The hunters have a super high chance of killing a trophy animal. They know there are animals and a lot of them in that property. That's 100%.
It's like a business........So give me your definition of a "ranch.." I will be lucky to shoot a small doe this season with my compound bow
So, what's wrong with that? A high chance of "failure" is not a necessary element of hunting. Fair chase is.
Who in their right mind would pay to hunt somewhere and have the same small chance at the same small doe that you'll have? Doesn't make sense. A private hunt would have to offer either a higher chance of success OR more impressive animals to attract hunters. (And, as Click points out, the providers of such hunts get to charge a fair price.)
A high chance of success--even a track record of 100% success over, say, a 4-7 day hunt--doesn't mean that no hunting was done. I have spent days looking over animals--sometimes lots of them--without shooting one, either because I didn't find one worth shooting, or couldn't get a clear (ethical) shot. And there were other days that I saw every animal in creation...except for the species I was hunting for.
Those were still good days! The fact that I eventually did get what I was after means it wasn't hunting?
It begins to sound a lot like sour grapes: you've never done a ranch hunt, you have a low chance of success--so based on the "reality" of a 30-minute TV show, plus what you "imagine" it's like, you decide it's not true hunting?
And let's talk about "not hunting." Outside of hunting, as Oathkeeper points out, there is still the legitimate killing of and trading in animals--anyone who's ever had a hamburger or a leather belt should know that. Would I pay for the opportunity to shoot an animal without fair chase? No--I've even turned it down "for free." But I'm not everyone, and as long as it's legal, humane, and not mis-represented as "a hunt," well, so what?