07/27/07
Ted Nugent on High Fence Hunting
Exclusive Interview: Ted Nugent on High Fence Hunting - Field & Stream Magazine Feature

F&S Contributing Editor Hal Herring sat down with Ted Nugent the other day to pick his brain on the question of high-fence hunting. The interview got a bit heated when The Nuge took issue with some of Hal's questions, calling them "loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias." Check it out below, then let us know; is this just another example of "hippie, dope-smoking antihunting 'journalism'?" What do you think of high-fence operations?

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? **** 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.



http://home.midmaine.com/~hindsite/LJonesHunt.jpg

In Maine we have 7 Big Game hunt preserves. With our heavily forested terrain it is absolutely a challenge !

I have mixed feelings about the high fence issue. To me, it's a matter of degree or propriety. It's drawing a line between a true hunting experience, & simply blasting away at a semi-domesticated animal standing in a corral. I feel much the same way about foodplot hunting, & placing formerly caged birds in a field for shooting. The more the experience becomes contrived, the more unatural it seems. But that's just me, & I don't look down upon others who feel differently. By the way, that is a great deer in your post!

seems to me,you are talkin about another individual right.. i dont choose to partissapate,, but its the owners right to make his land pay ,,and run this buisiness. just because i dont care for it
doesnt mean it should be codemed..all we need is more rules.. we need to stay outa each others buisiness a little better in my opinion.. in fact id vote for a law that gives a mandatory fine for meddleing,unless your actions turn up some real serious crime ..
one tv station here pays a reward for a person to report his neighbor..oughta be law against
what that stations doing.. any reporting oughta be done to the proper authorities not a tv station..jmo

Arnold Goldschlager's from CA with his 14 point trophy Stag

http://www.hindsite-deer.com/Arnie.jpg

Here are a few words from Arnie:




Mark,


I would like to thank you for providing an excellent hunting experience during my recent trip to Maine.
Your professionalism and hospitality was appreciated from the beginning of the booking interview to the receipt of the trophy/meat.
The number and quality of the Red Deer exceeded my expectations.
The guide (Jay Farris) that you provided was knowledgeable, helpful and fun to be with.
The retrieval & field preparation of the trophies was fast, clean and efficient.
The handling of the meat and the rapid shipping was much appreciated.
I have never seen any outfitter provide the antlers so quickly and in such a clean condition.
Your helpful advice regarding Maine tourism allowed me to plan and execute an unforgettable holiday on the Maine Coast.


I have hunted six continents including several game ranches. I cannot recount the numerous problems that I have encountered.
My experience with you folks at Hindsite was flawless.


Thank you - you are the best


Arnold Goldschlager, M.D.

Yup, Ted nailed it as usual.

The whiners and nay-sayers just divide us and make it easier for the animal-rights nuts to push their agenda.

Generally speaking, the loudest critics of high fences have never hunted them. Pretty telling, huh?

It appears that much of the spread of chronic wasting disease throughout the USA and Canada is attributable to commercial high fence operations.


Generally speaking, the loudest critics of high fences have never hunted them. Pretty telling, huh?

Does this mean one also cannot oppose gambling and prostitution establishments in one's neighborhood unless one has patronized them?

It appears that much of the spread of chronic wasting disease throughout the USA and Canada is attributable to commercial high fence operations.



Does this mean one also cannot oppose gambling and prostitution establishments in one's neighborhood unless one has patronized them?

Irv,
I always enjoy your posts.
There has been so much posting done on this issue on other threads, that I think Mike might have been referring to that. But he speaks for himself.

I'm going to stay out of this one!

Good Luck

Nope - believe you're wrong on the CWD - seems the outbreak came in the upper Midwest where there are no "high fence" game operations. Colorado and Wyoming had the same outbreak with no high fences there, either.

Think your analogy of gambling and prostitution have nothing to do with hunting, either. What Mike is pointing out is unless you've tried it, don't knock it.

I include "game farms" that produce meat and antlers in the category of high fence operations, several of which exist in Colorado and a few of which have been infected with CWD. I understand Wyoming has banned all such operations and there is a movement in Colorado to ban high fence hunting operations, so they apparently do still exist. Several years ago I spoke to an outfit exhibiting at the Denver Sportsman's exposition that was selling the shooting of trophy elk, the price dependent upon the size - he got upset when I asked what he charged to shoot a yearling Hereford.

I consider high fence enclosures to improve the quality of game on ones ranch or hunting lease to be completely different than the high fence commercial operations which are more likely to be involved in the exchange of animals potentially carrying CWD

I chose to use gambling and prostitution as examples of activities the conservative members of this forum would probably agree one need not experience in order to find objectionable. Perhaps I should have used stupefying drugs in bait or aerial shooting of elk for an example to illustrate that one need not try something to justifiably knock it.

Opinions are like anything else - everyone has one.

