I don't have anything against high-fence hunting as a rule. There are some situations that are more sporting than others certainly. But keep one other thing in mind that I bet many of us never consider. What would that land be used for if there wasn't a high-fence hunting operation on it?

Land will naturally elevate itself to the highest and best use over time. I'm at the Dallas Safari Club convention and I was a by stander in a conversation today about and elk someone shot in New Mexico on a high-fence ranch. The bull was enoromous and very massive. The figure that was thrown out was $125,000 to shoot that bull. I don't know if that was right or not but it doesn't matter for this discussion. So what kind of operation on that land could bring in even $100K not counting the expenses of either operation? Maybe it would be strip mining or drilling for natual gas or maybe a new housing development or strip mall? What about the environmental impact of that and the effect on hunting?

I don't know what the answer is but this issue has more sides to it than we might like to think.

As far as a handgunners record book. SCI has kept track of that sort of thing for the usual fees. Others have considered it at times but the concensus seems to be that only a select few would have entries in the book. I've seen the listings for certain species from SCI as they relate to handgun hunters and I don't think they have enough to publish a book. One problem you would have would be getting organized and getting participants. Lots of folks just don't care about record books and I sort of fall into that category. I think it's worthwhile from a historical and natual history perspective but beyond that I think a lot of egos need to be put into check.