What about ranches like the king, pitchfork, etc that have 1000’s of deer that are trapped via just pure land owner ship size?

I’m all for purchase if behind fence, I’m just curious as to where the line gets drawn.

I don't disagree that it does, but it is not supposed to. Those numbers are in addition to criminal fines and are meant to represent the cost to the state of "raising" that animal. That is why it is considered a civil fine. No clue how they came up with it, or how close it is to the real cost.

You get tags when you buy your license that limit what each person is allowed to take. I think you should get that number free, but anything above, you're paying.

Seems backward to cut a break to the landowner simply because they fence in more deer.

So what if you don't shoot more than what is on your license? You didn't take any more or any less than the next guy. The state doesn't guarantee you the right to shoot a specific deer or to even have deer on your property at all I don't see this as having any point at all other than someone wanting the deer that are on someone else's property.

More that if the fence takes animals away from the general public, what about ranches that also take away animals from public just due to size... I could HF 2500 acres and still not get close to trapping in as many animals as some of the big LF ranches

You are "taking" the deer by fencing them in and denying they public the opportunity to hunt them and take them themselves.

I think the theory is that no matter how big the ranch, the deer could leave and wonder onto the neighbor's property. They might not, but they could.

How many people have leased spots on high fenced properties to hunt just like low fence? They are not keeping people from killing deer.

When I look at the king or even Waggoner and see that I could run a deer to death before it made it across to the neighbor, I think privatization, But then again probably 100 different “what if” situations we could overthink it and add.

I would like LO’s that HF be able to move governing body from TPWD over to TAHC though. So a buy out would be first step

Fencing in the state's deer and then charging someone else to hunt them is still "taking" the deer from the state.

Out of pure curiosity , what would the appropriate value be for one of the people’s deer?

Trying to understand your logic; So wouldn't it be the same for LF landowners that charge someone else to hunt deer on their property? How would they not still be taking the states deer?

Fencing in the state's deer and then charging someone else to hunt them is still "taking" the deer from the state.

Trying to understand your logic; So wouldn't it be the same for LF landowners that charge someone else to hunt deer on their property? How would they not still be taking the states deer?

In a LF situation, the deer can leave your property and be hunted by anyone in the state, to the benefit of the people of the state. Once you put up a HF, they are your deer and you have exclusive control over who can hunt them.

The difference is that a LF LO leases the rights to access his property and hunt the state's deer. Anybody can hunt those deer, but the LO controls who accesses his property. The HF LO has complete control over the deer and who can hunt them because they can't leave his property.

It is like the difference between charging someone to access your river front property to catch their limit of fish, and scooping all the fish out the river and putting them in your tank and charging people to fish there. As soon as your remove their ability to leave your property, you have "taken" the resource.

Not just anyone can hunt those LF deer. It’s often alluded that LF means equal access to those deer that’s incorrect. 171.9 million acres in Texas only 1 million of it has public access.

On top of that deer only share properties that fall with in thier home range.

The public water way example is irrelevant because it’s public not private.

Only relevant example would be private land that border public land.

Not just anyone can hunt those LF deer. It’s often alluded that LF means equal access to those deer that’s incorrect. 171.9 million acres in Texas only 1 million of it has public access.

On top of that deer only share properties that fall with in thier home range.

The public water way example is irrelevant because it’s public not private.

Only relevant example would be private land that border public land.

What I don't get about this conversation is that there are plenty of deer in the majority of Texas. Are the people arguing for paying for deer in hf not seeing enough deer? Fencing in property also prevents outside bucks from going in so the ratio of deer per acre should not change. Genetics would be the same on both sides of the fence so high fenced lo are not hurting the herd genetics. How are they affecting the herd in a negative way?

I don't think it would affect my hunting at all. It is simply that I think if someone privatizes a public resource, they should pay for it.

I believe Michigan and a few other states do that. We discuss it from time to time because it's a logical modification that our state needs to adopt.

Run as many deer off as possible, and then close the fence. Fly it with a chopper to get a relatively close count and then pay the state for the native deer left inside.

That way the landowner owns the deer and the state doesn't spend resources controlling that property.