i recently caught a road runner in a coyote foothold trap. Yote got the bird before I found it.

All that was left was a leg and feathers

I'm not really sure why you don't seem to understand. Let's try putting it another way....

Let's just say that a given area of the state has an average deer density of approximately 1 deer per 10 acres. Let's also say that there is a 1,000 acre low fenced ranch in this area. Based on the average deer density, there are approximately 100 deer on this property at any given time. The deer which are on the 1,000 acre property are not available to be hunted/killed/watched/etc by the neighboring landowners.

Now let's say that same 1,000 acre ranch erects a high fence around those 100 deer. Nothing has changed on the neighboring properties....their deer densities are still the same, the quality of their hunting is still the same. It is simple logic. I'm not saying you have to agree with the concept, but the numbers do not lie.

Aerial counts are often only 30-40% of the herd.

So would you be ok with them only paying for 30% of the herd?


Also, how you gonna figured out the score for male deer?

Eland your arguement is BS. But you miss my point. It doesnt matter if the deer on the ranch you high fence never leave it, they could and are considered the states and therefore the public deer. When you high fence them in they are no longer the public deer and you should pay for them.
I'll assure you if I could get enough people behind this I would pursue it. It is a double standard that the state has.
And double standard for people with your belief that you should own the deer. Name one other thing you think you should own that you don't have to pay for!

Like I said....we will agree to disagree. Obviously you are having a difficult time understanding simple logic.

I can tell you are quite emotional about the topic....and I think that is probably clouding your thinking.

I'm an optimist so I think they should add 70%.

And I've never cared for antler score so have no opinion there.

Again I have nothing against HF. I do not understand your logic though on the above comments

1. If the ranch is HF it is certainly keeping more if not all of those deer away from neighboring properties.
2. If that HF ranch was LF you might be able to hunt those deer because they have the ability to cross over onto your property.

The law should read "rights of parties in possession". If the deer is on your land at time of capture be it with a weapon, net, fence, etc then it's your deer.

The herd can be manged as a public resource with private ownership. The deer that are living in elands property are no more mine than the guy driving the ice cream truck

It's different in western states where you have herd migrations over long distances. Most deer in Texas live their whole lives in a few section area

I'm not pro or anti high fence but when people complain about a fence going up and capturing "their " deer and talk about having to pay the state restitution is reduculous

There is no logic to those comments. Period. The HF keeps deer in as well as out. It stops deer movement/access cold (both ways). The HF is there for a reason. It is totally nonsensical to act as if it affects nothing.

I agree. Just think about the rut. When the does are getting chased and bucks are looking on a LF the deer are going all over the map in that area. Your property, my property even that guys property a couple miles down the road. When it's a HF where in the world are they going to go? They get to a fence and a doe hauling butt from a buck is just going to turn a corner and run the other way because the fence is an obstacle preventing those deer from coming on my property.

Yes, the high fence is keeping those PARTICULAR DEER away from the neighboring properties. That's not the point. The point is....whichever deer are on a low fenced ranch are unavailable to be hunted by the neighbors at any given time.

Let me try putting this one more way and then I'm done trying to reason....

Let's say you have a closed system of 100,000 acres (let's just call it an island for the sake of argument so we don't have to deal with another fence in the scenario. haha). On this island, there is a deer density of 1 deer per 10 acres. That means there are 10,000 deer on the island. Let's also say that in the center of this island, there is a 1,000 acre low fenced ranch. At any given time, there are going to be an average of 100 deer on this LOW FENCED property. Yes, these deer come and go and there are different groups of deer that can be there....but for the sake of this argument, there are ALWAYS 100 deer on this property. These deer are NOT AVAILABLE to be hunted by the neighboring landowners.

Now let's say that 1,000 acre ranch decides to put up a high fence. At the time the fence goes up, there are 100 deer on this ranch. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between the ranch being low fenced and high fenced is this:

- On the low fenced ranch, the group of 100 deer that CANNOT BE HUNTED BY THE NEIGHBORS is always changing because of the deer coming and going across the boundary.

- On the high fenced ranch, the group of 100 deer that CANNOT BE HUNTED BY THE NEIGHBORS is always the same, because they are confined to the property.

In other words, nothing changed outside the fence. The remaining 99,000 acres of the island still have the same deer density of 1 deer per 10 acres. Nobody outside the fence will notice any difference in the quality of their hunting....UNLESS....they were one of the small landowners mooching off the efforts of the 1,000 acre neighbor, shooting whichever unfortunate deer that stepped across the fence onto their property.

If you don't like it, just say you don't like it....I can respect that. But don't sit here and try to tell me that my scenario "doesn't hold water" or "doesn't make sense" or "is BS" because it is simple math and logic. My guess is that if someone still resists this idea....then they either have a hard time with logic.....or they are whining because they are the little guy next to the big guy, shooting WAY more deer than they should be, and don't want their golden goose taken away. In which case I say.....get over it!!

I would have liked to have all WT off my property when it was HFed. But that was not possible unless all the WT in a 5 mile radius of here were exterminated at the time of the fencing. It is not my fault that some were destined to have to be thought of as the dreaded "HF Deer". But the name calling must not be that bad in the WT community as they keep jumping in to get out of the LF land.

