Did anyone see the article on deer hunting in Texas in the Dallas news sports section Sunday morning? It brought up some valid points.

Anyway you can post it so everyone can see it? Thanks

What points, don't live in dallas!

Here it is... Lots of questions... Not lots of answers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/rsasser/stories/120405dnspooutsassercol.23f0442.html

I believe you will have to register to view. Ray Sassar's work is well worth registering.

Huntalot

Thanks for posting the link. I got on it and didn't have to register.

I read the article, but it doesn't bring up anything any different than a lot of the topics we have discussed on here.

There are no answers, easy or otherwise for what is happening to hunting in Texas. From what I am seeing, these conditions are only going to get worse.

Sasser only brought out six points, and touched on them briefly, but gave no opinions at to how he felt about them.

We are the second most populous state in the Union, and the 4th. fastest growing state. Nearly all of that growth is along or east of the I-35 corridor, from Gainesville to Laredo.

Texas has always been a strong Land-Owners rights state. We can't change that. As I have said on here before, a lot of folks moving in to Texas, have no concept of how one person/family, can have control over an area of land equal to or greater than some of our northeastern states.

Also a lot of folks moving in to the state, hunted in the states where they formerly lived, and with the exception of bear, there was no baiting of game animals. Also, size for size, some of those states have a higher percentage of public land than Texas.

As I have said in the past, I agree most of the time with the job TP&W does, but there are exceptions. The MLD program is one of those exceptions.

I feel that for TP&W to manage that program properly, and create public hunting opportunities, TP&W along with assistance from the landowners wishing to participate, should agree to creating a special January season for those properties.

Hunters wishing to participate would have to contact TP&W headquarters, and they would receive a list of all participating ranches. Then on a "First Come-First Serve", basis hunters would either be taken to a stand, or drove out on to the property, and the first legal deer they saw, they would have to shoot it.

The season would stay open thru the entire month of Jan. or until 80% of the recommend number of cull animals on all properties were killed. There would be no extra permit fee, each hunter would be able to kill the county limit of does at $50.00, $75.00, or $100.00 per animal. Those moneys would be used by the state to pay for staff overtime and administrative charges, with the landowners getting a set fee of $25.00 per hunter allowed on their property.

It could be done, yes there would be problems. but any landowner not participating 100%, would lose their MLD status and not be allowed to participate in the program for 3 consecutive calendar years.

Interesting article, but it really only scratches the surface of what hunting has become. Someone in another post mentioned it, but entire families are supported by the proceeds derived from hunting charters purchased by either corporations, groups, or individuals.

The basis of this hunting evolution has come not only from the necessity to provide a comfortable hunt, but a successful one as well, and hunters are increasingly willing to put out some big money for an opportunity to indulge themselves on a trophy mount…, for some a single once-in-a-lifetime hunt, for others annual trips. I’d fall more inline with the “once-in-a-lifetime” group, not because of the cost, but more because of wanting to ejoying the experience... just once.

This kind of hunting has become akin to placing an order at BurgerKing. Something like this... you drive to the ranch the night before, and enjoy dinner and drinks with the other guests. The next morning you are up at 5am, cut the tags off your new hunting clothes, run a cloth down the barrel of your new, unfired TC Encore 300mag. Ride the Mule 1/2 mile out to a stand that seats 12 and has a satellite dish and working telephone. Sit for a long 20 minutes with a guide (it took 20 minutes to decide which deer had the bigger G2’s) in a blind with cushioned/swivel highback chairs, take/make your shot, ride the mule 25 yards to retrieve your 75 point monster, winch your trophy into the dump bed, at the ranch house take a few photos of you and the deer, eat a gourmet lunch while the deer is processed and packaged by the camp butcher. Then back into city clothes. With meat in your cooler, packed in your car/truck you'are on your way home. The mount will be delivered to your home in 2-3 weeks, and you, the big hunter, whistle happily on your way back to the house. The entire hunt lasted less than 24 hours. The only bad thing about it was you couldn’t return you hunting clothes to Cabela’s because you cut the tags off… and all this for ~$4000. The questions you need to ask yourself are… was it worth it…, and was it really “hunting”? The one's that do it will argue "yes", but in another post someone likened it more along the lines of "shopping". I tend to concur with the latter analogy.

