Understanding The Term "High Fenced Hunting"

[CoElkHunter]

I find it amusing that some Ranches in the states are 300 something acres with high and low fence and that is never an issue but as soon as South Africa comes into the picture no matter the size the fence is always an issue.....

Just go hunt and enjoy....

Yes. The pheasants here can fly over both high and low fences on 300 acres in a matter of seconds. You have to be quick! Ha! Ha!

 

[Osama Mahdi]

One of the problems of high fence is that it is ugly. It's look like a beautiful woman with a burning scar on her face. It is difficult to ignore that scar and focus on on her beauty.
Africa is beautiful, fence is ugly.
The outfitters should take the hunter's point of view in consideration.

 

[Zambezi]

To the OP I apologise for my first post as it has derailed the thread from where you were intending to go (although some aspects have been touched upon) I sense that the OP was trying to convey the reality that the industry contains people that denigrate one outfit while offering or practicing the same thing whilst charging the unwitting hunter more.

Seeing as the thread is now in this direction... every hunter longs for the days of old where the bush was teeming with wildlife of every variety. Where herds numbered in thousands not dozens or hundreds. Those days are long gone. The closest you'll come to those numbers in the bush are now only to be found behind fencing. In Africa, from Cape to Cairo, all the great areas are fenced in some way even if the fence belongs to a park boundary on one side. Ask yourself if you'd pay good money to come to Africa on the off chance you might wander around the free-range bush and hope to meet a shootable animal. Your vision of Africa teeming with animals would evaporate quicker than the sweat off your brow.

The devil is in the detail. We want to see large herds but we also want the wide open spaces like the Africa of old. But we also want to HUNT an animal not just SHOOT an animal. Some want 5 star lodges and some want to sleep under canvas and risk getting eaten. Each to their own.

Whatever floats your boat you must at least be honest with yourself. The Africa of FDR / Hemmingway / Selous et al are gone! High fence provides opportunities to a vast number for hunters that simply cannot afford to hunt the likes of Tanzania etc. And isn't the idea of the hunting fraternity to encourage more and more people to join in and go hunting? If this is indeed the case then slandering high fence hunting and outfitters you are doing a disservice. By all means point out the bad operators where overstocking and postage size farms give the term high fence a bad name! Just show some discretion. Don't kill and industry, dissuade hunters from hunting all the while giving the antis ammunition.

 

[John Wasmuth]

To the OP I apologise for my first post as it has derailed the thread from where you were intending to go (although some aspects have been touched upon) I sense that the OP was trying to convey the reality that the industry contains people that denigrate one outfit while offering or practicing the same thing whilst charging the unwitting hunter more.

Seeing as the thread is now in this direction... every hunter longs for the days of old where the bush was teeming with wildlife of every variety. Where herds numbered in thousands not dozens or hundreds. Those days are long gone. The closest you'll come to those numbers in the bush are now only to be found behind fencing. In Africa, from Cape to Cairo, all the great areas are fenced in some way even if the fence belongs to a park boundary on one side. Ask yourself if you'd pay good money to come to Africa on the off chance you might wander around the free-range bush and hope to meet a shootable animal. Your vision of Africa teeming with animals would evaporate quicker than the sweat off your brow.

The devil is in the detail. We want to see large herds but we also want the wide open spaces like the Africa of old. But we also want to HUNT an animal not just SHOOT an animal. Some want 5 star lodges and some want to sleep under canvas and risk getting eaten. Each to their own.

Whatever floats your boat you must at least be honest with yourself. The Africa of FDR / Hemmingway / Selous et al are gone! High fence provides opportunities to a vast number for hunters that simply cannot afford to hunt the likes of Tanzania etc. And isn't the idea of the hunting fraternity to encourage more and more people to join in and go hunting? If this is indeed the case then slandering high fence hunting and outfitters you are doing a disservice. By all means point out the bad operators where overstocking and postage size farms give the term high fence a bad name! Just show some discretion. Don't kill and industry, dissuade hunters from hunting all the while giving the antis ammunition.

Indeed so. Well stated. Hunters can’t afford to cannibalize ourselves.

 

[Denvir Tire]

I find it amusing that some Ranches in the states are 300 something acres with high and low fence and that is never an issue but as soon as South Africa comes into the picture no matter the size the fence is always an issue.....

Just go hunt and enjoy....

