The latest is from Pope & Young. Our friend Ted Nugent took the time and made the effort to defend us.


e-int, Mike Suchan

for Outdoor Channel



Ted, can you speak of the relevance of Pope & Young’s recent condemnation of the captive cervid industry? Though I have many die hard dedicated bowhunting friends who have been active members in the Pope & Young Club since its inception whom I deeply respect, and I also admire the many P&Y members who live the bowhunting lifestyle with all their heart and soul, I'm afraid this is yet another example of some very unsophisticated elitist "leaders" in the organization making a foolish and backward thinking decision. Clearly the tail wags the dog here. The raising and breeding of cervids is the fastest growing segment of the agriculture industry in North America, driven by good families who are fascinated by and have deep reverence for the deer species that bring so many of us a higher quality of life. To find fault much less condemn this industry is truly bizarre. Sadly, P&Y is the same organization that doesn't acknowledge or respect a legal trophy kill if the hunter uses a lighted nock. This is strange, strange thinking. I read the official P&Y statement on this issue and it can best be described as ignorant and absurd. I have hunted pretty much under every imaginable hunting experience, terrain and conditions the world has to offer, and their blanket statements about "ethics" and "fair chase" in high fence operations are utterly false and presumptuous at best. It greatly saddens me that the good members of P&Y are so poorly represented in this instance. Fortunately, very few people have ever heard of the Pope & Young Club and they have very little if any sway in real world wildlife management decisions or any influence whatsoever on the vast majority of hunting families in America.



With reports showing direct links of disease at deer breeders’ facilities, what steps should be taken to protect our deer herds?- This too is an absurd notion, when in fact the confirmed incidents of disease on deer breeding operations isn't but a minute fraction of the numbers found in the wild, particularly in the CWD original hot zone of NW CO & SE WY, the original outbreak a direct result of bureaucrat's irresponsible experimentation with scrapies intentionally injected into mule deer that eventually escaped the ineptly "secured" test area. The fact is that all scientific studies show that the deer breeders are the victims of failed state game agencies mishandling of bovine TB, CWD, EHD and other real world cervid diseases, not the perpetrators. How this can be so dishonestly turned around is yet another manifestation of manipulated politics spitting in the face of science. How can anyone ignore the scourge of EHD that has severely impacted deer herds across the country while falsely pointing the finger at breeders? Somebody better get the truth police involved here.



Do you have any other thoughts on this issue that you would like brought to the forefront? I write a weekly blog at deeranddeerhunting.com based on a gungho hardcore dedicated 65 year deerhunting life. I communicate with the world's most respected wildlife and deer authorities like Dr. James Kroll, Richard P. Smith, Charles Alshiemer, John Ozaga and other real world hands on deer masters. I am saddened to see such intentional class warfare further fragmenting our hunting brotherhood. That anyone would presume that high fence hunting equals put and take or unfair conditions is simply asburd. The easiest deer I've ever killed were free range in IL, MI, MT, CA, TX and elsewhere. With longrunning accurate records to prove it, the most difficult deer I have ever hunted were in high fence operations with real world escape habitat. Why someone would think otherwise and viciously condemn other's choices is inexcusable and downright unAmerican. If P&Y or other organizations wish to exclude from their record books game hunted with lighted nocks, or with a watch taped to a bowlimb, or killed in a high fence operation, that is surely their prerogative. But to viciously condemn such choices as unethical is just plain wrong. The hundreds of thousands of American families that hunt high fence operations are good, decent, ethical, legal, fair chase hunters. Case closed.

This isn't anything new P&Y has always been anti-high fence, so has B&C. I don't get the point of the article, they make it sound like this is a recent attack on high fence owners. It is the way P&Y have always looked at it, to me it sounds more like high fence owners whining about something they knew to be the case when they put the fence up.

Ted Nugent is an appropriate spokesman for the HF industry.

at it again +1

Actually, it's a brand new attack. Probably prompted by the bogus studies recently quoted in the Indianapolis Star articles. Calling all high fenced ranches "canned hunts" and implying that high fenced cervids are the cause of virtually all health threats to all cervids.

Yes NP, Ted and any other hunter who supports hunting are appropriate spokespersons.

Pope and Young, in this statement, make sure they are perfectly aligned with HSUS. Right beside our own NP.

P&Y statement from 4/7. http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/pope-young-club-stands-wild-free-ranging-north-american-big-game/

He is the worst!

