In a pretty credible poll recently the question was posed to hunters whether they supported high fenced hunting. 58% said no. 12% were unsure. 30% were in favor.
I gave a group of hunters a simple multiple choice survey once. It had quite biased questions in it.
1. Is hunter education a good thing?
2. Should violators have to take a hunter education course?
3. Should first time hunters have to take a hunter education course?
4. Should all hunters have to take a hunter education course?
The first three questions got an overwhelming 100% YES response while the last one got the exact opposite.
Evidently, hunter education is for everyone else!
If you would support high fences as a general question without context I would say NO. That answer was predicated on the assumption that the question related to where I hunt at home.
We have huge public and private spaces. Private ownership of game/wildlife is illegal. There is no hunting behind a high fence.
We do not have a threat to our wildlife like they do in Africa. Poaching and over population. We have a degradation of habitat due to resource use in some areas, but nothing matching Africa.
I live in a first world country that can afford to set aside huge tracts of land that are larger than many countries in the world. We are lucky.
It is also illegal to bait deer species here. You can use dogs to hunt cats and you can bait Black Bears.
Now change the circumstances and become educated about the country you are about to hunt in.
For illustration:
The sum total area of South Africa that has 55 Million people in it is
1 221 000 km² of which 4% is parks.
1 026 682 km2 is PROTECTED AREA in Canada. Nearly the entire country of South Africa can fit inside our protected areas where we have ZERO hunting.
It equates to about 10.3% of our land mass, never mind the marine parks. So we have 2.5 times more protected area on a percentage basis. Nice to have a first world problem where you can set aside such huge tracts of land.
Canada has 9 985 000 km2 to work with a grand total of 35 million people.
As much as is possible want to hunt in large areas that are self sustaining, with or without a fence.
I won't be hunting behind a fence at home, there is no need.
I'd wager that 99% of those respondents would not be able to create a system, philosophy or creed that would consistently support their opinions in the matter.
Of course the world only has one religion now, so I won't take your bet on consensus of philosophy.
The reason a fence is to be shunned regardless of size is:
1.) Animals cannot select a mate with the proper biodiversity (inbreeding and linebreeding)
10 acre bomas (breeding camps are not 7000 Hectare farms.
Animals can quite easily live out a completely natural self sustaining life cycle within a large fenced property.
2.) Animal routines and patterns are more consistent because of unmovable barriers on all sides.
Animals can quite easily live out a completely natural self sustaining life cycle within a fenced property and never encounter the fence.
As far as old migration patterns are concerned, that is a done deal unless we pack everyone back onto a boat and send them back to whence they came. People are part of the equation now. LOTS of people.
3.) Stress to the animal may be higher due to unnatural competition for supremacy of a herd or pack since the animal behavior may not tolerate splitting packs or harems over the size of the fenced area
Again, size matters. Animal home ranges can easily fit within a large property. Eliminating size of property is a fundamental error.
4.) New genetic infusion into the breeding stock requires human intervention
Unless we pack everyone back on the boats humans are going to be intervening.
5.) Fences encourage bifurcation of wild stocks and eventual alteration of wild genes (e.g. color alterations of Springbok that are unnatural, breeding of Cape Buffalo for horn size at the expense of weakened TB resistance)
PROFIT encourages genetic manipulation. I'd suggest we blame gasoline engines for this. It is a tool that is central to all transport of wildlife. That will be a good parallel generalization.
6.) Success will always average higher than unfenced hunting statistically because probability of an animal existing in the area inside a fence is 99.9% whereas in an unfenced area it is uncertain the targeted species is even present.
Game counts are done in any hunting area. The Outfitter will know what product is present.
7.) Fences prevent the full predator/prey relationship from culling the sick and the weak so there is less natural Darwinian "pruning" of prey species.
Humans are natural predators and quite naturally hunt these animals. Cull, Biltong, trophy, rations. The folks who head to SPAR for their food don't seem to grasp this connection.
8.) Holding capacity of fenced areas is greater than unfenced areas because they are managed for optimal food and water to support the resource. This leads to disproportionate quantities of game that leads to:
a.) Higher disease transmission rates
b.) Poorer natural selection to eliminate inefficient feeders
c.) congestion of resources into the areas most heavily managed for food and water (since management is never equal across the area) ..............
Only if the property is managed as a farm and not a self sustaining ecosystem. ie. breeding camp vs reserve
EVERY AREA is managed for optimal game production for that area and the chosen conservation management model.
With a fence or without one.
There are several Outfitter areas in Zimbabwe/Botswana that I can think of, off hand, that have introduced water wells and this ensures that the Elephants are able to spread out and not destroy their entire habitat.
The wells actually provide for a dispersion of then population reducing disease, etc. It is still production manipulation.
It also allows for the natural predators to hunt the Elephant.