I agree with the article. Deer hunting is not what it was. I refuse to go to a high fence ranch and shoot a big deer. In the old days it was something to go somewhere and find old mossy horns and shoot him. You accomplished something. It was yours, not a rancher who sees a buck eating protein for 5 or 6 years and puts a $10,000 price tag on his head because he knows someone will pay it. Where is the accomplishment in that. You sat there and shot a target. Deer hunting was more mistical than that. It was the world to me and that was all I wanted to do when I grew to be a man. I see that world now and will have no part of it. I still sit on the stand with my bow and kill a deer every year. It could be a doe a spike or an 8 point, maybe even old moss will show up and I'll shoot straight. Maybe I'll let old moss walk on by. I can do that because I was taught the right way years ago by a man I'll quote "We are not here to shoot a deer son, we are deer hunting and when you realize the difference you are on the road to being a man and a hunter". That was my father who said that. To hit this pouint home I'll tell you a story. It 1972 in Bracketville,TX. I was in the stand with my dad and right before dark a doe came across a flat looking back and acting weird. My dad told me a big buck was following her. I saw that deer and was out of my mind. He was huge. I asked my dad if he was going to shoot it and he said he didn't know. I couldn't understand. That buck walked all the way across that flat and my dad never picked up his rifle. He leaned over and said,"Son, burn that image in your brain because it will be a long time before you see that again." It took me years to figure out why he didn't shoot that deer. I did figure it out and that is why I can let a big one walk by and shoot a doe with my bow. All this hype on the horns just makes my ass red, it seams either everyone forgot the right way of hunting or never learned it in the first place. Thats my two pennies in the pot.

CHC,

I applaud you for trying to come up with solutions, but I don't think you'll get many landowners opening up their place to the general public. Have you seen the trashed shoreline of you local lake, and the county road signs all shot up? With leasing to individuals at least there is personal accountability. I know, I know, not everyone does it. But the ones that do screw it up for the rest.

Burrr it's cold,
Phish-TX

What I am suggesting, isn't landowners opening up their property, but, TP&W and the land owners, joining forces and doing a completely controlled cull/antlerless/spike hunt, to remove the required number of deer on each property.

It would be the same type hunt as is done on the drawing hunts, such as at Lake Brownwood.

Hunters would have to be at a designated staging area, and would be taken by either ranch personnel or TP&W personnel to an assigned blind.

They would be left in that blind for 2 hours. During that time, depending on how many deer they wanted to pay for, or a maximum pre-determined number, per hunter for that particular hunt. They would be required to shoot any deer that was considered legal game on that hunt, the instant they had a doable shot.

No waiting for a bigger or smaller doe, first animal that is considered to be legal on that hunt, is to be dropped.

The hunter would only be allowed to leave the blind and retrieve their deer, as long as it was down within sight of the stand. If the deer runs outy side of that area, the hunter will go to the last place where blood is visble, mark that spot, and return to the stand, and wait for either another animal to come out, if they are allowed a second animal, or for the hunt personnel to return, at which point the hunt personnel will help the hunter retrieve the deer.

CHC.... that's a can of worms. You see, there are a lot of dishonest people out there that would take advantage of the system you propose. Special sites, for special friends, konw what I mean? Now days... the buck gets you the buck, and the big bucks is what hunting has become all about... at least for those who are caught up in the fringes of the sport, without paying the dues.

I'm not a nature nut, I hunt from a boxstand 75 yards from a feeder, but there have been a lot of years I didn't take any shot. Angle, wind, distance, couldn't ensure a clear shot... what ever the reason it was mostly because I was unsure that the animal would go down quickly, or the possibility that I would only wound it.

The gist of it is that we as hunters have a responsibility, not just to take care of the animals, but to take care of the land as well, to take care of our priviledges that allow us to enjoy the hunting experience. Let the big bucks pay for the big bucks... that ain't hunting. Pack your stuff in, but if the animals can't eat it make sure it leaves the woods when you do. And... in every way, act like and set an example for future hunters. nuff said??

To bad you feel that way, but I have been participating in the Draw Hunts since the mid 80's, and I have never seen a "Good Buddy" set up on any of the hunts I have been on.

The system can be made work, because they would be dealing with does/spikes/culls, or leave the culls out of the equation.

There is definitely one thing about it, nothing works if people give up before they even try.

You need to also not try to talk down to people until yopu have met them or actually know something about them.

How many folks pack in to a place in Texas to hunt, got any figures on that, that you want to share.

What I am talking about, is making the MLD and possibly the LAMPS programs, provide the hunting opportunities that they were supposed to when instituted.

People are constantly complaining about the situation with the high fences and high prices of leases here in Texas, why not start trying to put pressure on TP&W to make those two programs work the way they are supposed to.

