High-Fence Hunting
October 27, 2006
In a perfect world, the hunter would walk out his back door on opening day of the season with rifle in hand and just walk to his or her favorite stand. Whether hunting whitetail or mule deer, elk or moose, bear or mountain lion, quail or grouse, the back yard would be free and accessible to hunt on.
But maybe that’s not your idea of the perfect world. Perhaps you would prefer hunting with a bow and arrow and not just any bow. It would have to be a long bow with no sites – more primitive. Or are you such a purist you want to hunt with an atlatl or your bare hands and a knife made from shale.
On the other end of this hunting spectrum is the hunter who might just prefer a new high-powered rifle with scope that draws on available light, perched in a tree in a tree stand that comes equipped with color TV and beer on tap. They need the latest in electronic calls to call in their favorite game. They wear hi-tech scent-blocking camouflage clothing and they drove to their stand with an ATV equipped with everything but a driver.
Where are you on that continuum? To some, that event has no beginning and has no end. The purist would morph into an animal rights activist. The ultimate hunter would become a killing machine.
We all have friends and acquaintances who hunt and they all have their ideas of how their hunt should be. If I disagree with someone else’s version of the perfect hunt are they wrong? Am I?
Add to this mix, ethics. Now we have a serious problem. To me arguing about hunting ethics is about the same as trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist.
I have read in many places that hunting or fishing ethics is what you do when nobody is watching. This is quite true but there’s really more to it than that. Psychologists can tell you that there are personality types who believe that rules and regulations are for everyone else and that it is their job to enforce them. I know a lot of people like that. You?
Some believe hunting with a rifle is unethical. Some say not having a weapon powerful enough to make a clean, instant kill is inhumane therefore unethical. Some want to believe that shooting an animal chained to a stake is unethical or enclosed in a fenced-in area as well.
Are you one who thinks that “canned hunts” or the “high-fence hunts” is unethical? It’s okay if you do. You have your reasons to feel that way and those reasons should be respected. On the same token hunting on a game ranch does not have to be unethical.
I’m not in a position to sit here and tell you how big a ranch has to be and how many animals can be housed on a predetermined amount of space because there are too many variables. There are of course obvious situations that we all would agree aren’t good.
I hate the term “canned” or “high-fence” simply because now those two terms carry a very negative connotation. Media and those who choose to believe that hunting on a game ranch is unethical, use these terms to convince the unknowing that ALL hunting preserves is like shooting Bambi in a barrel.
The educated know there are differences but more importantly hunting preserves serve a purpose. No, they are not for everybody. As a matter of fact they aren’t for the majority but they are for some and for those some we shouldn’t be working so hard to take away an opportunity.
I visited the Idaho Elk Breeders Association website and read what they had to say about elk hunting preserves. I think it is safe to say that the majority of elk ranches in Idaho are set up for raising elk meat. It’s livestock. Instead of beef critters they raise elk critters. Some of those elk ranchers excercise their right to offer some a chance to come on their land and hunt elk.
Right off the bat some of you are going to say it isn’t hunting. That’s fine. To you it isn’t but what about to someone else. Let’s take a look at what the IEBA has to say about the minority of elk ranchers who offer hunting.
ELK HUNTING PRESERVES
Providing Equal Hunting Opportunities for ALLSome of our Elk Ranchers operate elk hunting preserves which are also located throughout the state. Some mis-conceptions lately in the local news media have given people the impression that these ranches are only for the rich, and that their operations are unethical and should be outright banned. Once again, we are here to provide the accurate view on these sort of operations.
Clientele: Our Elk Hunting preserves offer their services to ALL Idahoans. These hunting preserves are visited by many different hunters…
The Elderly Hunter who can no longer walk for miles in order to find an elk in the wild
The Disabled Hunter whose only opportunity to hunt is within one of our preserves
or the Out-Of-State Hunter who due to the strict limitation and lack of native wildlife in their state, opt to come hunt on one of Idaho’s private preserves in order to assure a successful hunt
even the fellow Idahoan who either is unable to find an elk in the wild, or is just too overwhelmed by the overpopulation of hunters in a specific region.