I agree IvW, I have a very good friend and hunting partner with whom I've hunted for many years in many locations. I'm sure he would enjoy the Eastern Cape as much as I have but he refuses to "shoot animals inside a fence". It's this perception that stops many Americans from a modern Safari. Of course we all want to Safari as it was 100 years ago, however Safari then required immense amounts of both time and money. I'm fortunate to be able to Safari and won't stop until I have to, fence or not.
By the way, my friend who won't "shoot animals inside a fence" enjoys this type of hunting....

Stocked pheasants in a 20 acre field

Deer hunting in a heated blind overlooking an automated feeder

Shooting at ducks released from a tower overlooking a pond? (I thought this was make believe but it's real)

Shooting thousands of doves in Argentina (great time but hardly hunting)

Stocked trout from a pond

 

[Philip Glass]

Well thought out article. I like your point about some species are just not fence jumpers and can be somewhat contained in a low fence. I know people are arguing but anything can at some point jump anything! It’s like people offering free range blackbuck hunts in Texas. They can’t jump!
I am a landowner and I’ve heard it all from hunters of different perspectives as it relates to fences. I say buy your own ranch and then you can decide what kind of fence to build!
Philip

 

[WAB]

Totally agree with Zambezi. I prefer hunting the wilderness have absolutely no problem with the ranch hunts. We need to pursue our individual passions and not denigrate others who choose a different path, as long as it is ethical.

 

[Tom Leoni]

To the OP I apologise for my first post as it has derailed the thread from where you were intending to go (although some aspects have been touched upon) I sense that the OP was trying to convey the reality that the industry contains people that denigrate one outfit while offering or practicing the same thing whilst charging the unwitting hunter more.

Seeing as the thread is now in this direction... every hunter longs for the days of old where the bush was teeming with wildlife of every variety. Where herds numbered in thousands not dozens or hundreds. Those days are long gone. The closest you'll come to those numbers in the bush are now only to be found behind fencing. In Africa, from Cape to Cairo, all the great areas are fenced in some way even if the fence belongs to a park boundary on one side. Ask yourself if you'd pay good money to come to Africa on the off chance you might wander around the free-range bush and hope to meet a shootable animal. Your vision of Africa teeming with animals would evaporate quicker than the sweat off your brow.

The devil is in the detail. We want to see large herds but we also want the wide open spaces like the Africa of old. But we also want to HUNT an animal not just SHOOT an animal. Some want 5 star lodges and some want to sleep under canvas and risk getting eaten. Each to their own.

Whatever floats your boat you must at least be honest with yourself. The Africa of FDR / Hemmingway / Selous et al are gone! High fence provides opportunities to a vast number for hunters that simply cannot afford to hunt the likes of Tanzania etc. And isn't the idea of the hunting fraternity to encourage more and more people to join in and go hunting? If this is indeed the case then slandering high fence hunting and outfitters you are doing a disservice. By all means point out the bad operators where overstocking and postage size farms give the term high fence a bad name! Just show some discretion. Don't kill and industry, dissuade hunters from hunting all the while giving the antis ammunition.

Absolutely--and, if I may say so, surprisingly well worded for a monkey (albeit a well-dressed one)

To restate your excellent points, the experience that a hunter can realistically seek in Africa is necessarily different in 2021 than it would have been in 1891. Africa is a different place today, for all the reasons we have listed. Long gone are the hic sunt leones vast, unexplored open spaces teeming with wildlife, which, ironically, would have been a lot tamer back then and thus perhaps not as much of a challenge to hunt. Although I'm a nostalgic type, hunting in Africa in any conditions other than those in which most safaris are conducted today is not among my reveries.

There is also the issue of wildlife numbers and sustainability. I don't have (yet) sufficient data to support this 100% confidently, but from all I've read, seen and experienced, large fenced concessions in which wildlife is owned by the proprietor are a boon to the thriving of animals. The no-man's-land acreage of yesteryear is shrinking by the day--and with it the habitat for wildlife. Not so in vast hunting concessions. Just compare the wildlife head-count in ZA versus other countries.

I just wish that those running "unfenced" safaris wouldn't try to bolster their clientele by engaging in negative advertising against the other model. I think this is downright unethical and only reinforces the misconception of "trophy hunting" as little more than shooting captive animals in a zoo. If my very colleagues in the firearms industry perceive this type of hunting as non-challenging and borderline unethical, it only goes to show how much damage this negative advertising has succeeded in causing. For goodness' sake, we are all in the same boat and we're not each-other's enemies.