You are entitled to your opinion on this matter, just as I am mine. I think that if hunters would get there act together, we could bring about some changes in the MLD and LAMPS programs that would create some hunting opportunities.

I will say a lot of the guys on MLDP land do not want anyone else on there except the usual crowd that they trust. Many are managing for big bucks and a great herd and do not trust anyone they have not known for years. I know of stories of guys swearing there have hunted whitetails forever only to go out and kill an exotic deer thinking it was a whitetail... Many of the big ranches have to deal with poachers and having outsiders there would make the problem worse as people could access these places more than ever. You would have to limit the deer shot to does only probably to take away the issue of judging a cull.

The program I am suggesting, takes the MLD permits, and the way they are used, out of the control of the landowners that are participating in the program, and puts TP&W in the position, of having to provide the Public Hunting opportunities that these permits were originally supposed to have created.

The program would be set up the same way that the draw hunts on some of the WMA's are.

Lake Brownwood State Park is an example. Hunters are taken to an assigned blind, and all that they can shoot is a doe, or a spike. They are not given any options, and they are not in a position to shoot something they shouldn't.

If nothing else, these hunters could be taken out by either ranch personnel or TP&W personnel, and only shoot when and at what they are told too.

Yes, the landowners involved with the MLD and LAMPS programs are going to squeal about something like this, but they need to have the ability to allow 1 person to kill maybe up to 100 cull deer, pulled from them.

This isn't rocket science, there are several ways to approach this, but it is going to take people willing to come up with ideas and be willing to present them, instead of immediately giving up.

I am not talking about letting people on these properties uncontrolled, I am talking about completely controlled cull hunts, that would create oportunities for people that were willing to abide by the regulations, go out and kill a deer or two. But it will only work in a closely controlled situation.

This thread was a can of worms... just as I said. I didn't intend to talk down or infer that all people were or would take advantage of the hunting system you propose, but, given the opportunity for advantage, many would take it, and given the behavior of many hunters, most land owners wouldn't open their properties to the liabilities and responsibilities of catering to non-paying participants.

Most hunters are good people, but the few who poach, litter the woods with trash, and generally behave in a non-supportive sporting manner really give the rest of us a bad rap to contend with. You would have a tuff time convincing land owners to give the "good-guys" a shot simply because of the few bad ones.

Is there not any way, that you can read what I am saying in my posts. This is not a suggestion of letting people loose on any ones property.

This will have to be done, just like the drawing hunts on the WMA's are done. No one will be turned loose on their own, to decide what to shoot. They will be taken to a blind/stand, or taken out in a pick-up, and either TP&W or Ranch Personnel, is going to instruct these folks as to what they can shoot.

This would not be a deer hunt as such, it would be a deer shoot. None of the hunters are going to be left on their own, they won't be able to shoot the wrong animal, someone will be there telling them what they can or can not shoot.

From the responses to this, I am beginning to think that some folks, don't want their little game, of going on some of their friends properties, that are in the MLD program, and shooting several deer a season yanked away from them

Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I ain't. TP&W has been doing the draw hunts on WMA's and State Parks for several years successfully. These hunts would be run under the same set of rules and regulations.

CHC, easy there pardner. I'm not against any idea that positively promotes the sport of hunting, or one that promotes a better public impression of hunting sportsmen.

I hunted WMA (unit#120) for several years before switching to a leased hunting club environment, and during those years on WMA I never once saw nor heard of doe or cull tag distribution. Where'd they go? This is the situation that I infer will result in your proposal, and this would include the private property tags as well. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not infering anyone is dishonest, and we will not come up with an answer that will make everyone happy or prevent people from taking advantage.

You are talking about hunting the Type II permit stuff, that may be the problem in our communication here. I am talking about what used to be the old Type I system, that has evolved into the Drawing Hunts On Public Land.

This is not the same as the Annual Public Hunting Permit lands, where you buy the $48.00 permit. The system would have to be operated as the Drawing Hunts are.

Excuse me, if I have made it seem like you or anybody else, didn't know what you were talking about, but since the programs began, I have only bought 2 of the AHP permits. I have been participating in the drawing hunt program since the mid 80's.

There are protocols already in place within the TP&W system that would facilitate the implementation of this type of program.

I just feel that since TP&W is supposed to be managing the PUBLIC wildlife of this state, that should include forcing these folks that are in the MLD and LAMPS programs, to develope hunting opportunites for ALL of the hunters in the state, not just buddies and friends. The only way that is going to change, is for hunters as a group, to start pressuring TP&W about this.