Slippery slope with wanting to charge a one time fee for deer trapped on a HF, that would open Pandora's Box.
First you would have to estimate the amount of trapped deer, you would have to know the estimated deer density for that area. Example lets say 10 deer per 100 acres. 1,000 acres theoretically would have 100 deer. Minus the % of deer spooked off the property while erecting the HF lets say 40%. So using this example the estimated deer captured would be 60 on a 1,000 HF property.

Here is the other side of that coin, what if the state says okay since we are charging HF landowners a one time fee for the estimated amount of deer on their property, we should also charge LF a one time fee

I own 2 high fenced ranches and one low fenced ranch and I wholeheartedly agree with you that I should pay for the states deer in exchange for calling all the deer on my place MY deer and being granted ownership of those deer.

However, you are being less creative than you need to be. There are many ways to skin any cat. For example:

First, I don't WANT any of the states native deer on one of my high fenced ranches. I should be able to remedy this any number of ways.

1. Why can't I lease it to hunters who pay both me AND the state to hunt (with the specific purpose of eradicating the states vermin from my property)? I have skin in the game because the states deer are eating the resources I own. 50:50 split until all native deer are gone or mostly gone?

2. I could either leave a side down or lower a side and chopper and bait animals onto the neighbors place (if the neighbor is willing). I think the state should share in this cost since their deer are tresspassing on and consuming my surface resources.

3. Let the state put my place on their public hunting program for a year. One season and call it good.

NP is again (as usual) FOS about how the state views aerial surveys. In order to establish harvest rates they assume you see 100% of the deer from the air. We all know that's bogus but the state isn't operating with a full deck.

So, the last option would be run a survey from a state approved chopper service and pay the state HALF the value of the deer. Remember, those stinking state owned vermin are eating my resources. That needs to be fairly compensated.

I would like the possibility of an AR cull tag. I would be willing to spend a little more per tag or be able to purchase separate on top of the regular license.

This tag would allow you to take a typically illegal deer. At my current lease we have atleast 3 bucks that are old old and nothing can be done.

I feel this would be both a win for the hunter/manager trying to improve the gene pool and a win for the state.

Excellent idea.

And/or remove AR restrictions for youth hunting. Better yet give a week each year where AR's don't apply so that bucks like you are describing can be shot.

I applaud the effort, man you are trying hard, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still BS.

Winner

Well I'm sorry that very simple math and logic seems to be completely lost on you.

I haven't said anything about aerial surveys one way or the other,sir.

Problem with the whole dang discussion is HF folks want to talk/act like they "own" wild animals. When they don't. (TP&W Code Chapter 11). Without HFs, they come and they go as they please - which is kinda what wild animals do.

But the HFs, for all practical purposes, grant folks 'ownership'. So its no wonder they talk like that these days.

It's just sad to hear deer talked about as if they are livestock.

"I haven't said anything about aerial surveys one way or the other,sir. "

My apologies NP. I got your post confused with one of tt85's. Honest and easy to make mistake...

My snowflake detector is buzzing. For the sake of argument, lets play devils advocate for a moment.

So, someone owns a bunch of acreage, and that's supposed to entitle them to controlling how adjacent landowners use their property? It's bad enough when a HOA dictates the types of trees, bushes and flowers you can grow in your yard. A yard the property owner owns (....more like "right to use". Plant the wrong bushes, let your grass grow too high, or fail to pay property taxes and see what happens)

If I remember correctly, except for narrowly defined exceptions, wildlife is considered a public resource, a resource that can cross property boundaries as it pleases. If a sense of entitlement to wildlife on the property is manifested due to owning the land and feeding the wildlife residing or transitting the property, it's misplaced.

Getting upset when the landowner of an adjacent, postage stamp sized property puts up a feeder doing basically the same thing (on a smaller scale) when they have the legal right to do so, on property they own, is analogous to what I'm hearing from intolerant snowflakes who want to enforce their will upon others. They want to enforce their opinion or perspective on someone that they disagree with, at the expense of that parties legal rights, deflecting attention from the real meat of an issue by making noise that ignores facts. The fact being if you own an acre in a rural area next to a large ranch that feeds deer, you can do as you please on your land, within reason (and legal boundaries). Unfortunately, the ability to rationalize issues without resorting to emotion at the expense reason, or using hyperbole or obtuse analogies to deflect the inherent silliness of their position in an argument, seems to be happening more and more in today's political and politically correct climate.

I'm curious, what does fishing near another fisherman on a public lake have to do with putting a feeder on your own property, near the fence line of larger adjacent property? I've fished elbow to elbow on public water and no one's gotten pissy about it. And I've put feeders up on my side of fence boundaries and the adjacent property owners were fine with it.

oh no, I get what you are going for, you explained it 3 times and my reading comprehension is known to be strong to quite strong. its just a simplistic argument. using your numbers you could argue that a deer on my 10 acre property is unavailable to the neighbors as long as its on my property, as are the 2 deer on my neighbors 20 acres, and so on. we get it.

but deer move, PARTICULAR deer move, and although most aren't willing to admit it, antlered bucks are what drive this whole argument and they move the most. you see threads every year, "when is the rut in XYZ county, "looks like the rut is on in XYZ county," and so on, every hunter looks forward to the rut, I remember hearing my uncles talk about the "rut" 30 years ago when I started hunting...why is the rut is so important to us?

because we all hope to catch that buck cruising for does, and we all look forward to "never knowing what is going to step out during the rut." someone said it earlier talking about mule deer, so many more good bucks would hit the ground if the season was during the rut. why? because they are moving. a HF restricts that. period.