ChC, now were gettin somewhere. There are a lot of good points taken here on this forum. I would like to comment on a few please. And here again, correct me if you think I'm wrong!! On the statement made about shooting spikes before they mature. Well-- there are spikes and there are other spikes. Whats the rule of thumb on shooting a spike? If the tines are below the ears,hes a yearling buck and let him pass. If the tines are above the ears shoot him. Okay, let me hear from yall. If you own your land Hted, manage it. Its the only way to a healthy and mature deer herd. I'm on your side and if I had a kid that wanted a deer I would probably let him shoot that first one that he saw. I am a living testimony to a deer herd getting lop-sided with does. We sacrificed and didn't shoot anything but freaks and spikes and thinned the does for three seasons and started seeing a difference along with year round feeding and protein feeders. My outlook on shooting has changed since I became owner instead of leasee. I kill cull bucks and some does. Anywho, I'd rather kill a coyote and a piggie. Benny

You missed the point, game laws, driving laws, trespass laws, you name it, NONE of these, have anything to do with morality, ethics, religion, or any other PERSONAL choice. People that drink and drive, speed, smoke pot, shoot deer out of season, deal with hookers, you name it, that is personal choice, and evidently the laws on the books and our entire judicial system has no effect on a person that chooses to do something that is clearly illegal.

If it did, we wouldn't need jails and police and judges and lawyers.

All a lock does, is keep an honest person honest.

When a person is looking at a questionable buck, the only thing that keeps them from pulling the trigger is PERSONAL ETHICS, and those can not be legislated.

CHC there are bucks going 130-140 at our place and the one next to us, and the state aint making a dime on em. Neither are they at my boss' place in Mertzon, where 150 class bucks are pretty common. Neither one of us have high fences either, we just know how to manage.
And the point i made on a 1:1 ratio is this, whitetails on their own will naturally breed at that rate. However, more bucks than does are killed so the ratio gets out of wack.

Rowney, you got it kiddo!! And MANAGE is the key word. Its as plain as the nose on your face. If lease members would just get started in the problem areas and get ALL involved, all meaning everybody on a particular lease and get the land owner involved,it would actually turn into fun and when you start seeing the changes in your herds or families of deer you'll go to bed on the night before opening day with that wonderful feeling of excitement that keeps you from going to sleep thinking of the beautiful buck you saw earlier in the year. Benny

How much do you pay the rancher for your lease, or how much taxes do you pay on the place if you own it.

How much corn and protien feed do you put out, or do you not pay taxes on that.

How much fuel do you buy going to your place, when did they stop collecting taxes on that fuel.

How much groceries, hunting supplies, etc., etc., do you and your buddies buy during the year trying to maintain that place and then going to it hunting. Are you not paying taxes on that??

Because if you wasn't going out there hunting, you would not be spending that money and TEXAS would not be collecting and benifitting from those taxes. What about Taxidermy fees, processing fees. People don't normally ,mount does do they? Do you hunt without a license? Who gets that money? Every deer killed in Texas generates income for the state in one way or another, THE BIGGER THE DEER THE BIGGER THE INCOME.

TANSTAAFL Know what that means?


There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Anybody that thinks that the state of Texas isn't making money from the hunting and fishing that goes on here, is Delusional.

I posted early and have been watching the debate rage. One thing stands out-Too may people are hunting on too few acres and depleting the resource. Does it really make sense to have 7 people hunting 150 acres? Perhaps what needs to be done is to designate how many deer can be taken off a given acreage? Maybe in East Texas, it's 1 per 150 acres. In West Texas, It's 3 per 150 acres, and 6 per 150 acres in the Hill Country. If you have less than the minimum acreage, you can't shoot any deer. You get the picture-not very pretty.

The 13 inch rule is not perfect but it sure beats a number of options or not having any deer at all. As I said in my earlier post, I live in Lavaca county and have seen it work. I still have neighbors who have 3-4 people hunting on 20-50 acres but they can't kill everything with horns that crosses their property. This has resulted in more and better bucks to harvest.