Size: Our Elk Hunting Preseves are operated in accordance with Safari Club International’s requirements for the “fair chase rule”. These ranches range anywhere from 200 acres to 2,000 acres in size. Most of our hunting preserves resemble an elk’s natural habitat, and are strongly regulated by the Idaho Department of Agriculture.Health Testing: ALL animals which are harvested on these particular ranches are tested for CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease).
Fencing Requirements: ALL domesticated elk ranches are required to have 8 foot fencing in order to properly secure their animals from interaction with the wild. (This incident in Eastern Idaho is not a common occurence, and is believed to have been caused by another species of animal.)
You are entitled to have your beliefs in what is hunting and not hunting and what is ethical and not ethical. So is that somebody who can’t do things the way you do or chooses not too.
We don’t live in a perfect world and there will always be those who abuse things and appear as bad apples but just because someone does something a bit different than you doesn’t give you the right to snatch their right away from them. It’s call respect.
Get informed and then tell the truth. Not all hunting preserves consist of hundreds of poorly neglected animals crammed into a tiny muddied up pig sty while some blood thirsty killer has his way. There are good legitimate hunting preserves and remember this. The longer people keep insisting that lands be closed and hunting as we know it stopped, we are paving the way for more “canned hunts” as the media so determinedly call it.
You can no more insist that all preserve hunting be stopped when you don’t agree that all forms of hunting be stopped. Think about it.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
If it has a fence it is a petting zoo. I am not saying it should be banned, just don’t try and tell me it is the same. It might even be challenging, but it is not the same as real hunting. Real hunting isn’t done at a zoo where the animals are penned in, and have interaction with humans on a regular basis.
Thanks Tom for presenting both sides…
Many well run ranches offer hunts that are very close to free range, and provide a great experence for many hunters.
Thanks for seeing both sides Tom.
I think it is a very dangerous thing when we start to ban practices based on what certain environmental groups feel is not a real form of hunting. I mean where do we draw the line? Tom had some excellent points about all the different types of methods we use to hunt. We need to protect our rights to hunt, in ANY manner. By banning these operations, we will set a precedence for further bans on our hunting rights in the future. To one of the previous writers, I welcome you to come to my 200 acre “petting zoo” and pet my 7 year old Bull Elk, especially now when he is in the rut. Please feel free to visit our website for more detailed information on our different types of operations. http://www.thetruthaboutelk.org
A 200 acres hardly qualifies as anything more than a petting zoo. I own 200 acres and it is not that much land, it is not long to walk end to end.
I am not saying that it should be banned, by all means hunt in this manner. Just don’t tell me it is the same because it is not. Elk have a home range of about 600 square miles, 200 acres is .3125 square miles. Thats right, it is .05% of its natural home range. They are not wild when they are subjected to these conditions.
I should qualify the above with the fact that the previously mentioned range includes the fact that elk are migratory. Otherwise, a male will inhabit a range of 25+ square miles. That still leaves a 200 acre enclosure at only about 1% of their natural territory.
Ithaca 37 (funny how you don’t use your real name), it is apparent that you are a follower not a leader. It is also apparent that you have a close mind. If people such as yourself continue to make uninformed and uneducated opinions in important matters such as this, I think we are all in for some BIG trouble. I really hope you are a vegetarian, if you have got a problem with people who raise some elk on 200 acres, lets look at feedlots and dairies…..hmmmmm. I mean really, where do you draw the line?
My identity has nothing to do with my argument, you could very well be posting under a fake name, it is of little importance. The fact that you would bring this up indicates a lack of any other legitimate argument on your behalf.
You call my opinion uninformed? You have yet to produce a shred of evidence to counter what I have said. I don’t have a problem with raising elk on 200 acres, what I do have a problem with is people who try to claim that hunting on such facilities is the same as hunting wild animals in their natural environment. This simply isn’t the case.
I am a follower and not a leader? What is that supposed to mean? I have not personally attacked anybody here, that was childish and uncalled for. As for being a vegetarian, I am not one. I am an avid hunter, and have no issue with the existence of facilities such as yours, but with those who would claim that such facilities provide the same experience as if one were hunting wild elk or whatever in their natural environment.
