally walked through the camp.To sum it all up, do what you feel is right; and let the other people do what is legal and they feel is ethical. We need to support all hunting and all methods of hunting. We must stick together.
It seems to me that the non-hunters would be happy to have enclosed hunting. That way all their wild animals would have a better chance of survival. I agree with the comment about asking a kennel owner if it is good for the dogs. Or a hog farm owner if it stinks. You get my drift? I am a hunter/angler and am very glad to live in a free country. One where I can pursue wild game as my ancestors did to help establish this great nation. Or, if I could afford it, use my one week off a year and go to a place where I could be sure of bagging something.My point is, I Have A Choice! If I have to ask my neighbor if I can hunt this place or that, then I don't have the freedom of choice.
This is all about people jealous of others who will not purchase their own property or prepare good habitat. I think the problem is that people who are against high fence because they want to have the benefit of the land owner who is providing quality habitat for his land by food plots and keeping people out to reduce stress on the wildlife. I am constantly having to run poachers off of our farm, they come onto our land and scout then wait until we are gone and come in and shoot anything that moves. They have even started driving through our property on their ATVs to drive the deer on to the neighboring property where they’re friend or relatives are waiting to shoot them. I have been in my blind and had people park their trucks on the road and walk in right where I am set up, no orange vest, like they own the place and start arguing with me that they have permission to be there. I should put up a high fence to keep people out! It’s my farm, I paid for, my food plots I planted my habitat I set aside from agriculture. People want to steal what I have developed, because they are too lazy or unwilling to pay the price to their own place. People always want something good without having to pay for it, there is nothing in our constitution guaranteeing that. I think anyone who owns private property should get to do what they want, if high fence is causing CWD then who cares the animals are all in the enclosures anyway it’s their problem. If you can’t afford it on your own get your friends and family together and buy it collectively.God bless America,
Hey Bob, I'm a bit curious ... what exactly did F&S do to Zumbo? Other than have Petzal defend the man's right to free speech after Outdoor Life fired him for saying negative things about black rifles?
I agree with Ted 100%. I too am a hunter. When the opportunity arises to hunt, I hunt. High fence hunting doesnt necessarily mean shooting a deer in a 10' x 10" cage. I think what truly does bother me more than anything here, is the direction Field & Stream is beginning to take. Recently, F&S took a hard line, liberalistic ideological stance against another great hunter and outdoorsman, Jim Zumbo. In reality, Mr. Zumbo, like Ted Nuggent, gave their opinion. F&S reacted to Mr. Zumbo by firing him! Since F&S has decided they are in the publishing business to dictate what they feel is fact, (which I call sensorship), are they going to continue this trend in all facets of hunting and fising? Next they will disgaree with Craig Boddington on which is the best Cape Buffalo gun, and sensor him! Just to let the liberal fringe at F&S know,I will not be renewing my subscription after this one runs out. If I want socialistic sensorship in what I can and cannot read or hear, I will simply tune in to CNN. We dont need another left wing, closed minded group of facists telling us what is right and wrong, according to their narrow minded beliefs. Get a life F&S, it is people like Jim Zumbo and Ted Nuggent that made your magazine great. Not your own limited experiences.
While I like the majority of Nugent's comments, I find his rationalization for "high-fence" hunting to rank right up there with the pillaging of treasures by ol' Hearst simply because "I got the money to do it". Go to any Sports Expo and look at the prices of guided hunts. Many average hunters are already priced out. However, does "high-fence" hunting differ that much from state Fish & Game Depts stocking farm/ hatchery raised fish into lakes, streams and ponds to justify the cost of licenses?
Wow! You guys are on a roll this year killing all the heros. First Zumbo, now Nugent. Good thing we have F&S and Outdoor Life to tell how to think!
I believe the questions put to Mr. Nugent were fair. In spite of his over the top reaction (don't shoot the messenger Ted ), I see no 'hidden agenda'by the writer.The privatization of hunting land is a return to the European model, and high fence hunting is the ultimate example of this trend in America. Federal public lands are increasingly being 'protected' by Wilderness designations from California to Virginia promoted by enviro groups. Wilderness policy greatly restricts hunter (and angler) access unless one owns a horse or cares to drag a deer out a couple miles on foot.Hunting for the average income American is being priced out of reach on private lands, and public lands are slowly but surely becoming less accessible, especially for older hunters, women or young people who may not care to or be able to walk for miles.I believe Mr. Nugent is missing or sidestepping these points in the interview. He missed a great opportunity to speak out on behalf of 'average' hunters.Phil
well, whattya know... you ask an owner of a high fence ranch what he thinks about high fence hunting and he nearly explodes with desire to tell you how great it is!yrs-Evan!
sorry ted. simply cannot agree. a high-fenced animal is still captive, whether it is on five acres or five hundred. a captive elk cannot change zip codes when shot at like a free range animal could.
I much appreciate Mr. Nugent’s contribution here, and I enjoyed our exchange. I have a lot of respect for what he's done as a musician and for hunting. However I don’t want to be a party to misleading readers.From Mr. Nugent's interview:"Everybody knows that CWD & bovine TB are a direct result of our all-knowing government bureaucrats messing things up way back in 1967 and beyond. No believable evidence has ever been produced linking these diseases to fences."That’s an utterly false statement. F&S covered the Buckhorn Flats CWD infection last month--where the game farm owner kept stalling Wisconsin wildlife and ag officials--selling hunts from an enclosure that showed "shooter buck" after "shooter buck" to be infected with the disease, which has cost wildlife officials millions of dollars of public money to try and address- and then of course, someone cut the fence at buckhorn flats and let the rest of the deer free...in the "breeding enclosure, officials finally liquidated the herd and found 60 of 76 does infected with CWD.Look at the shipments of infected domestic elk across the west in the past ten years, hundreds of them, shooter bulls killed in Colorado and found to be infected. Look at the bovine TB epidemic that occurred on Canadian game farms in the 90's. The ‘gubmint” did it? Give me a break.And to say that all opponents of game farm trophy shooting are "small minded" -- what do you think Teddy Roosevelt would have said to Mr. Nugent about that? We may live in a time where public figures can say things that are not true, express opinions that are based in wishful thinking or emotion, and express them so loudly, and with such certainty and in- your- face aggression, that those opinions overwhelm the thoughts and efforts of more thoughtful and intelligent people, but that does not give those opinions any more truth or validity. You can call a cow's tail a leg, and shout all day that a cow has five legs. You can ridicule the people who question that, call ‘em names, question their loyalty to the group, use all the old tricks, - that cow still only has four legs, little buddy.The high fence debate is not going to be won by who yells the loudest.Thanks,Hal Herring
I respect what Ted does for the american shooter and hunter. He does dedicate a large portion of his time and energies to these causes. It doesn't hurt that he makes a nice living from them as well. Ted's American dream works for him.For the average hunter/shooter, the ability to pursue these sports are dwindling @ an ever increasing rate. Private land is being locked up in leases, gun ranges are disappearing and hunters are aging.Without the average Joe, hunting and shooting will all but disappear in this country.Then the high fence, crossbow, in-line muzzleloader, black rifle debates will be pointless, because there will be no one to care.
What an idiot!. High fence hunting, game ranches, etc are a disgrace to hunting and terrible for the ecosystem.
Post a Comment