Or limit deer to acreage owned base on population surveys.

Or restrict baiting on a county basis, just as the current county-based bag limits. Those counties with higher numbers of small tracts would see an end to baiting.

Baiting has nothing to do with it if it's based on population and acreage. Some smaller acreage might not even qualify for one deer if the population isn't there. Others might be over populated and get one to two tags. We've got 3 sections that we try to limit to 2 bucks and 4 does per section, bad year might be one buck and two does. Let me also add that if it wasn't for blinds and feeders we'd be overrun with deer to the point they'd run into some serious problems due to starvation or disease.

Yes. The fact of the matter is, all things considered, overall deer populations in Texas are doing fine and have been doing fine for many years. Quality also. Sure, there are problems, always have been and always will be. But all the agenda driven crap is (for the most part) just that. Crap.

Dan, your Good Ol' Days you pine for are now. Not in the 50s or 60s or 70s when you couldn't find so much as a deer track in much of Texas.

They were Good Ole Days not because there wasn't enough deer, but because very few hunters fought over how many and which ones to harvest. The increased difficulty took care of such issues.

Exactly what time period are you talking about? Are we talking 50 years ago maybe 60 because that was a time when we didn't even have a hunt-able population of deer here in my area of Texas and if one was lucky enough to have a few deer they were limited as to what they could take. In many cases it was bucks only and limited to one with no doe tags.The goal of a hunter back then was to just fill a tag. Now we're a 2 buck 2 doe with a late season spike or antlerless and if everybody just decided to fill their tags we'd have them knocked back down to a un-hunt-able population in less than 5 years.

That was also a time when we gathered together and 10 people could lease 10 sections for about 100 dollars a gun. Those same 10 people would then go crashing all over the terrain run deer completely off the place and if they were lucky enough to get a shot at the 1 or 2 bucks you seen that day it was running. I was there Dan! I seen all the dink bucks hanging on the A-frames and that is certainly not a time I want to go back to. We've come a long ways and now have a large population of whitetails across most of Texas and all the credit goes to those who walked away from the "brown it's down" or "can't eat antlers" club. The fact that more people are getting consistently larger bucks than back then is simply because we as hunters are just giving them time to age. Now if you want to shoot up all the dink bucks just to fill your tags so be it but don't pine for the good old days because back then that was hardly possible, just say thank you to those who self imposed their own standards and let them walk. And don't act all surprised when the adjacent owner who holds hunting whitetails to a higher standard fences your arse out, because you made him do it.

I agree with Hwy_Man. The old days were mostly meat hunting and a big buck weighed 90 lbs..

You guys cannot see the forest for the trees.

If it were not so easy to fill tags these days as a result of feeder hunting, there would be far fewer complaints from landowners who have neighbors taking far more deer than their small tracts will support.

Now these small tract hunters can rationalize their position by claiming that the surrounding areas support enough deer to go around for everyone. However, that doesn't negate the fact that they are draining from a resource without investing near as much supporting habitat as their neighbors, and are only able to do it by using feeders to draw deer continuously from their neighbor's land. If their neighbors cannot make it more difficult for them to drain the resource by taking away their feeders, their only choice is to cut off their access to it.

But then, we seem to have no shortage these days of those who enjoy taking more while adding little back.

Sorry Dan but if anybody is stuck behind the tree's it's you. A feeder has never shot a deer that I know of, that choice is left to the person pulling the trigger. Hunting a feeder is no different than hunting a field, waterhole or a trail going to either, all just take advantage of a deer's known needs.

I think i would get a biologist or someone who knows about deer management to go out to your place and help determine how many deer can/should be taken. I know of a guy who has about 40 acres (somewhere) and got a biologist out there and said he could take 2 or 3 does (can't remember which) but 0 bucks. Since he's owned it, that's what he has done.

Now if a monster buck walked out, I think majority of us would take him down, no matter if we owned 400 acres or 40.

I wouldn't feel bad about taking more deer on a small place if i was feeding protein year round and doing other things for the overall deer population.

I am NOT a high fence guy...period. I can't imagine myself EVER going to a HF ranch to kill a deer. Frankly it just doesn't excite me in the least. That being said, I hope to own some land in the near future and if there was a neighbor that was taking more than the land he owns could support so that it was impacting me and my family I would, if I had the $$$$$$, HF the section/s that bordered the neighbors land.

This has nothin to do with being an elitist! It has everything to do with effectively managing and caring for the land. My wife and I hope to purchase a couple of hundred acres to retire on and to give our kids and grandkids a place to hunt with the plan being that I stay on my deer lease so they can be the ones to actually take deer on our place. And there would be a bag limit for the land so that we are not taking too many deer off the place each year.