I will honor your right to disagree with preserve hunting, I will honor the right of others to do such if they desire to do so.

Have never hunted in "high fence" areas personally, nor on game farms that charged by size of trophy in very small acreage. That's not my style. However, if others do it - that's their right. I won't knock it.

I have never heard of stupefying drugs in bait or aerial shooting of elk. Coyotes, yes.

From the Colorado Small Game hunting brochure: "It is illegal to kill, capture, injure or harass wildlife from an aircraft....It is illegal to discharge a firearm or release an arrow from an aircraft...." "It is illegal to use toxicants, drugs, explosives or stupefying substances to hunt, kill, capture, injure or harass wildlife except with permits issued by DOW or Colorado Department of Agriculture." If one considers the slaughter of bison by shooting from trains during the settlement of the West, it is apparent that some individuals would not hesitate to use toxicants or aerial shooting in order to get a trophy. The continuing problem of trophy poaching and sale is further evidence for this concern. I am aware of aerial shooting to control coyote populations in Wyoming and wolf populations in Alaska to control the populations of these predators and have no objections to using "non-sporting" methods when needed for population control, but find them unacceptable in "fair chase" hunting.

I've never hunted in a high fence area, and probably won't (at least in the US; Africa may be different) since I have ample public land to hunt. But for those that choose to do it, and they're happy with their experience, why not be happy for them that they had a good experience? I highly suspect that most high fence hunting operations don't get fair treatment in the media. They're pretty much all portrayed as having lazy hunters shooting through a fence at a pre-picked animal. While there may be some operations like that, I very much doubt that many come close to that portrayal.

I have no idea how many people actually participate in high fence hunting, but maybe people critical of it should consider another point of view on it. What if all the high fence hunting was eliminated, and then all those landowners locked up their land and put up "No Trespassing" signs and didn't allow any hunting at all, except for themselves? Where would all those people hunt then, that previously hunted the high fenced areas? On public land, right? Even more pressure on limited public land doesn't sound like a good end result to me.

I have no problem with high fence hunting, and would even accept a hunt from anyone that wants to provide me with a free hunt.

However, after shooting my trophy animal with my "free hunt" by one of you fine gentleman, I wouldn't pose for a picture like I'm a great hunter over my well fed prey.

Hunt the high fences all that you want, but don't expect me to admire you for your "hunting" skills.

Eric;)

Hunters are a cross section of the population at large. On a normal curve there will be a group that do it all...scout the wilderness, select the trophy from many specimens they see, make a stalk on that animal by using stealth, camo, scent cover, carry their equipment, binoculars, range finder, rifle and scope etc...they claim to be real hunters. Another group in the curve will do some scouting, pick a place to hunt, shoot a respectable animal not necessarily a trophy and claim to be a hunter, another group in the curve will hunt the same property year to year, have a permanent stand, one rifle, maybe some binoculars, not worry about scent cover, wind, etc, shoot whatever comes by and claim to be a hunter. Another group in the curve will hunt the easiest way possible, maybe in a high fence area and pay to shoot a trophy animal. He too will claim to be a hunter......these scenarios are possilbe along wilth seveal others but the end result is each group will claim to be a hunter. Bottom line is they are all hunters of different skills and motivations. Wherever each is in this curve we should not criticize the other group. Regardless of their skill or style, each group enjoys their hunting. The bottom, bottom line is each group can hunt how they choose. It is a priviledge and an American heritage that many others do not participate. Those that don't participate listen to all groups and form ideas as to why hunting is enjoyable for these hunters. They also listen to discord or criticism the groups level at one another. When it comes time to cast their vote on hunting issues or firearm issues they cast that vote with an opinion formed by listening to the hunters since they do not hunt and probably do not own a firearm. They also listen to anti hunters and gun control lobbyist and cast that vote with opinions formed from the hunters they heard.....

I would never hunt a black bear over a gallon drum of feed, others do and enjoy it. I would hunt them with dogs. I would hunt a lion with dogs, never have but would. I hunt wild quail, wild pheasants, and ducks with a dog. I have also gone to a preserve where pen raised quail, pen raised pheasants, pen raised ducks are released and I hunt them....is it the same as wild? No its not but its still enjoyable and I am still a hunter....I just changed my location on the normal curve is all....don't let us criticize any LEGAL hunter regardless of where that hunter wants to be on the normal curve of hunting. Its not fair and its detrimental to all hunting....

I sure do love that Nudg!! I don't always agree but I do agree it is time to stop appoligising for our sport our way of life. Keep on truck'in Ted. Soccer Mom's, get over it.

I live on 30 acres and the place next to me is 180 acres. If they high fenced their land that would be their right but it sure would screw up my hunting as all the deer stay on their place and I have to lure them over the fence with corn and other baits. At the same time, they get problems with poachers on two sides of their place so I wouldn't blame them if they did high fence it...I'd just eat less backstrap which could cause my body to go into shock and all my major organs would cease to function.