Just when does this officially become ridiculous?

They have certainly been bred to prevalence but they did come from naturally occurring specimens with recessive genes. How many people prefer their "Black" bears to be brown, cinnamon, chocolate, or blonde? answer - as any outfitter will tell you, most.

Back to the Springbok, the normal appearing cape springbok are as much of a science experiment as any color variant, since as any good game manager knows, if you introduce Kalahari Springbok genes you get bigger horns. So don't fool yourself by thinking that just because something looks "normal" that it is unaltered. That Copper or White springbok could be of truer Cape Springbok lines than the next "normal" colored one you shoot.

The whitetail that stated this thread is also pure whitetail, bred not for color but bigger horns just like the Cape Springbok you will find on far more game ranches than some would care to admit.

You make a lot of great points. Don't judge a book by the cover, look into the details!
 
While we are getting away from the original whitetail, I will admit to having taken 5 different "types" of springbuck - "regular", Kalahari, white, black and copper, so I guess that gets me the slam.

While there is no doubt that people breed for the colour genes, all of them occur in nature, in greater or lesser proportions, and at the limits of their ranges, the Kalahari will breed with the regular, giving larger horns on smaller bodies, or vice-versa. I'm not entirely sure what's "unnatural" about this, nor would I call any of these naturally occurring colour variations "freaks", but that's just me.

Personally, trying to get all 5 is simply another challenge, like trying for the big 5, the tiny 10, or the 9 spiral horned. And I like setting myself challenges.

I do think, to get back to the whitetail, that we don't have to help out the antis by doing their work for them. If we don't like shooting one thing or another - then just don't do it, but as long as it's legal, and the hunt is ethical (not always the same thing), I for one won't say anything against it. So as bizarre as that set of antlers looks, I can only assume the owner came by them naturally, and if he wasn't shot in a pen, then I say to each his own.
 
So are saying Hank, that if the deer was genetically bred to have horns that size and fed high protein and babied until it was shot (meaning the owner did everything in his power to ensure that deer made it to someone who had enough money to buy it) in a 1000 acre enclosure, where everything is measured by the inch...since it's legal...it's ok for hunting? Good for hunting?
 
Enysse, lots of questions. First, if I said or implied that legal and ethical were the same thing, I apologize. I don't think I said that, but I want to be clear, they are not the same thing.

Now, we don't know if what you describe is what's happened here, at least not from the thread. But let's assume it has. There are lots of ways to "breed" animals. You can keep deer in a pen, and make sure of the breeding, or you can keep a big buck alive in a high fenced area and let nature take its course. As for the food, you can feed deer in that small pen, or you can create food plots and supplement the food plots with minerals. Both seem to be common practice in many parts of the US, as I see on shows like Realtree Roadtrips, or Bone Collector. How about "culling" "management bucks" to get the smaller ones out of the gene pool? I'd say in all cases the deer was "genetically bred to have horns that size and fed high protein and babied until it was shot". And in both cases nature was helped along, a bit more directly in the pen maybe, but I'm not sure the pen or the high fenced ranch makes all that much difference. I don't much care for either, but I won't fault it so far on ethical ground, so long as it's legal (it isn't where I live).

Now comes the harder part. You ask if I'm Ok with selling a particular deer to a hunter who has enough money in a 1000 acres enclosure. First, selling the deer. I'm OK with selling the right to hunt deer on a particular property. That's done throughout the US, and again, it's legal (and again, it's not legal where I live). So far, I don't have a big ethical issue. As far as the money goes, well, the fellow who bought the black rhino permit in Dallas has a bucket load more money than I do, and I don't begrudge him doing what he wants with it. Elephant are expensive too, and I wish I could hunt them all the time, but I can't. But I'm not saying that anyone who has the ability to do that is wrong. So the money doesn't enter into it in my view.

But now we get to the hard part of your question. If a deer is taken from a pen, and put in a particular area, to be shot by someone who has picked that particular deer out of a lineup, then even if it's legal, I have an ethical problem with it. But what if the "pen" is 50,000 acres, like some of the ranches in South Africa are? Now we're speculating, because in an area that size, you might never find the deer again (at least not on a 10 day safari), so no one would do that. But if the "pen" is 1,000 acres, and the deer has no realistic chance of getting away, then I would say even if it's legal, it's unethical. And frankly how it's been bred really isn't relevant.

The "pen" part is what's not good for hunting in my view, but again, we need to be careful here. All of the hunting shows that have sprung up over the last few years on OLN or Wild TV here in Canada seem to be having the effect of increasing the number of hunters, and maybe even to some extent increasing the acceptability of hunting. And lots of them look like "pen" hunting to me.

At the risk of really setting off a war, I can tell you I have way more problems with places that feed (which is to say, bait) "wild" deer, supplement the feed with minerals to maximize horn size (calling that a "quality deer management program"), set up game cams to pattern the big bucks, and once you know where they are and where they go, and what time they go there, put up a tree stand and sit in it and wait as long as it takes for that right buck to come along, and then take it a 10 or 20 yards.