Ithaca 37
I must apologize if I offended you, however our group/website has never claimed that high fence hunting is the same as hunting in the wild. I agree with you, that it is much different than traditional hunting, however I still feel that if people opt to “hunt” in this environment, what is the harm? Our 200 acres is not a hunting ranch, we just raise them just as cattle would be raised, but definately not feed-lotted. Like a local Senator of ours said, “what is the difference, either way of “hunting” the animal is still being shot. Contrary to most of the inaccurate media reporting, most of these hunting ranches are on average at least 1,000 acres, they definately range in size, however usually about 1,000. I just think it is dangerous for us to make decisions for others, unless we can for certain state that there is a true concern and/or basis for our claims. To me it just sounds like a situation of “I don’t do it that way, thus others shouldn’t either” and I think that that is a dangerous mentality of some. I appreciate your concern, yet you need to realize these groups that are fighting my industry are using the hunting ranch issue along with false disease fears in order to push their agenda forward to BAN all elk ranching operations, not just hunting ones.
I think there has been some miscommunication, I think it appears we are in agreement. I have no issue with your operation. I think I was a little hostile in my posts which probably contributed to the confusion.
no problem, I jsut want people to have open minds when we are discussing this most important issue. I appreciate your comments.
You can call it a “canned-hunt”, or a “high-fenced hunt”, or a hunting preserve or what ever!! It IS NOT A HUNT!!! It is simply SHOOTING!!! I have no problem with the elderly, disabled, etc., but, don,t call it a hunt! These “Preserves”, as you call them are nothing more than money making buisnesses. We hunt in N.E. Colo. , essentially out of a pickup. We use the pickup to find the game, once spotted, stop the truck, get out, walk out 50 ft off centerline , take a shot, and finish the scenario. Elderly hunters can do this! Disabled hunters don,t even have to get out of the truck! They can ride in the bed and take a shot. This is all done on BLM land and or public land. Please, don,t combine “hunting” with “shooting”!
I buy a hog from a farmer every year in Yuma, Colo., I send him what he wants for the hog, and, tell the locker how I want it cut up, and pay them when I go get it.
If I would tell my hog farmer, I want to come shoot it first, would that be proof enough that I could say, I shot my own hog, this year, on the plains of Colo?
Confused,
Boyd
Boyd,
What you are describing is called ‘road hunting’ and is illegal in Arizona. Do I fault you if you do it, no! I wouldn’t do it even if it was legal, as that to me is not hunting! See, everyone has a different definition of the sport of hunting. But I am not judging you or your methoods. There just not for me.
After reading a number of posts from different forums (including this one), most of the responses are from individuals who have never hunted a legitimate high fence operation (5000 or more acres), and appear to be jealous that they can’ afford to. Who really cares if someone hunts high fence or not, will it make a difference at the end of the day? Hunt the way you personally want to hunt, and let’s all promote hunting vs. continuing a silly debate.
No one is jealous of those who shoot animals at these facilities. That fact that you would suggest that is evidence of your elitist attitude. I don’t care if someone goes to one of these facilities, just don’t call it hunting.
Boyd,
I appreciate your comments and in actuality you have supported my article in your comments and I’m not sure you know that you did.
When we lump together that all “high-fence” hunting is wrong and that it is only shooting, isn’t a fair assessment. Each preserve has to be considered on a case by case basis. Whether the fences are made of wire (man made) or natural, we all use “fences” to aid us in our hunting endeavors. We hunt patches of woods surrounded by highways, woods roads, ledges, houses, bodies of water, etc. We even use hunters on stands as “fences” to shoot game when it crosses.
High-fence huntings really comes down to ethics and ethics is perceived differently by everyone – mostly dependent upon what you grew up with.
You tell of your “ethical” hunt as being one driving in trucks until game is found. Then you get off the centerline 50 feet and shoot them. Where I grew up that kind of hunting is considered highly unethical but I wouldn’t question it where you hunt as I assume it is legal and something you grew up with.
Some states allow baiting and using dogs to run deer. Some states allow unlimited numbers in hunting parties and also permit “driving” deer. Again, where I grew up all these practices are illegal and considered very unethical.
So you see, ethics is a pretty grey area. Making a large generalization about all preserves as wrong is, well, wrong.