 

[375Fox]

I just wish that those running "unfenced" safaris wouldn't try to bolster their clientele by engaging in negative advertising against the other model. I think this is downright unethical and only reinforces the misconception of "trophy hunting" as little more than shooting captive animals in a zoo. If my very colleagues in the firearms industry perceive this type of hunting as non-challenging and borderline unethical, it only goes to show how much damage this negative advertising has succeeded in causing. For goodness' sake, we are all in the same boat and we're not each-other's enemies.

This statement goes both ways. Those running put and take hunting operations try very hard to present their operation as wild hunting instead of exposing the lie. Many people would prefer to believe the lie because the experience was good for an inexpensive price. It becomes necessary to draw a distinction between different types of hunting and admit some “hunting” is very destructive to our image.

 

[WAB]

Please be careful to be factual about the wilderness areas as you promote ranch hunting. I have seen very high PG numbers while hunting DG in Mozambique, Zambia and Botswana. Some of the statements made might lead someone to believe that these opportunities no longer exist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have seen the same thing on the Save in Zim, although there we could get into quite a discussion about whether it is fenced or not!

 

[Red Leg]

To the OP I apologise for my first post as it has derailed the thread from where you were intending to go (although some aspects have been touched upon) I sense that the OP was trying to convey the reality that the industry contains people that denigrate one outfit while offering or practicing the same thing whilst charging the unwitting hunter more.

Seeing as the thread is now in this direction... every hunter longs for the days of old where the bush was teeming with wildlife of every variety. Where herds numbered in thousands not dozens or hundreds. Those days are long gone. The closest you'll come to those numbers in the bush are now only to be found behind fencing. In Africa, from Cape to Cairo, all the great areas are fenced in some way even if the fence belongs to a park boundary on one side. Ask yourself if you'd pay good money to come to Africa on the off chance you might wander around the free-range bush and hope to meet a shootable animal. Your vision of Africa teeming with animals would evaporate quicker than the sweat off your brow.

The devil is in the detail. We want to see large herds but we also want the wide open spaces like the Africa of old. But we also want to HUNT an animal not just SHOOT an animal. Some want 5 star lodges and some want to sleep under canvas and risk getting eaten. Each to their own.

Whatever floats your boat you must at least be honest with yourself. The Africa of FDR / Hemmingway / Selous et al are gone! High fence provides opportunities to a vast number for hunters that simply cannot afford to hunt the likes of Tanzania etc. And isn't the idea of the hunting fraternity to encourage more and more people to join in and go hunting? If this is indeed the case then slandering high fence hunting and outfitters you are doing a disservice. By all means point out the bad operators where overstocking and postage size farms give the term high fence a bad name! Just show some discretion. Don't kill and industry, dissuade hunters from hunting all the while giving the antis ammunition.

I‘m not sure I agree with the notion that ”all great areas are fenced in some way.” I have seen and hunted a tremendous amount of game in non-fenced concessions that weren’t in a country named Tanzania. Yes there were geographic limitations (true in Hemingway’s day) or perhaps a park or concession boundary (on a map), but no fences to hinder animal movement.

That said, I will agree there are many fine hunting experiences to be found behind fences in South Africa. Most of those experiences would be better for many hunters (and their observers) than falling asleep to the drone of mosquitos under a net in the Zambezi Delta, or fending off the latest swarm of tsetse flies in Zim, or staring at shredded shins and clothing from the thorn country of Namibia. Many appreciate a first class lodge environment, while others are happy replicating a tented experience in a walled tent but with a concrete floor and "ensuite" bath. Still others are focused on reliable power and high capacity wifi.

For me, the unacceptable are the small put and take operations and the truly artificial hunting situations (i.e. shooting a cape buffalo off a bail of hay at a waterhole, or a croc or hippo released into a ranch tank). I personally am also rarely interested in hunting non-indigenous species - though I have enjoyed hunts for Aoudad in Texas and am booked for red stag in Argentina. Though those are free range animals.

The key is to be absolutely certain what it is that is in the contract. I would further suggest, if hunting a wilderness area is important, then make it a goal. After a typical successful rack and stack safari to the Limpopo, quantity of opportunity has a way of becoming far less important than the quality of the hunt. I would simply offer that such quality can be found a number of places other than Tanzania.

