Would you support this??

NAmericanProjec

NAmericanProjec

Member
Hey everybody! :) I have an idea for a zoo something that to most people might sound extraordinarily crazy but nonetheless I hope that it happens. My idea for this zoo is to buy several hundred acres-bigger than any other zoo I've seen- and build enclosures for my animals that are massive and give them plenty of room to run and try to make it as natural as possible. Secondly I would love to put in observation towers in the middle of the enclosures where families can zip-line too and make this an even more amazing experience. Thirdly i would love to incorporate all north american species and start a breeding program for every single one that is dying out in the wild and I would like to reintroduce as well as make this a destination for hunters to come visit. Now this is just an idea but once a year and I would change it up but I would like to allow hunters that are disabled and that cant access hard to reach areas; I would like to allow them to come onto my property where they can take some of the species that aren't endangered and get some fresh game meat but without having to try to access an area in the wild where they might not be able to operate and could get severely injured, but this would allow the game populations to be controlled in a more natural way sense they wont have natural predators and also this will keep the park from being over populated so I know some people wont like me because of this idea but its one that I support because it allows those who cant do what they love to do it for a day and it allows them to get the feeling of not having their disability. But I would also like to have a Geodesic dome installed kind of like the Eden Project and also have many bird species but they would all be North American species nothing exotic for a few years. Thanks for reading.
NAProject :)
 
I think drive thru would be easier.

I dont think hunting on the same property would work. The problems are that you want the animals to be easily visible for tourists and quiet so they dont run off.
 
So it's a mixed use public zoo / breeding facility / disabled game shoot park. Totally hypothetical I assume?
 
It is hypothetical currently but at the same time I would eventually want to try to make this a reality maybe not hunting in the zoo but have separate land put aside where hunters can go on a guided hunt its an idea and I am always looking for suggestions.
 
generally speaking, it is not considered a good idea for a zoo to also operate canned hunts, whether it is on-site or off-site.....
 
There are large scale hunting ranches already (Texas and elsewhere), but they usually focus on exotic animals. I am not sure American hunters would be interested in hunting American species in semi-captivity when they can do it in the wild. Camping out and tracking the animal is the major attraction to hunting I am told (not being a hunter myself). The only reason people do exotic hunting ranches is to get animals they cannot get in the wild because it is too expensive to fly to their home range or they are not available for hunting in the wild. Basically the same reason most of us visit zoos instead of going to view animals in the wild. Catering to disabled hunters may have a certain attraction, but I have a feeling that would not attract enough numbers to sustain the operation.

And I agree with the previous statement that having a public zoo and a hunting operation run by the same operation is asking for trouble. Zoos are already under attack by animal rights activists as it is, if you add hunting opportunities you are in for a lifetime of fights.

A large scale native wildlife park, though, is a good idea. One of the best (maybe even the best) zoological parks in America is Northwest Trek based on this same principle.
 
I get where you all are coming from and I appreciate your opinions very much. That is why over the past few days I have been considering having the zoo keeping it to myself and then leasing out the extra land to an outfitter that way I am not running it or anything and that way I only get a small portion of the profits anyway. So I would make sure its wild species that they are hunting instead of culling the herds that are en caged because after I wrote this I realized how much trouble the animal rights organizations would give me but appreciate everything you all are doing. I am a hunter and that's my main reason for wanting to include it because I know the good that it can do for an ecosystem but I also know the harm it can cause. Thank you all very much,
NAProject :)
 
In principle I would support this, but there is more to be considered than just the comments made in the replies so far.

There is a difference between "hunters", "shooters", &" collectors" (trophy).
Which group will you cater too as they are all very different. If animals are enclosed in an area less than 1000 acres (400 hec) could it be called a hunt?

"if the outcome is predetermined, then it cannot be considered hunting". Shooters & collectors won't care, but hunters won't be happy.

Collectors won't care, if the animals are held in a crush for the "hunt" but the animals "MUST" be trophy class, & better than just representative of their species. Do you understand the different management regimes to produce the maximum amount of these animals each year. Will you follow most of the Nth American cervid breeding businesses & breed O v frankienstienus instead of a genuine phenotype from one of the threatened sub species?

Shooters won't care if the animals aren't trophies, or if they are in a 25 acre pen. They just want to shoot something & ease & quantity of opportunities are their main concern.

I'd like to think that the thoughts of Aldo Leopold "The value of the experience is inverse to its artificiality" would apply to those interested in hunting. The experience is more important than the kill & there is usually cultural & ethical values tied to respect for nature, the game & its utilisation & the tradition.