Is hunting on one million acres of land and having only one deer on it, ethical? How about 2 million? How big does the land have to be? How many game animals on it? What kind of weapons can we use? Do we allow feeding in a preserve? Should we stop feeding animals outside preserves?
The list is endless with no clear definition unless of course your way is the only right way.
[...] There is another issue with elk farming that needs to be addressed and that is of the elk farms that are either solely or partially used as hunting facilities. There is great debate about the ethics of hunting when it comes to ranches. I have addressed these issues many times in previous articles. This debate will rage on for centuries but let’s set that issue aside for a second and take a look at how biases influence politicians in making proposals to ban elk ranching. [...]
All hunts are simply harvests. The determining factor is what the hunter wants to get out of it. I have purchased a bison and walked into the field, found the right one and shot him. I wanted bison meat. I’ve also spent years tracking a specific bear in the mountains of Colorado, learning his habits and home, then going out alone for that bear, bagging the 450lb boar at a dead run with one home loaded shot from 44 Smith bought for that purpose. No bait, no dogs, no help. It’s a measure of an individual what he calls it afterward. I experienced pickup truck hunting once with a friend. I’d rather wash dishes.
what drivesme nuts is that the high fenced shooters think they are great hunters they are not, and dont compare dairies and feedlots to that you dont have anyone come pay 50000 dollars to go shoot a big bull wiht a a 40 inch wide set of horns its copletely different. most of the ranch elk are pets its like shooting your dog instead of coyote hunting . to all you pet and shoot guys quit claiming yoiur great hunters your not even a hunter
i read a quote on one of the ranch site and one guy said to his dad “you could hunt your whole life in the wild and never shoot a a bull elk like this” thats the wholefriggin point of hunting in the wild the challenge of it
First off, Grant, I doubt seriously that anyone can understand a word you wrote. Secondly, I’m from Louisiana and it is legal to to “run” deer, as many would call it. I was raised around running dogs after deer. I personally love it. It is what I have been around. Most people probably think that is it unethical. I on the other hand do not. It is hunting. What is the defintion of the work hunt? “To chase or search for (game or other wild animals) for the purpose of catching or killing.” A the end of the day, what does it really matter if you still hunt, dog hunt, or hunt high fences. Hunting is hunting. I think everybody should quite making a big deal out of this. It you don’t like the idea of perserve hunting, then simply don’t do it.
ok, i have read through every post here and i have come to some conclusions. First off we can all agree that ethics of one person are different from the next person. Secondly I have done some more research along with the information in this blog and it’s safe to say that “canned hunts” are not the same as an actual hunt. They are similar, but not the same. Do I think that these “high-fence hunts” are wrong? not really as long as they are done with a fair chase in mind. We must remember the late great Theodore Roosevelt, who refused to shoot the bear cub that was tied to a post. That was not a fair chase and I hope that no one here would do such a thing and call it hunting, or anything closely related to that. Also I have yet to see anyone talk about the “canned” bird hunts which are much worse than that of mammals. I think we can all agree making a bird dizzy and throwing it to a hunter is not hunting.
Chris – Thanks for the post. BTW, if you are really interested in more on this topic, in the search box near the top of the page, you can use the search words, “Canned Hunts(ing)” or “High-fence Hunting” and spend hours reading on the subject. You can also search “hunting ethics”, a few more hours of reading.
I enjoyed what you wrote because you, like all the rest of us, fell into the same trap when addressing this discussion. You remained neutral in your perspective, until you asked if high-fence hunting was ethical and you began to explain by bringing in “fair chase”.
Many have the definition of what fair chase is but which definition is right? or wrong?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way suggesting your thoughts and position on high-fence hunting is wrong because I don’t really think there is an all-inclusive right and wrong.
If you read more about this topic on this blog, you will learn that my beef comes when groups, even hunting groups, go about attempting to legislate their “fair chase” beliefs on others. I find this counter productive, damaging and a violation of some rights.
I’d rather see an effort to encourage fair chase and hunting ethics be done through education and outreach. As they say, you can lure more bees with honey than with vinegar.