 

[Vintageguy]

To me it’s all how the hunt is conducted. I’ve had miserable experiences in wilderness areas and I’ve had awesome experiences on fenced property with a PH who had his stuff together.
One advantage with fenced ground is control of the environment, no unexpected conflicts with public, pets, livestock, or trash lying around. Which gives the outfitter the chance to shape things a bit if they choose.
I’ve watched videos of people on small fenced areas swatting ear tagged tame animals and I’ve seen videos of guys who’ve paid big bucks to go out into the wild areas of Africa shooting off the vehicle and taking buffalo in the open at 200 yards too. Both equally unappealing to me.
Quality can be had or missing regardless of the presence or lack of a fence and if you don’t do your homework you can learn that lesson the hard way.

 

[gizmo]

First I have to say that while I agree with most of what you said I take exception to the jab at the USA. We have the exact same issue with ranches here. Texas especially has high fence ranches and I own one of them. The high fence portion of my ranch is slightly smaller than the 400 hectacres (mine is about 7-800 acres give or take). With terrain and brush as a factor I guarandamntee that it is not some small pen to execute animals in. The high fenced portion of my ranch qualifies for SCI entry of which there are also standards that have to be met, more restrictive than the RSA requirements at that. The term needing to be used is fair chase. My lowely Tx ranch is absolutely fair chase and the animals also live in breeding herds. I'm so damn sick of this debate. Hunting is an individual thing. If you like something great, if you dont great, dont do it then. We as hunters need to unite whether something is "your thing" or not. The fact is the average Joe cant afford to hunt the Selous. These ranches take up more than half of the hunting economy in Africa and to a much larger extent Texas. All the Holier than thou's out there if given their way would tank the entire industry, further demonize legal ethical hunting, and drive the cost up so high only the elite could afford to do it. It wouldnt matter anyway because a massive portion of the land that is currently being used for wildlife conservation would be converted to agriculture, neighborhoods, or parking lots. Thats a fact, if it pays it stays. That being said don't tell me that just because a ranch isn't located on the continent of Africa its exempt from being able to be called fair chase, which is essentially what was said. While I and everyone on here is absolutely passionate about Africa and it's wildlife, its not the end all of global hunting. I personally have 3 species on my ranch thriving that if it wasn't for Texas hunting would exist NOWHERE on earth any more. Everyone needs to take a step back and get a big dose of reality. We are losing this fight to maintain ALL of our hunting rights globally and its 100% because there are people out there that regularly cut their noses off in spite of their faces. When we loose it all everyone can thank those folks with elitist mentalities.

 

[John Wasmuth]

First I have to say that while I agree with most of what you said I take exception to the jab at the USA. We have the exact same issue with ranches here. Texas especially has high fence ranches and I own one of them. The high fence portion of my ranch is slightly smaller than the 400 hectacres (mine is about 7-800 acres give or take). With terrain and brush as a factor I guarandamntee that it is not some small pen to execute animals in. The high fenced portion of my ranch qualifies for SCI entry of which there are also standards that have to be met, more restrictive than the RSA requirements at that. The term needing to be used is fair chase. My lowely Tx ranch is absolutely fair chase and the animals also live in breeding herds. I'm so damn sick of this debate. Hunting is an individual thing. If you like something great, if you dont great, dont do it then. We as hunters need to unite whether something is "your thing" or not. The fact is the average Joe cant afford to hunt the Selous. These ranches take up more than half of the hunting economy in Africa and to a much larger extent Texas. All the Holier than thou's out there if given their way would tank the entire industry, further demonize legal ethical hunting, and drive the cost up so high only the elite could afford to do it. It wouldnt matter anyway because a massive portion of the land that is currently being used for wildlife conservation would be converted to agriculture, neighborhoods, or parking lots. Thats a fact, if it pays it stays. That being said don't tell me that just because a ranch isn't located on the continent of Africa its exempt from being able to be called fair chase, which is essentially what was said. While I and everyone on here is absolutely passionate about Africa and it's wildlife, its not the end all of global hunting. I personally have 3 species on my ranch thriving that if it wasn't for Texas hunting would exist NOWHERE on earth any more. Everyone needs to take a step back and get a big dose of reality. We are losing this fight to maintain ALL of our hunting rights globally and its 100% because there are people out there that regularly cut their noses off in spite of their faces. When we loose it all everyone can thank those folks with elitist mentalities.

