I have long been an innocent bystander to the high fence hunting debate. Mostly because I have deep rooted opinions that are lightly held. As to say, I am open to the evolution of my thoughts and beliefs, based on good intellectual conversation and solid facts. The argument between those who own, hunt, and enjoy high fence operations, and those who oppose them, has gone stagnate, on the account of the argument of fair chase.

The Boone and Crockett Club and the Pope and Young Club, two of the most recognizable conservation groups in the outdoor industry have varying opinions of what constitutes fair chase. Neighbors in rural areas argue over food plots versus bait piles, and I have even witnessed first hand a father and son bicker over the unfair advantage of wearing battery powered socks. As import as it is to have a distinct boundary of fair chase, it becomes a blurred line, that shifts with advancements in technology, economic situations, and media pressure.

Those who oppose high fence operations, often cite the unfair advantage of pursuing and animal caged within a 40 acre parcel. But what if its not 40 acres, but rather a 10,000 acre ranch in northeast Texas? A whitetail deer could conceivably live its entire life without ever laying its eyes on a fence. Couldn’t that still be considered fair chase? If 10,000 acres is justifiable, then is 9,900 acres? How about 5,000? Or 4,000? A distinctive number is impossible to quantify and therefore the proverbial line continues to be blurry.

The root of the debate is; are high fence operations considered hunting? Its really a simple answer. According to Websters dictionary hunting is defined by the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals.
Is there chasing and killing involved? Undoubtedly, yes.

Are these animals wild? The animals that inhibit larger ranches unmistakably live natural lives. They eat, they breed, they elude predators, and they exhibit all the qualities of a wild animal. But to classify them as wild animals comes with many responsibilities.

Every hunter, angler, and conservationists that steps foot on this continent are subject, through regulations, to the principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC). The basic principles are simple; fish and wildlife belong to all Americans and they are to be managed to ensure populations are forever sustained. The NAMWC is explained more thoroughly by a set of guidelines known as the Seven Sisters of Conservation. If high fence operations consider their actions to be deemed hunting, they are deeming their animals to be wild, and effectively are violating the following Sisters:

Sister #1 Wildlife is held in the public trust -In North America,natural resources and wildlife are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

Sister #3 Democratic rule of law- Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

Sister #6 International Resource- wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries.

As hunters, we make up less than 7% of the general population. In a political system, where laws and regulations, are decided at the ballot boxes by the majority. It is imperative what and how we operate is perceived favorably by the general public. Do we want our reputation as mindful, ethical hunters to be associated with high fence operations? You tell me.