You don't understand the example. The HF ranch next door with higher weights has native deer in 170’s B\C, low fence hit 150 on occasion. Antlers expression in part is a bye product of health. The higher a deer weight compared to his genetic peer, means he typically has had excess nutrition, resulting in more energy/nutrition to go towards antlers

As a general rule show me a place with massive die offs in texas related to CC? There isn’t unless we have an extreme drought.



Correct age is a huge part but in my real life example harvest ages was same 5.5+ on bucks. Point is deer don’t need corn or supplemental protein to survive in Texas. The thought process that they do is wrong.

They don't need it to survive in most areas, but they need it to thrive in areas of poor nutrition or you need to lower CC a lot. Lot more than most are comfortable with in a hunting situation. I read some old research many years ago that said hunters did not feel they got their money's worth from a hunt if they did not see an average of 7 deer per hunt/sit. Many hunters like to see game while some hunters prefer to see quality over quantity. That is what makes hunting, hunting. Everyone has different expectations.

I’m just grateful that I have a place to go, and grateful to see deer at all. When you are a 300 pound trucker trying to put the sneak on a buck on public land, let’s just say I’m not so sneaky. Either I gotta lose a hundred pounds, or probably invest in a deer lease, deer stand, and an ATV! I see no other way to get my daughters into it.

I tell you what. You spend one day trying to still hunt with girls age 11 and 12 and next thing you know, I’m looking at discount HF Russian boar hunts.

In some states that don’t allow bait allow baiting the hunters just removes the bait piles orcfeeders

Man that sucks right in the middle sentence and big fat fingers hits the post bottom. Anyway back to my point they remove the bait piles or feeders during hunting season once over put them back up.

Some very interesting viewpoints being made here.

If baiting were outlawed in Texas I think demand for high priced leases would shrink some over time.

We know there are many different types of hunters out there. But one thing that binds most of us together is the will to be successful, to harvest a deer in whichever way we choose to pursue it. Baiting certainly helps in this regard, or does it help us see more deer so we can be picky about which one we do harvest? I feel it leans more to the latter. Now, take those numbers and scatter them out in the woods where numbers aren't being concentrated to bait sites, and hunters are no longer afforded the luxury of being so picky. Big deer will still roam the land, but not be as predictable as they once might have been because they aren't influenced on where to eat or where those doe they're chasing during the rut are concentrating. Because that's why we bait, right?

As has been discussed in this thread, the activity of hunting would change a lot for Texans if baiting were suddenly not an option. It would for me, I know that (but I'd still hunt).

Most of us would still see plenty of deer, but not nearly the numbers we currently do (if you're running a good bait/feed program), and all that feed specifically designed to increase deer health and antler growth no longer helps the herd, they are back to foraging for everything. Sure, they'd still survive, but would they thrive at the level they currently do? Not as likely, especially in tougher weather years. We'd still be able to take our 2,3,4,5,6 deer a year (whatever number applies if you have a freezer-quota, like I do). But I dare to guess that we might not have the luxury of being as picky if that is the goal. It might take more time in the woods, scouting, developing what we can legally, and hunting, which translates to time, work and expense. Not necessarily in that order.

So looking into my crystal ball, when things get tougher the hunters that currently spend grotesque (to some) amounts of money to kill one "trophy" deer, and maybe a management deer each year (a lot of them who donate the meat to charity, which is not a bad thing either), well, their enthusiasm is going to wane a bit. In my experience, many hunters talk a big game but few live up to it. Many of those see everything as a matter of money. But you find out the level of an individual's passion for anything as the amount of work put into it increases to yield the expected outcome. Physical work, not money. Money becomes a factor for many more hunters who would be wiling to put in more work if it cost them less.

So one of two things happens to the "money hunters"...Hunting now costs them even more if they want the results they've enjoyed previously, or expectations will have to drop. Either one, or both, will have a detrimental effect over time on the prices a piece of property can command. Geographically, in Texas, The results would be as diverse as the state itself is. And as always, exceptions will always be present... Out west and way down south, change would be less drastic due to the expense of hunting there to begin with. The added expense would be easier to absorb for many who hunt that region. But start moving east, into central and north Tx, the hill country, cross plains, and piney woods regions, where lease prices tend to be relatively more affordable, value will be more effected.I see it as kind of a sliding scale in relation to potential for inches of horn.

