As in the guy hunting that day, in that place isnt affected in that hunt,
by the fence.
It's big enough that "natural movement" isn't impeded
in a way to contain the animal and assist in the hunt.
A guy forced to sit in a stand, on hundreds of acres, isn't going to use the fence as part
of his hunt.
Sounds like a lawyer!
I always though of it as driving game to a pinch point.
Or maybe sitting on the fence near food or water, using the
fence to force travel. Kinda like how a good hunter does with
natural terrain? Only with an impenetrable fence.
Wasn't like that at all.
But from a B&C standpoint,
You can't risk the fence being used as a corral.
And unnaturally controlling predators, genetics, food, minerals,
all impinge on the integrity of a record book created for ranking
wild animals.
How to deal with the various public and private
schemes to manipulate genetics and nutrition on unfenced deer,
is something on one wants to think about. It would impede interest,
and an enormous flow of money.
There is also the legitimate argument that no matter what people
do, wild animals with free range aren't "controlled".
Results aren't a given.
True. Beyond a shadow.
But, if control isn't desired or being intended,
they why all the efforts?
Thing here is I'm not a big proponent of fenced hunts.
Did it once. Would do it again.
But it's like Dutch's talk of stocked ponds.
Who wouldn't enjoy catching a catfish from a friends
stocked pond/lake/water tank, and frying it for supper?
All the while knowing it's just not the same as fishing
a river.
The whole point of the first post was,
"Why in the Hell do guys worry so much about someone,
somewhere, hunting in a way they personally dont?"
If it's legal and ethical in the place they do it, IDGAF!
Even if it's not, I'm not the Worlds Possum Cop.
