zimfrosty
AH member
There most certainly are opportunities to hunt in Africa where no fences exist. Zimbabwe , Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana and I am certain South Africa, all have areas that are considered "naturally" wild and have endemic species . Forgive me I have not mentioned Namibia, but again I am certain that "wild unfenced" areas also exist there.
Realistically, we must accept that with the growth of human populations , wild areas are facing huge challenges and fencing is a form of management. The Save Conservancy in the SE lowveld of Zimbabwe is a million acres of land with only one external fence. animals still move freely withing the area and are not confined. IMHO, if a species is prevented from pursuing its normal instinct to free range over a set area, then the area should be considered fenced. I immediatley will say , that definition is species specific. Impala will live their entire lives in far smaller areas than Elephant who could roam over thousands of miles.
I think the bottom line is simply that each hunter should make up their own minds.
Is the animals natural behaviour restricted in anyway?
Is the animals forced to feed or drink from single water or food sources?
Does the animals have the ability to fairly escape?
Does the Hunter feel that he/she has worked hard and honestly pitted themselves against the animals in a fair battle?
All of the above questions and many more are relevant. At the end of the day, canned hunting, amongst other less than ethical methods, gives hunting an extremely bad name . I beleive that as many hunters, organisations, outfitters etc, as possible should encourage the fair play ,fair pursuit ideology . I would prefer to shoot an old worn down kudu Bull that I had tracked all day , against a 60 odd inch bull kept in an enclosure and fed on Lucerne.The latter has no appeal.
I agree with the poster above who suggests conservancies. These tend to have bigger unfenced areas and will certainly give the Hunter a better sense of "wild" Africa.