I know plenty of people right now, this very second, who would plop down $2,500 for a lease if you showed them legitimate daily pictures full of 120-140 class deer in decent numbers around bait sites on a decent piece of property. But would they if you could only show them a few pic's of similar class deer over the same time period knowing they'd have to spend more money and/or work a lot harder to get the same results they've enjoyed previously?? Sure, some might, but not nearly as many. That landowner will still want/need that income though, so they'll have to take a hit or the money goes away completely.


As for food plots and the like, I guess that would all highly depend on how the word "baiting" got defined. IMHO, baiting would be anything put in place by man to attract a deer, or prolong a deer's stay in an area more than it would have been in the absence of whatever it was. That would certainly include food plots, as well as protein feeders, of course corn, and you name it. Drop an apple slice, baiting! Also, what would be the distance restrictions for something like a food plot? A Protein feeder? A corn feeder? Would a legitimate agricultural crop be considered "bait"? If so, how long after harvested? I'm sure many of you who have hunted the mid-west might know of some precedent on this topic? Under my definition, would a scent lure or rattling horns be baiting? The point is though, there are many variables that could/would effect the views and opinions I speak of above. The one I firmly believe would be the case though, is that hunters would see fewer deer overall with the absence of baiting, and that would have a ripple effect on hunting in general, one that I feel would negatively effect the value of property for the purpose of hunting, some more than others.

Interesting that you mention that. You would extremely hard pressed to find photos of mature bucks being shared here that were not taken at a feeder or some other form of bait. It only makes sense that without the feeders or bait, there wouldn't be the photos. Fewer photos results in lower hunter expectations and less perceived value as seen by the ones paying for the lease. Or to look at it another way, how many Texans will pay a premium to hunt behind a high fence without seeing photos of what's living there? No question, feeders and bait offer the low-fence hunter another option, but still with heightened expectations as a result of what they see coming to their bait.

Yes, anything that drives hunter expectations, including the game camera and feeder combination, is sure to drive demand and price. Come to think of it, maybe it isn't such a good idea to show the landowner all those photos.

Or better yet, post your big buck photos all over social media for the benefit of other landowners and hunters wanting to learn how much to offer and accept for next year's lease. After all, all a hunter or landowner need know is that big deer are being taken in their area in order to offer or ask more for a hunting lease.

I've sometimes thought the last thing a lease-paying hunter wants to see is the photo of a record buck in the local newspaper. It can have tendency to make every landowner in the county believe they have deer on their property just like it.

I think you completely missed the intent of my post. Why would a leaser advertise property? Wouldn't the landowner benefit more from doing something like that, in the scenario I described?

And if baiting weren't allowed, those pics would then be coming from trails, water sources, and other natural concentration points. Hence the idea that there would be fewer pics?

Unless of course you just WANT to argue about something?

I'm sure glad I dont have this outlook on hunting

If you're accusing me of being someone who would like to see more people being able to afford the cost of participating in the sport then by all means I'm guilty as charged.

You can get in pretty cheap. Just have to curb your expectations.

Supply and demand.

More people looking for a lease than there is land to lease.

In most cases when you see something you believe to be priced outrageous, there is a city hunter that will pay it.


Just left a 1100 acre lease in the hill country because we felt 10 men at $3800 a piece was too much. Within a couple weeks of us informing landowner we were gone, a business owner walked in and wrote him a check for $40,000.

My whitetail lease in ‘20 was $50 a week. My out of state DIY public land hunts run pretty close to my deer lease cost. All said in down my western hunting is probably a lot more then my local lease due to application costs.

With that said if you can’t afford $50 a week there is a million acres of public hunting in Texas, with some exceptional Draw areas, that are relatively easy to draw. I hunt public in Texas also, ironically if I have the time that’s where I’m going to hunting big big deer.

I’m also a land owner that use to lease out. Not every land owner charges in relation to deer size. My current lease doesn’t. In fact he has done a lot to keep us. In fact ever lease I’ve been one is been below market price or at, with great deer potential.

You paint a very pointed picture that it’s all about deer size, it’s not. There isn’t not an area in Texas that can’t grow a 170 deer. If you don’t care about deer size as you want to allude then what’s wrong with cheaper leases or public?

Your whining and pointed crying is trifling at best. Everyone has different priorities, hunting maybe # 1 for some or # 10 for others.

I rarely eat out, drive a truck with 200k and don’t have cable, I live way below my means just to fund my passions… it’s amazing how much one can allocate when they want to prioritize things.



Dan your nonsense is over the top, all is does is point out laziness and project at those that have placed hunting as I higher priority.