I totally agree with you Mr. Remington. Everyone has a different view of a “fair chase”, but there are some indisputable areas where we know that there is no fair chase, like Teddy Roosevelt and the cub. Also I agree with you on the part about legislation. If there’s one thing I hate it’s people forcing their beliefs on others. The sort of “I’m vegetarian so you should be vegetarian because I am” really bugs me, but it can go any way. We live in a country that is full of freedoms and choices and I hope that I did not impose any of my personal views on any readers.
ithaca37, i have to disagree with you when you say not to call hunting preserves hunting. my father went on a “canned” boar hunt and only saw a couple hogs for the duration of his hunt. i can go to texas hunting wild hogs and see more in a night than he saw in his whole trip. just because it is high fenced does not mean that it is a “canned” hunt. hunting on game bird preserves is not just “making a bird dizzy and throwing it to a hunter”. i have hunted pheseants on opening weekend in North Dakota and yes, it is different than on game preserves. here in Colorado, there are not many upland hunting opportunites and anybody can hunt for a week and never see a pheseant. i cannot afford to drive to North Dakota whenever i want to hunt pheseants. also, on these preserves, most hunters flush about 50% of the birds put out for them, let alone bag near that many. there is no fence and the birds are able to fly whenever and whereever they desire.
To all,I have been a hunter for about 24yrs now and until 5yrs ago had only hunted in the “wild” then a friend asked me to go on a hog hunt on a preserve in Pa. I always wanted to go hog hunting but around me there are none so I went and had a blast ,it was a challenge and a lot of fun.I have since done two more hog hunts and two ram hunts and this year a red stag hunt,all of which are animals I would never be able to afford to go to there natural areas to hunt , my dream hunt is for a elk and I am now saving money to do that and yes it will be on a preserve also.I still do all of my “wild” hunting to and really see no difference in it.My heart still races and my hands still shake either way and that is a “hunt”to me.
[...] hunting with a rifle is unethical. Some say not having a weapon powerful enough to make a clean, …http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2006/10/27/high-fence-hunting/trackback/FShuntressIt&39s not hard to find anti-hunting messages on the Web. … And I was surprised to learn [...]
What about cattle fences? I hunted in South Africa and certain areas had cattle fences. Probably not higher than 3 or 4 feet. I saw plenty of Springbuck jump right over them, and many gates were open. This was only on 3 sides. The western side opened up onto a park. The park was putting up fences, but still, fairly small. Is this “high fence” We are talked about thousands of acres.
The “high fence” mostly talked about is one high enough, 8 feet or higher, whose function it is to keep animals inside it in and those outside it out.
As a preserve owner in Maine who has made a substantial investment to keep our land in agriculture we are being attacked once again. The harvesting of these animals is far more humane than trucking the same animals to a slaughter facility. Those who speak negative about preserves do so with propaganda supplied to them by the anti hunting groups.
At a time when jobs are scarce and money is tight these antis want to put us out of business. They have submitted a bill, L.D. 560 to ban our preserves. This only the tip of the iceberg re: there true mission..BAN ALL HUNTING!
Here is the bill submitted by the antis, who by the way submitted the bill after the January 16th deadline……………These antis are once again working with crooked politicians to put forth a bill which is absolutely uncalled for.
LD 560 http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/HP039801.asp
An Act To Ban the Hunting of Animals in Enclosed Areas
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 7 MRSA §1332, as amended by PL 2003, c. 386, §5, is further amended to read:
§ 1332. Animal Industry Fund
The Treasurer of State shall establish a separate account known as the Animal Industry Fund. This fund does not lapse but must be carried forward. Except as provided in section 1346, license License fees collected under section 1333, subsection 3 and license and tagging fees collected under section 1342, subsections 3 and 4 2 must be deposited in the account. Funds from this account may be used to pay for administrative costs associated with licenses issued under sections section 1333 and 1342, tags issued under section 1342 and other costs associated with administration and enforcement of this chapter and chapter 202-A.
Sec. 2. 7 MRSA §1333, sub-§2, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 386, §6, is amended to read:
2. License. The commissioner may issue a license for the propagation, possession, purchase or sale of cervids. A holder of a license issued pursuant to this subsection may raise cervids at any season of the year. The fee for a license is $20 a year. Except as provided in section 1346, a A license fee must be deposited in the Animal Industry Fund established in section 1332.