I don’t know. I'm not sure I would go as far as calling hunting a high fenced place "unethical", but I do completely understand P&Y's position on it. I think the biggest people they're looking at aren't the people that have 1000+ acres in high fence; it’s the 100's of people that have small 100-300 acre high fence places. When you talk about places that are smaller than the average range of a whitetail it's hard to call it free range in any way. I don’t have a problem with high fencing or breeding exotics and whatnot, but I do understand why P&Y have the stance they do. And though there may not be any credible instances of disease transfer right now, the recipe is there. High numbers and confinement of animals is how you eventually end up with serious diseases popping up and spreading. Just my two cents, not worth much but there it is.

Ill never understand an artificial situation, if you are in access of the animals native range, how is that artificial.

I guess PINS, Giles Island, antelope island, the 3000 islands in Alaska, tiburon island is via their definition an artificial situation

I don't think you "completely understand" P&Y's position on it if you believe they are targeting the smaller HF ranches. Here is a quote from their recent position: strongly condemn the killing of big game animals in artificial situations. "An 'artificial situation' is defined as a situation where animals are held in captivity, game-proof fenced enclosures". No size distinction at all.

I believe they said what they meant.

And yes BoBo, there are boundaries to every hunting range.

He actually reaches more than any other.
He's never politically correct, and never afraid to call a spade a spade. Many of us appreciate that.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but when he comes out in in hiking boots, shorts and a cutoff tee shirt with his long scraggly beard hooping and hollering and waving an AR In the Air he looses all credibility.


He lacks professionalism, plain and simple. He is intelligent and not afraid to speak his mind (two great qualities) when asked his opinion but his delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

The left wing media portrays him as a nut, because he acts like a nut 99% of the time

. Instead of putting up fences perhaps folks should dig giant moats to surround their properties?

The Pope and Young Club has been promoting sport hunting,conservation programs, hunter safety, and orderly record-keeping for over 50 years. They are a private organization with a membership of thousands of hunters. They have consistently endeavored to promote hunters and fair chase hunting in a positive way. They and their membership recognize that HF enclosures run counter to that mission. They have every right to do so. They (and the B&C Club) run directly counter to the weak argument that hunters have no right/business to challenge HF hunting-recognizing that this blight ultimately hurts hunting more than it helps it.

In short, they were doing all these things when Uncle Ted was still filling his britches to avoid the draft and shacking up with underage girls. I get that the HFs fall right in line with Ted's "whack-'em-and-stack-'em" philosophy-but I'll stand with P&Y on this one.

What you got against long scraggly beards?? He's clean shaven now btw. Couldn't hang with me.

And I disagree on why the liberal media portrays him as a nut, I think they do it because he's one of their most successful detractors. And... because there are still some fuddy duddy's on our side who still let physical appearance influence their opinions...

And I thought that foolishness died with my parent's generation.

Now why would you go putting words in my mouth? That all ya got?

Well, I guess I could add that Teddy is a twice (at least) convicted game law violator. Good spokesman for you guys.

what did your parents say about first impressions.....?

Yep. that's like having Robert Downing Jr. tell us about the dangers of drunk driving

George Strait owns a HF ranch.



if he has one, then its okay!

I think they see it as an all or nothing kind of thing, and where it may not be fair I understand thier reasoning behind thier choice. It's hard to support one while condeming the other. I'm not saying that everyone who has a high fence does it, but we've all seen the guy on the corner who got 100 acres, put up a high fence and now has 30 head of red stag (or whatever it is that they have) and they feed hay and supplement all year long because the browse and grass is all but gone. Then there are some of the bigger ones that are just as guilty (again not saying theyre all like this) but we all know of the ranches where you can show up get 5 star treatment go out the next morning they drive up in a new f-350 with a high rack on the bed. You drive out to where the animals have been lately and you shoot your choice at about 50 yards. P&Y may have a blanket statment and it may not apply to everyone, but there are a lot of people that it does apply to.

A lot of my friends and acquaintances do too. The lure of easy big bucks (and big $$ bucks) is hard to resist. The HF culture is so embedded in TX many simply take them for granted as normal hunting-especially the younger folks who have been raised with them everywhere you look. Like the proverbial frog brought to a slow boil, it is probably too late to jump out of the pot at this juncture.

None of which makes it hunting.

I think there is a difference between an island and an enclosure. I think the big difference is the human involvement. Most high fence places dont just fence the place and manage through selective killing. They feed supplement year round, they import genetics, they control predator populations, they vaccinate or control diseas/parasites in some way. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is different. I see it kinda like artificial banana flavoring. Chemically, artificial and natural flavors are the same, but we can usually tell the difference.

I wonder if Cliven Bunday is pro-high fence?

yes, because erecting a spin feeder and throwing apple scented corn is a natural as can be