CHC - Don't know who are you referring to specifically since you wrote "From the responses to this, I am beginning to think that some folks, don't want their little game, of going on some of their friends properties, that are in the MLD program, and shooting several deer a season yanked away from them" but only Outback and me have replied and I have never hunted on MLDP property ever. I know someone on MLDP but have never even hunted there and have no plans to unless I was invited to and had the time to drive 8 hours for a hunt at a doe or spike. Hunting is not a game for us on this forum. It is a passion. How would making a rancher offer public opportunities take away the ability of anyone to go shoot several deer in a season anyway? We all have 5 tags on our license. You can shoot several deer at your friends place you hunt for free and he is not on MLDP... So can I on my lease I pay for. Anyone can do that anyway with or without MLDP. If the state took away the whole program, most ranchers could still easily hit their quota as given to them by the bioligist anyway by leasing, day hunts, and having family and friends out and hunting from their tags. It just makes it easier to manage the tags and extend the season. Most of those ranches are in a 3 buck, 5 deer county so it would only take 20 people hunting to take 100 deer off if they filled their tags. Most of the meat on the large MLDP properties meat are donated to hunters for the hungry. I was just speaking from a ranchers point of view and the arguments they would throw out if it was changed.

I am 100% on agreement that the state should offer public opportunities for the ranches on MLDP. It could be that for every 10 MLDP permits given, the ranch must provide 1 public opportunity for a doe or spike. Or every 1 in 5 or every 1 in 15. I think that is what you might have mean't but you did write that the state should take the control out of the ranchers MLDP or LAMPS permits. If you would do that, then the program would go away and there definitely would not be public hunting. You leave the MLDP permits but create a new type of public permit that must be filled as well by the end of the season or you lose the designation.

First off, just like you, I can shoot 3 deer, 1 buck and 2 does, not several.

Last time I checked, the MLD and LAMPS programs were instituted by the state, not the landowners.

In the second part of your post, you actually start coming up with an idea. I am not sure if what I post is in Greek or whatever, but you don't seem to be able to deal with very simple concepts.

Hunting has been a passion with me since way before you were born. I don't need an invite to drive 8 or 10 or more hours to get a chance to hunt. If I can put in an application or call in to a number, and say yes I want to particpate in one of these hunts, then I will do it.

Just like on the hunts on the WMA's, these deer would not be covered under the tags on an individuals hunting license.
These tags would be in addition too the ones on your license.

You say that it could be one out of every 10 or 5 or 20, that could go to the public, why not one out of every one.

The landowners don't make the rules on this, TP&W does. I am all for landowners rights, but there are ways this program could be changed that would provide hunting opportunities to more people.

It ain't ever gonna happen, because too many of us want to close our eyes and minds to suggestions, simply because of who presents them and how simple they sound.

I think that you are probably a really nice person, but you seem to have a mental block when it comes to reading my posts.

The only way any of this will work, and possibly even make it on to someones desk at TP&W for consideration, is for all of us to have an open mind. I have seen first hand how things can be made to work on the drawing hunts, it would work on these just as well.

Suggestions like this require input from all of us. All of mine and your in-fighting doesn't help anyone. You came up with some good suggestions in your post, I just feel that they stop short of what they could be.

I really wished that we could work things out, and quit butting heads, but it boils down to either I am way too old and don't really understand the situation, or your too young and just think that anything simple, won't work.

Of all the people on here I really feel bad about our inability to get along. I just think that you either take offence at my posts on subjects like this, or the stuff I come up with is not complicated enough for you.

Just go back and look at your post. 20 people could kill those 100 deer, but wouldn't it be better if those 20 people were average citizens that just wanted to go and shoot some deer, especially average citizens that don't have a lease or a friend that will let them go hunting.

What is so difficult about this. I am not saying my suggestions are the be all end all, because in this post you made some real suggestions, you didn't just say that this won't work.

That was the most disappointing post I have seen from you to date. What the heck has you so worked up and cut down my post like that? Did you read any of it because you missed the whole point and acted like I was offending you. No one said your idea was bad. You are completely in left field with that post. Re-read mine and then read yours and they belong in two completely different topics. And the definition of several is three.

You made a suggestion originally and a couple people wrote, not took, a landowners point of view and you start getting all hacked off and making assumptions that are completely off base from the truth.