So to finally answer your question, and apologies for the length, I don't accept "pen" shooting because I think it's unethical (and we can argue about what constitutes a "pen"). But I guess I just don't see the difference between breeding deer in a pen and breeding deer on a ranch. One is just a bit more controlled that the other.

Now if you want to get into breeding for things that don't occur in nature . . .well, that's probably a topic for another thread, but I will say I think it's both unethical, and bad for hunting, regardless of how the animal is shot.
 
Enysse, lots of questions. First, if I said or implied that legal and ethical were the same thing, I apologize. I don't think I said that, but I want to be clear, they are not the same thing.

Now, we don't know if what you describe is what's happened here, at least not from the thread. But let's assume it has. There are lots of ways to "breed" animals. You can keep deer in a pen, and make sure of the breeding, or you can keep a big buck alive in a high fenced area and let nature take its course. As for the food, you can feed deer in that small pen, or you can create food plots and supplement the food plots with minerals. Both seem to be common practice in many parts of the US, as I see on shows like Realtree Roadtrips, or Bone Collector. How about "culling" "management bucks" to get the smaller ones out of the gene pool? I'd say in all cases the deer was "genetically bred to have horns that size and fed high protein and babied until it was shot". And in both cases nature was helped along, a bit more directly in the pen maybe, but I'm not sure the pen or the high fenced ranch makes all that much difference. I don't much care for either, but I won't fault it so far on ethical ground, so long as it's legal (it isn't where I live).

Now comes the harder part. You ask if I'm Ok with selling a particular deer to a hunter who has enough money in a 1000 acres enclosure. First, selling the deer. I'm OK with selling the right to hunt deer on a particular property. That's done throughout the US, and again, it's legal (and again, it's not legal where I live). So far, I don't have a big ethical issue. As far as the money goes, well, the fellow who bought the black rhino permit in Dallas has a bucket load more money than I do, and I don't begrudge him doing what he wants with it. Elephant are expensive too, and I wish I could hunt them all the time, but I can't. But I'm not saying that anyone who has the ability to do that is wrong. So the money doesn't enter into it in my view.

But now we get to the hard part of your question. If a deer is taken from a pen, and put in a particular area, to be shot by someone who has picked that particular deer out of a lineup, then even if it's legal, I have an ethical problem with it. But what if the "pen" is 50,000 acres, like some of the ranches in South Africa are? Now we're speculating, because in an area that size, you might never find the deer again (at least not on a 10 day safari), so no one would do that. But if the "pen" is 1,000 acres, and the deer has no realistic chance of getting away, then I would say even if it's legal, it's unethical. And frankly how it's been bred really isn't relevant.

The "pen" part is what's not good for hunting in my view, but again, we need to be careful here. All of the hunting shows that have sprung up over the last few years on OLN or Wild TV here in Canada seem to be having the effect of increasing the number of hunters, and maybe even to some extent increasing the acceptability of hunting. And lots of them look like "pen" hunting to me.

At the risk of really setting off a war, I can tell you I have way more problems with places that feed (which is to say, bait) "wild" deer, supplement the feed with minerals to maximize horn size (calling that a "quality deer management program"), set up game cams to pattern the big bucks, and once you know where they are and where they go, and what time they go there, put up a tree stand and sit in it and wait as long as it takes for that right buck to come along, and then take it a 10 or 20 yards.

So to finally answer your question, and apologies for the length, I don't accept "pen" shooting because I think it's unethical (and we can argue about what constitutes a "pen"). But I guess I just don't see the difference between breeding deer in a pen and breeding deer on a ranch. One is just a bit more controlled that the other.

Now if you want to get into breeding for things that don't occur in nature . . .well, that's probably a topic for another thread, but I will say I think it's both unethical, and bad for hunting, regardless of how the animal is shot.
Perhaps we make too much of this. If its legal, no problem. Go ahead. Do we all have to agree that its ethical? No. Can the shooter of a penned animal enter his animal in the books? Thats up to the books. Do we all have to like or condone everyone elses animals or legal hunting methods or choices? No. Should we condemn poaching and other blatantly illegal hunting acts? Yes. If a guy buys a raised critter to shoot in a small fenced area to hang on his wall, that is his business. Whether or not I want to do that is not relevant to him. If he is content to place that critter on the wall and love it, no issue with me. Not my business.
 
I think both answers to my question are well thought and correct. A lot of times it's best not to look into the fine details. I know sometime I look way too much and then I'm like maybe this is not good.
 
. . . . if I said or implied that legal and ethical were the same thing, I apologize. I don't think I said that, but I want to be clear, they are not the same thing.

. . . . If a deer is taken from a pen, and put in a particular area, to be shot by someone who has picked that particular deer out of a lineup, then even if it's legal, I have an ethical problem with it . . . . if the "pen" is 1,000 acres, and the deer has no realistic chance of getting away, then I would say even if it's legal, it's unethical. And frankly how it's been bred really isn't relevant.