Absolute truth!

 

[375Fox]

First I have to say that while I agree with most of what you said I take exception to the jab at the USA. We have the exact same issue with ranches here. Texas especially has high fence ranches and I own one of them. The high fence portion of my ranch is slightly smaller than the 400 hectacres (mine is about 7-800 acres give or take). With terrain and brush as a factor I guarandamntee that it is not some small pen to execute animals in. The high fenced portion of my ranch qualifies for SCI entry of which there are also standards that have to be met, more restrictive than the RSA requirements at that. The term needing to be used is fair chase. My lowely Tx ranch is absolutely fair chase and the animals also live in breeding herds. I'm so damn sick of this debate. Hunting is an individual thing. If you like something great, if you dont great, dont do it then. We as hunters need to unite whether something is "your thing" or not. The fact is the average Joe cant afford to hunt the Selous. These ranches take up more than half of the hunting economy in Africa and to a much larger extent Texas. All the Holier than thou's out there if given their way would tank the entire industry, further demonize legal ethical hunting, and drive the cost up so high only the elite could afford to do it. It wouldnt matter anyway because a massive portion of the land that is currently being used for wildlife conservation would be converted to agriculture, neighborhoods, or parking lots. Thats a fact, if it pays it stays. That being said don't tell me that just because a ranch isn't located on the continent of Africa its exempt from being able to be called fair chase, which is essentially what was said. While I and everyone on here is absolutely passionate about Africa and it's wildlife, its not the end all of global hunting. I personally have 3 species on my ranch thriving that if it wasn't for Texas hunting would exist NOWHERE on earth any more. Everyone needs to take a step back and get a big dose of reality. We are losing this fight to maintain ALL of our hunting rights globally and its 100% because there are people out there that regularly cut their noses off in spite of their faces. When we loose it all everyone can thank those folks with elitist mentalities.

Accusing others of elitist mentally is not uniting as hunters. I’m not willing to support unethical practices because it’s more affordable. There are properly managed high fence and wild areas that are affordable. The most wild area I’ve hunted was Kaokoland in NW Namibia. It’s available at standard plains game pricing, bringing up Tanzania every time to demonstrate wild areas are unaffordable is ridiculous. There are affordable wild areas. There are many affordable properly managed high fence areas that are affordable and unfortunately have to compete with other areas that try to hide the fact they are not sustainable. The if it pays it stays model is applicable to an area managed on sustainable quotas, when there is a ready supply of animals to be bought it can easily turn into if it pays buy more and sell more. We aren’t going to lose because of what you consider elitist mentality we will lose because of hunters supporting unethical behavior only because it’s temporarily legal or more affordable. Non-hunters will determine the future of hunting much more than hunters are going to.

 

[BnC 04]

I appreciate the various views shared in this thread. No doubt we as hunters are VERY passionate about hunting.
I am reminded of a saying I've heard a time or two from my father. "There are lots of things one can do that are completely legal but being legal dont make it morally right."

 

[CoElkHunter]

Well, this is quite the debate. I can say I would like a HIGHER fence to keep the neighborhood kids out of my backyard! LOL

 

[Zambezi]

Many good points raised by many members. The crux of the matter is that we have enough trouble fighting the antis, we don't need outfitters slandering other outfitters merely to make a buck. We can also do without hunters lambasting other hunters for conducting legal and ethical hunts.

Legal hunts are easy to identify, just check out the local laws. Ethical hunts on the other hand are more subjective as what I see as ethical many not be ethical for you. But I think we can mostly all agree that sustainable ecological properties (free roaming game that lives and breeds and has room to move and evade) is the minimum requirement. These put and take tagged targets shot over a bail of hay are doing more harm than good for the hunting industry. But here is where the rubber meets the road... They are legal and some may find it meets their ethical threshold. But it does cast ALL hunters in a bad light.

As for my previous comment re: no free range areas packed with game... If I didn't say that they exist but are rare and getting rarer by the day, then that is what I should have said. The fact of the matter is that if even half of the hunters abandoned the high fence areas and only did those true free range areas then I'd say that those areas would be shot out in a few years and there are not enough days in a hunting season nor quality outfitters in those areas to meet the demand.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either we expand the number of hunters and cater to their hunting needs or we take down the high fences and everyone suffers, the hunter, the hunting industry, the environment and the animals.

 

[Frederik]

I have been very busy at work last few days and finally got to read all the post.