The ant's here will have faces about now like they've just sucked a lemon. IMO its because we are all different & some people don't get hunting, but for those who have the drive it's far more important than just putting food on the table. We can all go to the shop & buy our meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, bread,etc. It's necessary to do so in most places today, however if we can take some time occasionally to catch, grow, or bake our own it feeds far more than our bellies, it feed our soul. Again, I'm sorry to those who don't get it. Those who do will be nodding about now.

If you do follow on with your proposal I'd strongly suggest that you understand the differences in these potential customers before you go down any management plan.

I like the idea of large enclosures & if you could have groups of animals which were more self sustaining than zoos & allowed sexual selection rather than that just based upon "pedigree" I think the animals may be healthier & would slow genetic drift. I would keep this adjunct to the hunting reserve though, which could work if it was at least 1000 acres off to one side, but still able to share resources. I would not bring those who were there to see the exhibits into the reserve, or those hunting the reserve into the exhibits. If you are the manager you will have to think holistically about things but don't let the customers & even staff start to think this way or objectives & values will be strained.

It's a great topic for discussion. It may well be that this is going to be another part of the solution to the loss of bio diversity. Hunting can bring a very high income with a very low impact if done wisely. Are Mr & Mrs Average mature enough to accept it? Good luck!

Cheers Khakibob
 
Anything that involves canned hunting...no. I would not support it at all. Even if it's mostly for disabled people, canned hunts are still canned hunts.
 
azcheetah2 said:
Anything that involves canned hunting...no. I would not support it at all. Even if it's mostly for disabled people, canned hunts are still canned hunts.
Click to expand...

Could you please define a "canned hunt".

IMO "canned hunt" an oxymoron & used to raise negatives about hunting in general. It's ironic that hunters themselves often use this dysphemism, as it only succeeds in denigrating all hunters. If an enclosure is so small that the outcome is predetermined, then its not a "hunt" canned or otherwise, its a "shoot".

How large would you suggest is a minimum area for enclosed game reserves?

Cheers Khakibob
 
khakibob said:
Could you please define a "canned hunt".

IMO "canned hunt" an oxymoron & used to raise negatives about hunting in general. It's ironic that hunters themselves often use this dysphemism, as it only succeeds in denigrating all hunters. If an enclosure is so small that the outcome is predetermined, then its not a "hunt" canned or otherwise, its a "shoot".

How large would you suggest is a minimum area for enclosed game reserves?

Cheers Khakibob
Click to expand...
by definition "canned hunt" cannot be an oxymoron. However, the meaning of the phrase is very obvious and well-known. It is a situation where an animal is (deliberately placed) inside an enclosure for the purposes of being shot by a hunter. That is, not a wild animal. The size of the enclosure is not really relevant because the animal is placed there specifically to be shot.
 
Chlidonias said:
by definition "canned hunt" cannot be an oxymoron. However, the meaning of the phrase is very obvious and well-known. It is a situation where an animal is (deliberately placed) inside an enclosure for the purposes of being shot by a hunter. That is, not a wild animal. The size of the enclosure is not really relevant because the animal is placed there specifically to be shot.
Click to expand...

One definition I've heard for canned hunt is when the animal has no reasonable chance of escape. The whole "fair chase" concept and all. So yeah, an animal placed in just about any enclosure.

And, yeah, not sure a zoo hosting canned hunts would be a good idea. Zoos get enough flak as it is. And it's not just anti-zoo people; lots of people, including some hardcore hunters, are opposed to canned hunts.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
One definition I've heard for canned hunt is when the animal has no reasonable chance of escape. The whole "fair chase" concept and all. So yeah, an animal placed in just about any enclosure.

And, yeah, not sure a zoo hosting canned hunts would be a good idea. Zoos get enough flak as it is. And it's not just anti-zoo people; lots of people, including some hardcore hunters, are opposed to canned hunts.
Click to expand...
I would imagine all "real" hunters would (or should) be opposed to canned hunts. As khakibob says (paraphrasing), anyone who participates in canned hunts isn't "hunting", they are just being pathetic.
 
Chlidonias said:
I would imagine all "real" hunters would (or should) be opposed to canned hunts. As khakibob says (paraphrasing), anyone who participates in canned hunts isn't "hunting", they are just being pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are some hunting organizations that won't allow kills from canned hunts to be put in their record books. There are still some hunters and groups that don't have a problem with it, but, yeah, I can't imagine it's super popular, particularly with trophy hunters. I mean, kind of defeats the purpose of a trophy hunt.
 
Support? Nope. I don't support the killing of animals for fun and profit. Afterall, a hundred percent mortality rate on one side is hardly "sporting".
 
