: LVI

COLLECTION OF PAPERS Faculty of Geography at the University of Belgrade: Vol. LVI

-
.

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

Zoran A. Risti

Abstract
Key words
Summary
References
Appendix: Appx. 1; Appx. 2; Appx. 3; Appx. 4

 , . LVI, 2008.

Collection of the Papers, vol. LVI, 2008

639.111(497.113)
338.48-52:799.2(497.113)
Original scientific article

.
-
: . 14 , 109.048 h. ,
25.758 h, . 23,62%. ,
, , .
- , , ,
, .
, ,
.
: , , , ,
.
Abstract: Large game is mostly bred in fenced hunting grounds. Public Service of Voivodinasume manages with fourteen hunting grounds on the total area of 109,048 ha.
Fenced hunting grounds make 25,758 ha, i.e. 23.62%. Deer, wild boar, fallow deer, mouflon and doe are raised in fenced hunting grounds. The subject of the paper is to gather data
on hunting tourist large game shooting in the fenced hunting grounds of Voivodinasume,
to present them for the first time, i.e. to make them public. Foreign hunters have mostly
been interested in trophy game shooting so far as domestic ones as well.
Key words: hunting grounds, large game, shooting percent, fenced hunting grounds,
hunting services

, , 95% ,
, ,
.

,
, ,
. ,
193

, ,
.
14 ,
109.048 h, : 4.771
h ( 543 h); 11.764 h ( ); 6.579 h ( ); 1.650 h (
382 h) .
4.305 h 2.619 h
( 630 h),
. 1.584 h ( cca 200
h) .
33.272 h,
20.098 h, 60,41%.
: 6.057 h;
6.032 h 33.610 h ( cca 2.000 h), . 45.699
h 2.000 h 4,38%.
: 12.274 h;
1.955 h ( 1.403 h); 7.895 h (
2.257 h) 7.953 h .
30.077 h, 3.660 h 12,17%.
25.758 h,
23,62%.
: , , .

, .
( ,
, .).
(Cervus elaphus),
(Cervus dama), (Ovis musimon) (Sus scrofa).
,
: ,
, ,
, -
194

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

. ,
.
, .

, ,
, .
, (, , , ),

.
()
( )
: )
; )

; ) ;
)
.
,
,
,
.

o

.
,
(
) .

.

, . ,
, ,
.
.
195

,
,
, .
( ), ,
.
(1981)
50.000 h,
,
,
, .
, ,
, 11%.

, .

().

(, .).



.

., ., 1984. ( 1.000 h),
, ,
.
(Cervus elaphus)
, , . (1982) ,

. (Brna, 1981)
80 1.000 h.


, , , , , .
196

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

(Cervus dama) ,
( , ).
1/3 ,
. (Katreinaku,
1979) (Nagyja -Gdle)
, ,
. (Nagyju - , 1984) 3-4 100 h, 1:7-8 .
3-4 100 h ,
.
. R.Wetzel W. Rieck (1972) W. Rieck (1955)

. 1 h ( 2 h). h
8-12 , .
1:10-15
, 20 (Bogner, 1991), 1:3-4.
,
(, , .).
(Ovis musimon) . , .
.
.

,
. ,
, ( 300 g
) ( 400 g ). , , ,
. ,
, , .
,
() .
, ,

.
197

(Sus scrofa) .
( ) .
, , , . J. Fuchs (1978)
10%
,
. K. Tamas (1979)
, 200 .
80% 93%
, 2% 13%,
5% 13%. 70% ,
16% 15% ( ).
, . ,
, .
,
, ,
. (1981)
,
,
, . ,
.
. (1979)

1 h , . 100 100 h.
(1981), 25 100 h,
Fuchs (1978) 70 80 100 h.

- ( ) ( )
.
.
,
,
.

. ?
198

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

1. . , . ,
, ,
.
2.
( ), , .
,
, (
)
.
3.
, . , .
,
, .
,
.
, .
. ,
15. . -
, , .
4.
, .
, ( )
,
.
, ,
(, ).
5.
, ,
. .
, .
.
, .
199

6.
,

.
, ,
. , ,
.