I have a theory and it's not about the fences really its more about bragging rights. Let me explain.

In the 80's when gam ranches started to pop up in South Africa and foreign hunters started visiting South Africa was the best destination under the sun you could hunt so many species over different teraarin in a short period of time. 21 day safaris was not needed and only one flight. Suddenly a lot more peopple could afford Africa.

With that there are very few hunters left or around still that still hunts or have moved on upgraded to free range areas. In the 90's and 2000's thing were booming in RSA and those who could hunted the free open areas of Africa and those who upgraded did so but more new African hunters came in there was enough to go around. Then later into the Millenium first decade the supply of hunters slowly became less and then it was all about marketing.

I have a better area than yours my area is bigger than yours and so on. Badmouthing other countries and their hunts was rampant. Those hunters that came in the 90's and just after 2000 have upgraded to hunt Zim, Tanz, Moz and even Central Africa to upgrade their hunt experience. But some even though they can afford love to come back to South Africa or Nambia year by year to shoot another impala or warthog and love it to bits.

Basically the boat has sailed when it comes to new African hunters when times were good more had to be done to promote hunting and educate new younger hunters. Now it is just not the norm to hunt anymore its uncalled for and suddenly barbaric. Meanwhile millions of animals get slaughtered the whole time to feed the masses that is fine but hunting is not.

So if you have or own a high fenced game farm you have to be smart and promote it as the best there is and so must the ouftit who owns and operates a conccesion in Tanz. Deep down although and you can say what you want we just love hunting and nature it's part of us and who we are!

 

[gizmo]

Accusing others of elitist mentally is not uniting as hunters. I’m not willing to support unethical practices because it’s more affordable. There are properly managed high fence and wild areas that are affordable. The most wild area I’ve hunted was Kaokoland in NW Namibia. It’s available at standard plains game pricing, bringing up Tanzania every time to demonstrate wild areas are unaffordable is ridiculous. There are affordable wild areas. There are many affordable properly managed high fence areas that are affordable and unfortunately have to compete with other areas that try to hide the fact they are not sustainable. The if it pays it stays model is applicable to an area managed on sustainable quotas, when there is a ready supply of animals to be bought it can easily turn into if it pays buy more and sell more. We aren’t going to lose because of what you consider elitist mentality we will lose because of hunters supporting unethical behavior only because it’s temporarily legal or more affordable. Non-hunters will determine the future of hunting much more than hunters are going to.

Not once did I say anything about unethical behavior. But to say that any high fenced hunting is unethical is absolutely an elitist attitude. Im pretty sure I even went so far as to say that in my particular case I said I followed a set of rules set forth by SCI so that animals taken can be entered. On my place they are eligible for entry and those rules are furthermore more restrictive than those set forth by the RSA gov’t.
So I’m not sure where your rant is coming from. And yes there absolutely is a loud percentage of the hunting population that have elitist mentality. And yes the economics of hunting may not sit well with some but at the end of the day reality verses a fairytale idea of how it should be are two different things. Supply must balance with demand. I’m not saying a damn thing about running a murder factory and I’m pretty sure I said that to begin with. Reality says that animals must be genetically supported from time to time and that supply can exceed demand many times as well.
You are naive to think that animals have not been supplemented as necessary on every single high fenced ranch on earth. I don’t give a damn how big it is. The same thing can be said for the vast majority of large low fenced private ranches. Especially in Africa at some point the land owner had to reintroduce the animals as they were completely whipped out during certain parts of history. Not to mention I have hunted and know a hellava lot of places that are 100 of thousands of acres that still get regularly stocked with new animals of certain species all the time. Why? Supply can’t keep up with demand. I don’t care if you’ve got 1000 wildebeest on a place, the vast majority of those animals are cows, calves, and non trophy bulls. So if you have 30 clients a season after about two seasons guess what? You’re going to have to bring in more trophy bulls because you can’t grow them fast enough to keep up with demand. You also can’t tell clients wanting wildebeest that you aren’t going to shoot any of them because you don’t have any good wildebeest then they see 1000 wildebeest running around. The average client has no clue about how herd management has to work so they are going to get pissed and go somewhere else next time.
And yes, there are affordable “wild” areas. I’ve hunted some of those across the world as well. 1. There arent enough of them to support every single international hunter. 2. They are stocked by government agencies all the damn time for various different reasons.