Chlidonias said:
by definition "canned hunt" cannot be an oxymoron. However, the meaning of the phrase is very obvious and well-known. It is a situation where an animal is (deliberately placed) inside an enclosure for the purposes of being shot by a hunter. That is, not a wild animal. The size of the enclosure is not really relevant because the animal is placed there specifically to be shot.
Click to expand...

The size of the enclosure is relevant!

If an island was used as an "enclosure" what size would be "acceptable" Ireland? England? Nth or Sth New Zealand? Tasmania? Australia?

Is all introduced game species now hunted in these countries no longer to be considered fair chase because they were placed here to be hunted?

I've previously given one thought "if the outcome is predetermined it cannot be considered a hunt". However there must be a size & population density in game reserves which allows for home ranges, flight distances & fair chase. How about some discussion around this thought?

Cheers Khakibob
 
khakibob said:
The size of the enclosure is relevant!

If an island was used as an "enclosure" what size would be "acceptable" Ireland? England? Nth or Sth New Zealand? Tasmania? Australia?

Is all introduced game species now hunted in these countries no longer to be considered fair chase because they were placed here to be hunted?
Click to expand...
sorry, did you not understand what I wrote? "It is a situation where an animal is (deliberately placed) inside an enclosure for the purposes of being shot by a hunter. That is, not a wild animal."
 
You've all made great points some argued your ideas better than others and tried to see things from my point of view and thank you for that. Something I've been thinking about is having separate land for the hunting and it would be a few years after I got things running that I would buy the land suitable for it to be qualified as a hunt via you all and for the hunting land I wouldn't have fences other than a regular barbed wire to designate it as owned. I am a very avid hunter and the only reason I ever suggested "canned hunts" was to bring down costs but I see what everyone is saying and just saying death is a natural part of this world so if you dont support the killing of animals I feel sorry that you dont realize what hunting can do if done properly its been proven to make populations grow immensely because the weak were killed and the strong and better equipped survived and made offspring that were smarter and better suited for the area. So hunting if done for the wrong reasons is bad but done as a way to control a population is perfectly fine and necessary. Also another thing is I would probably just hire an outfitter that would take hunters out on public and private lands this is an idea take out the hunting and maybe you'll feel more obliged to support this because the rest of my idea no one is concerned about its the fact that I mentioned hunting. Hunting isn't bad because if it was then none of our ancestors would of tasted meat or found out that certain animals were poisonous so hunting was and is essential in some ways because some people cant afford meat at the store and getting a tag to hunt an animal is cheap $30 gets you 200lbs-400lbs of meat thats good money spent. Im sorry if anyone feels attacked this was not my attention.
 
NAmericanProjec said:
You've all made great points some argued your ideas better than others and tried to see things from my point of view and thank you for that. Something I've been thinking about is having separate land for the hunting and it would be a few years after I got things running that I would buy the land suitable for it to be qualified as a hunt via you all and for the hunting land I wouldn't have fences other than a regular barbed wire to designate it as owned. I am a very avid hunter and the only reason I ever suggested "canned hunts" was to bring down costs but I see what everyone is saying and just saying death is a natural part of this world so if you dont support the killing of animals I feel sorry that you dont realize what hunting can do if done properly its been proven to make populations grow immensely because the weak were killed and the strong and better equipped survived and made offspring that were smarter and better suited for the area. So hunting if done for the wrong reasons is bad but done as a way to control a population is perfectly fine and necessary. Also another thing is I would probably just hire an outfitter that would take hunters out on public and private lands this is an idea take out the hunting and maybe you'll feel more obliged to support this because the rest of my idea no one is concerned about its the fact that I mentioned hunting. Hunting isn't bad because if it was then none of our ancestors would of tasted meat or found out that certain animals were poisonous so hunting was and is essential in some ways because some people cant afford meat at the store and getting a tag to hunt an animal is cheap $30 gets you 200lbs-400lbs of meat thats good money spent. Im sorry if anyone feels attacked this was not my attention.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is saying that hunting is bad, just that it's not a good idea for a zoo to promote canned hunts.

Nitpick: there's a chance that the first meat-eating done by our ancestors was from scavenging and not hunting.
 
Last edited:
Chlidonias said:
sorry, did you not understand what I wrote? "It is a situation where an animal is (deliberately placed) inside an enclosure for the purposes of being shot by a hunter. That is, not a wild animal."
Click to expand...

So by your reckoning none of the deer in New Zealand or Australia are wild animals because they were introduces as game animals & "placed there to be hunted"?

Cheers Khakibob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top