The problem with some of these folks with small acreage is that either they do not understand that ten to twenty acres simply can't support taking even one deer much less 2,3,4 or 5. And they refuse to listen to anyone. They have the "it's my land and I'll do what I want with it" mentality which blinds them to the fact that what they are doing is impacting those around them. And then there are the others, which unfortunately are in the majority these days, they know that what they are doing is screwing with everyone around them etc and they simply don't care....in fact a lot of them actually get some type of perverse pleasure knowing they are screwing with others...they are simply jerks who know they are being jerks and enjoy being jerks...

So that is why when I read a post like this I understand why some LO HF portions of their land. And it's why I would consider doing so.

We cannot overlook the fact that feeders and food plots only provide supplemental food sources, and do not create the supporting factor that many hunters believe. The fact is, it takes plenty of natural browse to support good deer numbers, so much so that if the habitat is sufficient, supplemental feeding isn't necessary.

However, I'm sure the small tract hunter who feeds continuously while limiting his harvest to what is fair, given the amount of browse his tract provides, is going to be viewed more favorably by his neighbors who provide far more of the habitat that is truly critical.

IMO, this is a valuable discussion that needs to be spread throughout the deer hunting community.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I hate to see the state have to step in and regulate on a population/acreage basis but until they do the fences will keep going up. I simply can not maintain a healthy population of deer when I have 11 blinds sitting less than 100 yards outside my fence.

It's a good discussion, but it is a limited discussion that concerns mainly neighbor relations and very localized conditions. It doesn't impact overall deer populations and the health/quality of the deer herd statewide (or even countywide).

For every small tract owner that overhunts their place, there others who don't hunt their tracts at all and thus benefit surrounding properties. Probably goes for larger tracts too. And as HWYMAN points out, hunters overall are much more cognizant of basic management practices than in the "good Ol' days". All of which has made whitetail hunting in Texas so much better than it used to be that there's really no comparison.

I don't think the state will ever step in and impose such regulations with a deer herd of over 4 million and an annual harvest of 400,000-500,000. Not to mention the fact that they would have riots on Austin if smaller landowners were told they could not hunt deer on their property.

Private property rights are not defined as only "larger landowner private property rights". Although many would like it that way.

I understand the problem. I have it too.

That's a fair assessment, but one that should be revisited as the sport continues to evolve.

Very true but the state does have the right to determine the when, where, how and how many of the state regulated game animals may be taken regardless of whether it's private property or not.

Sure. I just highly doubt they would alienate so many small landowners and restrict their rights to such a drastic degree unless there were a population crisis statewide or regionwide.

We are fine...

Just gotta keep the Democrats out of office...

Do our elected officials want to be re-elected?

# of people that own small tracts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> # of people that own large tracts

Ok I had to weigh in on this, some of you guys just kill me. You talk like these are YOUR deer. Like some guy who has a small acreage next to a large plot of land is poaching YOUR deer. I love the guy that posted, "How dare they hunt a small plot of land." I have seen some elitist people before but ,good night, some of you guys take the cake. As a matter of fact, it IS their land and they can do with it what they want. That doesn't mean I agree with those that shoot everything that moves either. The way some of you talk, I should never even hunt my lease, EVER, because I am taking somebody elses deer. My son and I shoot 1 and sometimes two deer a year on our lease. And our deer numbers and quality have increased over the years. We do not shoot does (we have a few what I consider resident does that frequent the area) because this seems to draw more bucks during the rut. Once the rut is over, we see our buck numbers drastically fall off. This is the nature of the place where we hunt. It is a large wheat/cotton field (not sure of the acreage) with a small sliver of woods in one corner (probably less than 20 acres on our property). We have a feeder on the edge of the woods that we share with other hunters on other land. These woods are part of a drain that eventually ends up in the Red River. These bucks cruise from the River to find the does in our area. This is why we stop seeing good bucks after the rut and of course due to hunting pressure. I ask you, do these bucks belong to the landowners between me and the Red. Am I poaching THEIR deer because I am hunting a small parcel of land.

And another subject that gets into my craw. The population number is sheer speculation based on very little data. Between the big ranch, my place and the other large landowners in this county, (most of us know each other) we can all agree on one thing. The state doesn't have a clue how many deer we have per square mile, they've never set foot on the place. Hell we have a growing population of Aoudad on the Cap Rock that the state doesn't even know is there along with a nice population of Mule Deer. Even their harvest report cannot be used as firm data since a large amount of deer hunters process their own. Those deer never get counted. A more accurate way of collecting that data would be for the licence holder to turn in their old licence when purchasing their new one and collect data from there. And yes even that will miss some due to those never tagged but it's a damn sight closer than what they do now. Now with all that said let me also add that the state cannot afford to do this my way so we're stuck with what we have.

Well many of us are now under antler restrictions enforced by the state.

They come allot closer to being my deer than they do anybody else's. I haven't seen a penny from you the state or anybody else to help maintain the deer population on this place, let me also add that I'm the one who determines if a deer can even be taken off the place, not you the state or anybody else. I can even go as far as to restrict them from ever leaving the place and again not you, the state or anybody else can keep me from doing it.

Are far out numbered by the people who own neither, you want to take that risk?