A recent decision from the Austin Court of Appeals in Bailey v. Smith, is important for many Texas landowners involved in the business of raising deer. This case addressed the issue of whether breeder deer–raised by persons with the required TPWD permit–are considered private property of the deer breeder or are owned by the State.

more:
https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/201...s-breeder-deer-are-not-private-property/

So if they get out, they are free game (in season, of course)?

Interesting

Sounds like you'd be in a better legal position as to risk to raise exotics rather than NATIVE deer.....

Nice. WTB 40 acres IVO deer breeder with blinds on the fence lines

Interesting. But if they are not your deer then why do you get to keep the money when you sell one?

I agree. Not worth the risk of the state deciding one day to kill your entire herd; that you raised, bought and fed.....

Also along that line of thinking... If they aren't your deer how can you sell them?

I was told, which is probably wrong, technically you are paying/granting trespass for that animal. Because if you shoot one outside the arrangement it voids the trespassing agreement.

They challenged the law and oversight and lost, personally could go either way with it both sides have valid points.

Im not up on much of HF deer raising/breeding, but what about live sales? I assume that is still permitted?

yes, its permitted. IMO the state has thrown out logic on this one.


if you can, in captivity, breed, raise and sell an animal and only you profit from it, then its livestock at that point and you own it. How they are justifying that these people are raising and trading for valuable consideration these deer and they still belong to the state, is ludicrous.


The state contradicts itself numerous times regarding whitetail deer and the state owning them vs. the people.

Thar b a HF just down the road here in MN. Tis a thinken biggest reason 4 d breading tis the $$$$ in Trophy hunting .. Deer breaders bread 4 racks... Got some hugh ones here, body size tis smaller,
a 180 score on a small body deer looks hugh, while 180 score on big bodied deer not as much... Tis Fact...
Seen were some HF hunts guide like in Safarri hunts They tell ya what a trophy tis... Pay by score, higher score more money... Its a Richmans Sport... We tride getting a doe permit on land lived on, told Not enough deer ...
Smith county... Feed deer just like on HF, except they belonged ta state, had no problem-Free Ranging, several nice deer lived ta see next day due ta a thin strand of wire... The deer won, even with me high-tech 270 Savage..
Not sure when, Smith county put in the 13" rule, was deer archery hunting on WMA
had no problem with that.. Consentrated on d wild hog problem.. Had food plot & feeders 4 deer down by d creek. Cams set up, 4 hog hunting, letting deer #'ers grow... Took bow in hand & took a stand at WMA...
then they went 4 deer county... Dont take an English Majer ta figure that makes NO scents... could see 1 buck 13" & a 3 day doe hunt... Then thar b archery if wanted a doe... Ya, just cause ya can spel, punktuate, dontz maces ya an expart at dear manajment... Got D-in grammer... Lot of polaticing in hunting, more miney ya have more FREEDOM ya have...


pappy.

Not trying ta things up just my on d discussion... & mean No disrespec ta nun..

Live and dead are two different things. Permitting process for live sale. The way our laws read if they(public trust)lost ownership it would void hunting laws over those animals. Only regulation would be THAC disease laws/restrictions.
Oddly enough I think it would also open breeders up to Animal Ethic laws as far as handling etc.

The suit was to challenge over sight, if they would of won it would of put breeders soley under TAHC and not TPWD.

I see both sides. Both sides have good points

You hit the nail on the head and drove it all the way in on the very first swing. Better watch your fingers...

this case is not really a big deal at all...the state has issued permits that allow a bredder to engage in the business of breeding deer, which includes sale and transfer of deer, while at the same time maintaining that deer are still wild animals, not domestic, and as such are state property. The state explicitly says wild animals are theirs, but for the purposes of breeding deer, we will issue permits which allow you to engage in the business.

These folks come along and challenge the state authority and say the deer are their private property, and guess what, the lower court and the appeals court ruled the deer are state property. Not sure why this was even attempted. What was to gain other than not having to comply with CWD testing and such things. There are prices to pay for every business, and for deer breeders that's just one of the costs of doing business.

How this affects anyone going forward? in my mind it really shouldn't. Deer have been considered state property, and they have affirmed that claim. No change to anything right?

Confused why this is a big deal

I think someone took over Colt.45's account, because even this is bad spelling and grammar for good ole colt. Seems it is extra full of bad spellin' and grammer stuff to make it seem even more "back woods" than normal....

now back to the topic

You would still have CWD testing THAC has been running the CWD resting program for a long time. They technically control movement ability also.

Deer have never been state property. They are “Public trust” property, you just get to pay a tax to kill one.

This challenge would only eliminated season and bag limits, aka TPWD oversight. There would be no grey area between TAHC and TPWD. Would be no jurisdiction for TPWD.

Some think it would grant restitution for slaughter, but i don’t think there is restitution for scrapies in sheep.

Just goes to show how little I know about this stuff. Thanks for the info Bobo.

One point of clarification, "state" property and "public trust" property....pretty much the same thing right? Is there a real difference or is it just semantics?

Just Semantics, I use to refer to it same as you, but held in public trust means “for sustainability of the people use” and I think in context it does a better job describing why we have oversight and where we came from. It’s been sold to me as a better way to sum up our ability to hunt and why we have game laws. Now in a private land state like Texas that was deeded out well before state hood I think it means a whole lot less either way, technically the landowner determines its sustainability ability, based strictly off habitat usage . Thinking point nothing more nothing less

Paying to enter land with permission makes a person a business invitee of the premise owner. The hunter pays the State a fee in exchange for the right to kill deer the State owns, either with tags on a hunting license or MLD tags issued by the State. Trespassing is entering the land without permission. Somehow the term “trespass” is used differently and incorrectly in the North and now leaching into our vocabulary as they move here. An agreement to trespass would mean agreeing to enter land without permission.

Minor legal terminology lesson for the day.

Makes sense

I believe the points addressed by the court were made to allow TPW to regulate deer farms due to the real threat of CWD. In some states the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over deer farms even though Fish and Game agencies are the the stewards of the states wild deer population. This has often created a gap in notifications when animals from known CWD infected facilities have escaped. By confirming that all deer are property of the state, the courts have given TPW the tools necessary to protect the resource without disrupting commerce.

Texas Buckeye, I don't think you were that far off. At least not if your point was the ruling doesn't change much. Now if the ruling would of gone the other way then I think it would of changed a whole lot. I just got back from the TWA Annual Convention and I got some update on some bills that passed that effect "captive deer" and im trying to find time to update yall. If anyone beats me to it that's fine.

^^^ Exactly. If a disease were to break out, and the deer were owned by the breeder, the breeder could do what he wants with the deer (good or bad). This ruling allows TPWD to control the deer in case of a disease break out, where they could not if they didn't own them. I also see it both ways, but common sense would show that the state should control the overall deer population and what's best for controlling the population. The last thing I want is a breeder to have full control of a situation involving disease of a deer and cause an out break because of the breeder handling it wrong.