. . . . I don't accept "pen" shooting because I think it's unethical (and we can argue about what constitutes a "pen"). But I guess I just don't see the difference between breeding deer in a pen and breeding deer on a ranch. One is just a bit more controlled that the other.

. . . . Now if you want to get into breeding for things that don't occur in nature . . .well, that's probably a topic for another thread, but I will say I think it's both unethical, and bad for hunting, regardless of how the animal is shot.


Hank2211,

In my view your entire post was well thought out and right on target. I most particularly agree with the above excerpts which I took the liberty to single out and highlight above.

Good hunting to you.
 
Even within the bounds of legality, folks have widely varying opinions on what constitutes legitimacy when it comes to interacting with animals (wild or domesticated).

The pic here is of a wild deer on my un-fenced property in rural southern Missouri.

I have several free-choice protein feeders on my 166 acres. Some folks think having supplemental feed on the property is egregious and would make any hunting done there (regardless of whether or not the feeders were empty the requisite days prior to hunting season) horribly un-sporting. Others think hunting under any circumstance is unethical. Others might be ok so long as the deer isn't tied to a tree!

I enjoy having a resident herd considering my place home. I enjoy seeing them, getting pictures, etc. I have enjoyed having a couple of close friends and family take a few of them over the 4 years I have had the place. I may take one or two a year once I start living there, to supplement my gardening!

The deer in question above really does nothing for me personally. I like a wild, typical animal...kinda like this guy. With another month of growing to do, his antlers will be pretty close to what I consider "nice and normal". :)

So, back to the OP question, "When does this officially become ridiculous"? It has already for me, but not for other folks...and I think that's ok.

PRMS0321.JPG
 
It's an awesome rack to be sure. There was a Buck named Goliath that lived on an Amush farm in Ohio I think that makes that animal look small. Google Goliath the deer and you will see what I'm talking about.
 
Pen hunting is BS!!! Those that do it, know who they are.... Not hunters.... Shooters at best. However, we will never stop that. As long as there is an economy for it.... Someone to raise them, and someone willing to pay $20k+ for an animal that is caged.

That being said.... A high fence doesn't make it pen raised, the acreage & terrain does. A kudu in 20,000 acres high fenced, way different than a 200" whitetail in 20 acres.

My 2 cents....
 
That whitetail in the OP is a pure abomination. Shoot it, pay for it, fine. Don't call it hunting, that's lying.

As to the Springbok grand slam. If you put them back into a naturally occuring population they would all but disappear very quickly. Being a recessive gene, the only thing that keeps the different colours seperate is intensive breeding and management programs. Leave nature out of it. They pad the SCI trophy book. More species (?) equal more entries and more funds from the fees raised to enter them 'in the book'. Classic SCI modus operandi.
 
Cast aside thine tape measure and ignore yon record book to free thyself from the heavy chains and shackles of meaningless data.
 
Last edited:
Mr VD :D more or less what i have for my best hunting tip on my info page (y)

Great minds think alike.

Mine says word for word: "Throw away you tape measure."
 
Last edited:
And to steal words from Sheakspear's Hamlet.... "To thine own self be true".....

If you are hunting in a cage.... You know it.
 
Great minds think alike.

Mine says word for word: "Throw away you tape measure."

I only use mine when I do carpentry work.
I have not and never will bring one when hunting, and I will never use one to measure my trophies at home either.
 
I only use mine when I do carpentry work.
I have not and never will bring one when hunting, and I will never use one to measure my trophies at home either.

Hi Norwegianwoods,

I am +1 with you on what I use the tape measure for as well .. perfect for carpentry and other home projects.

Making the hunting and fishing culture into a contest with score sheet and record keeping, like soccer or baseball, is great for those who want it I suppose.

However, the people that I have hunted with once in awhile, in the past, who like to "keep score" seem to always either rub some number in everyone else's face after a drink or two, or else they pout if they did not get the biggest set of antlers or horns, whatever.

A man I worked with for 20 years was (maybe still is) an "Official Scorer" for SCI and upon hearing rumors that I had taken a large bull caribou back then, asked to come over and see it.
This bull had not only rather large antlers but they are symmetric as well.

I said sure, and he arrived but then, he said he wanted to measure it and quoted to me a price for this "service".
I told him he could measure it all he wanted to but, he would have to pay me that amount, not the other way around.
He was annoyed with me for the longest time but he received very little sympathy from the others at work when I complained about it.
Most thought my actions and his response were comical.

Cheers,
Velo Dog
 

Forum statistics

Threads
54,309
Messages
1,150,934
Members
93,938
Latest member
Wildwillalaska
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

IHC-KB5 wrote on Huvius's profile.
Thanks for catching the Flanged brass - much appreciated!
new updates !


SETH RINGER wrote on RR 314's profile.
HOW MUCH ARE THEY?? PLAIN? CAMO? THX, SETH
USN
Please a prayer request due to Michael Sipple being mauled by a Cape buffalo.

Bayly Sipple Safaris on FB for company statement.
 
Top