The problem with that is, if you took down all the fences, certain species might go extinct.

Here in Texas, we have more Scimitar Horned Oryx than exist in their natural environment. There, the animals are endangered. Here you can hunt them.

But you can't just introduce exotic animals here. That's illegal. So you need to fence the property.

We have a viable population of Scimitar Horned Oryx because it's profitable for the landowners. The problem is, it may not be for much longer. The animal rights activists want all hunting stopped because the animals are endangered in their home country. Even though they're not here.

How do you think the landowners are going to react? Do you think they're going to maintain viable populations of an animal that you can't hunt, instead of maintaining a viable population of animals that he can offer to hunters?

I say "hunters" and not "shooters" because if the property is large enough then it doesn't hinder the animals at all.

Not that I've ever done it. But a lot of Texas ranches are bigger than some islands I've hunted for deer.

I'm not a fan of hunting high-fenced properties. I hunt on a lease near the Red River that is a working ranch and is not high fenced. I'm also not a fan of hunting exotics. I'd rather go to their natural habitat and hunt them.

But I'm also practical enough to concede that high fenced properties in Texas have created reservoirs of animals that can't be hunted in their natural habitats, because in many cases they're endangered in their home countries.

And you can't legally have those exotics here without the high fence.

Doing as you say, getting rid of all the fences, would in some cases harm the chances for some of these species' long term survival.