Giving a one for one tag landowners to agree to let the public hunt is something that would never work and makes no sense. That is a bad idea in my opinion. What landowner in their right mind would ever agree to such a short sided deal like that? They simply would not participate and just hunt off the current tags we all buy. Any how much money would our license prices go up to provide that kind of staff to handle that many hunts??? If a landowner has 100 permits, we are going to give the public 50? Did the public pay for the deer survey? No. No landowner in their right mind would ever agree to that and I don't think even the public would since they would be paying a ton to staff that many hunts. You would not a single soul participate in the program and are back at square one.

I think if it were to ever to work, you have to have a ratio such as 10 to 1 or 15 to 1.

Tell us why you think a landowner would want to participate in a program like that at all??? Why wouldn't they just hunt off their own tags and those of leasors, friends, family, and ranch hands to manage their over abundant deer herd? The landowner I know in it does not care to shoot 5 deer, he just wants his herd managed and isn't going to trust joe blow climbing into 20 a foot tower stand at 5 am.

Maybe Bradbury can chime in since I believe he his hunting at his friends ranch that would fall under MLDP. Good luck letting the public in there when they want to grow monster deer on protein.

How long do I have wait for this one??

My posts, are not intended to please or disappoint you, or any body else.

Who set up the MLD and LAMPS programs. IT wasn't the landowners.

I didn't cut down your post, I just said that the ideas you presented didn't go far enough.

The point you keep missing, is that the landowner is not going to have a choice, if they want to continue participating in either program. I have seen it done, and it works. The landowners go into these programs voluntarily, so they can manage a resource that has been taken out of the public realm.

This works in Colorado in the Ranching for Wildlife program, it works in Wyoming, to gain public access to private lands, and also in Nebraska.

And the definition of several is not 3, it is 1 person being able to shoot more deer than the alloted bag limit of that county.

You aren't paying attention, Joe Blow is not going to be climbing into a tower blind at 5 in the morning. Joe Blow is going to be taken out and either go into a stand with TP&W or Ranch personnel, and not given an option on what to shoot. I am not now nor have I at any point, proposed in letting the public loose on any property. These would be strictly controlled cull/management hunts, to achieve the desired number of deer on a given property.

As I have said, I have seen these programs work during the years I have participated in the hunts on the WMA's. On these hunts, the landowners are going to have to participate if they want to be able to be in the programs. Participating hunters are going to have to follow the rules for the hunt, and are not going to be turned loose on their own.

If you were a landowner, participating in the MLD or LAMPS programs, and TP&W came to you and said, that for you to be able to continue letting people come on your property both before and after general gun season in that county, you were going to have to set aside a one week period, where you would have to devote personnel to help run a cull hunting operation to reach the desired goals on your property, and that if you refused, you would lose your MLD or LAMPS status, and you would not be allowed to let anyone other than paying hunters harvest those deer, and they would only be able to do it within the parameters of the General or Archery seasons of the county they were located in. That includes bag limits.

I am not mad or upset, and could really care less whether you are dis-appointed or not. I just feel that a reasonable alternative could be presented to TP&W, that would allow the public to kill some of those deer.

How about you just ignore my posts, since you are so convinced that I don't know what I am talking about, and that I am a bully, and that I question peoples intelligence.

If I remember right when I first started posting on this topic, you and txduckman both started telling me why it wouldn't work and basically how naieve I am.

Finally, duckman, did come up with some ideas, but just because I didn't jump up and down, and say they were the best I ever heard, he got P.O.ed. Now you are quoting things from my post to him, and you still have not presented anything, except to say it won't work.

Well, I have been known to tilt at windmills before, and I can tell you definitely nothing is going to change if plans or ideas aren't presented.

Also one other thing I can tell you, is that I can ignore you here on the forum, because for some reason you seem to have taken a great personal dislike to anything I say, so all you are going to do is find something to pick at.

Lighten up dude! The only attacking I see on this thread is comeing from you. I know that CHC can stand up for himself(as I'm sure you are aware of by now) At least CHC is not afraid to offer possible solutions to given problems. All you have done is tear down his suggestions and not offered any others.
CHC's suggestions may not always be the best or may need some tweaking but he throws them out there for the rest of us to consider. If nothing else, it makes the rest of us consider our position and why we hold that particular position. I'm sure he will be the first to tell you that his suggestions may not always perfect.
As for him attacking the level of someone's intelligence, I have never gotten that from any of his posts. But while we are there,

Quote:

---

personnel relationship building

---

Are you sure you didn't mean "personal" relationship building. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.