Sec. 3. 7 MRSA c. 202-A, as amended, is repealed.
Sec. 4. 7 MRSA §1751, first ¶, as amended by PL 2005, c. 146, §1, is further amended to read:
As used in this chapter and chapters 201, 202, 202-A, 207, 301 and 305, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following words have the following meanings.
[PL 2005, c. 146, § 1 (AMD).]
Sec. 5. 7 MRSA §1751, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2003, c. 386, §13, is further amended to read:
2. Domestic animals. “Domestic animals” means cattle, equines, goats, sheep, swine, cats, dogs, domesticated cervids or other domesticated animals ; large game as defined in section 1341, subsection 5; and poultry.
Sec. 6. 7 MRSA §1752, as amended by PL 2003, c. 386, §14, is further amended to read:
§ 1752. Rules
The commissioner shall adopt rules that are necessary for the enforcement of chapters 201, 202, 202-A, 207, 301, 303 and 305. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are routine technical rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
Sec. 7. 7 MRSA §4011, sub-§1, ¶G, as amended by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. B, §14 and affected by c. 614, §9, is further amended to read:
G. Hunts, traps or sells for the purpose of hunting any animal, except as permitted pursuant to chapter 202-A and Title 12, Part 13;
Sec. 8. 7 MRSA §4015, sub-§5, as amended by PL 1999, c. 765, §10, is further amended to read:
5. Livestock. Livestock must be provided with shelter suitable for the health of the animal. Livestock must have access to a constructed or natural shelter that is large enough to accommodate all livestock comfortably at one time. The shelter should be well drained and protect the livestock from direct sun, rain, wind and other inclement weather. Notwithstanding this subsection, shelter for equines must be provided in accordance with subsection 2, paragraph B, subparagraph (1). For purposes of this subsection, “livestock” includes large game as defined in section 1341, subsection 5 kept at a licensed commercial large game shooting area as defined in section 1341, subsection 1.
Sec. 9. 17 MRSA §1031, sub-§1, ¶G, as amended by PL 2003, c. 452, Pt. I, §13 and affected by Pt. X, §2, is further amended to read:
G. Hunts, traps or sells for the purpose of hunting any animal, except as permitted pursuant to Title 7, chapter 202-A and Title 12, Part 13. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;
Sec. 10. 17 MRSA §1037, sub-§5, as amended by PL 1999, c. 765, §12, is further amended to read:
5. Livestock. Livestock must be provided with shelter suitable for the health of the animal. Livestock must have access to a constructed or natural shelter that is large enough to accommodate all livestock comfortably at one time. The shelter should be well drained and protect the livestock from direct sun, rain, wind and other inclement weather. Notwithstanding this subsection, shelter for equines must be provided in accordance with subsection 2, paragraph B, subparagraph (1). For purposes of this subsection, “livestock” includes large game as defined in Title 7, section 1341, subsection 5 kept at a licensed commercial large game shooting area as defined in Title 7, section 1341, subsection 1.
summary
This bill repeals the law that permits the establishment, operation and use of commercial large game shooting areas. This bill also removes the exemption in the animal cruelty laws of persons operating or hunting in such areas, thus making it a Class D crime to operate or hunt in those areas.
Here are the sponsors……….
Sponsors of LD 560
Bill Info
LD 560 (HP 398)
“An Act To Ban the Hunting of Animals in Enclosed Areas”
Sponsored by Representative Alan Casavant
Sponsors and Cosponsors
Sponsored By: Representative CASAVANT of Biddeford
Cosponsored By: Representative BOLAND of Sanford
Representative EBERLE of South Portland
Senator GERZOFSKY of Cumberland
Representative GILES of Belfast
Representative MAZUREK of Rockland
Senator NUTTING of Androscoggin
Representative ROTUNDO of Lewiston
Representative RUSSELL of Portland
Representative TRINWARD of Waterville
We as Preserve Owners would appreciate any support from the public that we can muster. Write your local Rep, our Governor and attend the public hearing. Email me and I will let you know when this hearing has been scheduled.
This issue touches more than an animal rights issue, but a land rights issue as well.
These animals are raised for consumption and harvesting them in a preserve is far more ethical than shipping these now stressed animals to slaughter!