)
. ,
/
), 800 h, 500 h,
150 h, .

3-10 h , 0,1 0,2 h
. ,
(y, )
,

2 5 h.
) .
: , , ,
, .
,
.
, .
, :

, ;

. , , (
, ),
5-10 , ,

.
200

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

.
, , .
) . .
.
. :
.
. ,
,
. ,
.
( 50 , 30
), .
, (
y, 20 , 30,
40). , 30
50 .
x, . ,
( ),
, . ,
, ,
( , ,
).
.
10 h 100 .
. .
,


. , ,
.
,
.
,
( ,
600
m )
, ,
,
.
201

.
.
,
.
, , ,
, .
. .
, .

: 2.079 3.275,
425 432 ;
1.905 3.478 1.153 1.234 ;
2.300 400 500
; 80 25
180 40 .
8.291
, 6.222 , 75,04%.
4.185 , 67,26%,
1.572 25,27%.
1.248, 312.

1.793 448 .

51.459.827 , 12.864.956 ,
1.129.437 (
90.354.960) 282.359 .
2001/02. 2004/05.
141.814.787 35.453.696 .
15.578.389 ,
3.894.597 335.735 (
26.858.800), 83.934 .
42.437.189 , 10.609.297 .
184.251.976 , 46.062.992 . 42.437.189 23,03%,
.

: 2002/03.
17,05%; 2003/04. . 9,63% 2004/05. . 12,46%.
202

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

1952-1987.
6,56%.
, (,

100). , ,
, . ,
1952/53. 1963/64, , . 12
3.822 , 525
, 13,74%. 525 : 103 (19,62%), 213
(40,57%) 209 (39,81%).
: 2002/03.
2,56%; 2003/04. 6,93% 2004/05. 11,21%.
1977-1987. 6,34%.

-
-
,
,
.
, .
. (, , ,
.), ,
( 10-12 , ,
6-7 ), . , . ,
, , , .

100 .

, . (1959). . , 42-45.
1984.
203

2000-2010.
2001 2010. .
(. 39/93).
, . (1982). . (. 417-421). .
, . (1972). .
1978-82.
, . (1982).
. (. 399402). .
.
Brna, J. (1982). Cervus elaphus . (. 403-406). .
Katreniak, J. (1979). Rajonizacija s zlepovanie chovu danielej zveri na Slovensku. Folia Venatoria, 9, 33-51.
Reuss Prinz, H. (1976). ,
, 1983-85. .
Tamas, K. (1979). Komplex ekologiae viszgalatok beinditasa uj letesitesu vaddisznokertekben. Vadbiol. kutatas, 23, 26-29.
Zoran A. Risti
HUNTING-TOURIST SIGNIFICANCE OF FENCED HUNTING GROUNDS
Summary
Some hunting-technical principles in the organization of hunting grounds are the following: when making basis and defining measures for hunting technical organization
of hunting grounds we must have in mind breeding game species, its living needs, natural possibilities of habitation to be satisfied as well as an estimate of what can be additionally done for improving the habitable conditions of game in fenced hunting ground.
We must not forget that game density, i.e. its concentration is several times higher than
in open hunting ground. Therefore attention is paid to nutrition. It is easier to make
hunting tourist shooting of bred game (deer, fallow deer, mouflon, wild boar, etc.) in
fenced hunting grounds because game is under breeders permanent supervision.
Shooting old game is much easier to hunters-tourists (old age for deer 10-12 years,
while mouflon, fallow deer and wild boar are older than 6-7 years). Hence, fenced
hunting grounds have more advantages in relation to open hunting grounds. At big
game breeding, breeders aims are raising of qualitative trophy game, easier supervising of game breeding in fenced hunting ground, shooting game trophies through hunting tourism, and making significant financial resources. The value of sold trophy comparing with sold meat of shot game may be of several to more than 100 times higher.
204

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

205

206

Hunting-touristic significance of fenced hunting ground

207

208