This "I'm going to get mine and to H___ with everybody else"
attitude is the major reason that antler and doe restrictions are in place here and coming to a county near you soon.

We haven't done a very good job of managing the resource and have had these restrictions imposed upon us. If we don't do better, deer hunting may be closed in certain areas. Then see what happens to lease prices.

You want to try running them regs in Llano, Kerr, Mason, Menard, Uvalde, Val Verde, etc., etc..

Collin county in North Texas has plenty of deer, but because of the human population there is no season on them, even archery.

Grayson county has plenty of deer, but again because of the human population only archery is legal.

Explain to me what effect someone wanting to be able to shoot a deer in Red River county has to do with you in Lavaca county.

How can anybody say that we need to build the herd up when we have around 4 million deer in the state.

How many deer do you folks think there need to be in the state? 5 or 6 million? Where are 95% of those deer going to be? When the Trans Texas Corridor plan becomes reality and 3 million + acres are taken over by the state, who is going to be hunting those deer?? Anybody have an answer to that, NO YOU DON'T. None of us do.

For about the 10th. time, This Is A Subject That None Of Us Are Going To Agree On. It effects each one of us differently.

And I still say that you can not legislate ethics, because there is just as much poaching now or maybe even more than there was even 30 years ago, simply because there are more deer.

OK,here goes..( my situation) 5 people hunting on 525 acres ,only allowed to shoot one buck per season over the last 7 years. Now allowed to take 2 bucks (1-13"or better & 1 cull)GREAT!!. We have only shot 15" or better with a minimum of 8 pts. on this place and the DOES have been left untouched due to TPWD rules. What do think is happening on my place now?? That's right, if your thinking I'm overrun with DOES now. What's the logic in managing the bucks if your not going to allow the DOES to be managed (except by bow).If you don't know where Karnes county is, look on the map & it is where TPWD drew the imaginary line between south texas & the original post oak savannah affected counties.Our place is clearly south texas country with no resemblance of post oak savanah but because were a few counties over TPWD lumped us in the pile too. Cannot apply for MLD because less than 1,000 acres. Now, what's going to happen to deer herd if we are only taking bucks for a few more years down the road before they decide to let us take some DOES. ANY ideas will be greatly accepted. It's almost SEASON again!!

chc i dont need an economics lesson, i had plenty of that in college. My original point was that the state makes no more money on a 90 inch 8 point than they do on a 150 class 10 point. Your points on taxes are valid, but they dont have anything to do with the size of the deer. People would pay whatever they want to hunt. I used my figures to show that for what a lot of people pay in east texas, bigger and better deer can be had for the same price if not cheaper in west central texas. But on most ranches out there, you cant shoot anything that walks by, so for me, i would rather have the 1000 a gun managed place than the 1000 a gun unmanaged place.

JMO,where are most of those 4,000 deer. You are no dummy! You know where they are. They are not in east Texas and north Texas doesn't have the deer population that LLano, Mason, ect has. West Texas is coming on strong but the greatest population is in south Texas. I think (only an observation) TPW knows what they are doing. They make money from the sale of hunting licenses. I subscribe to an am a member of The Texas Wildlife Assn. for the benefit and conservation of our wildlife here in Texas. I try to stay abreast of the ongoing problems with our land vs. weather vs. wildlife and the impact its had on the hunting sport in general. I recently attended and one day seminar called "pricklypear appreciation day". Now who appreciates pricklypear? Certainly not me, but after I came away from the meetings I had a different view of the sticky stuff. Its a Quail haven and a staple for deer where water is of short supply as in my area. Just some more input for you guys. How can I help? Benny

I'm not gonna go into the restictions because I've learned that you can't change peoples minds on the forum and most of what I want to say has been said. But first shot you are right about prickly pear, Iwas the same way untill season in south texas the landowner started burning his prickly pear he had prepared for the drought by making pear pear flats. Probably several hundred acres. He burned them for the cattle and closed off some of his place for just deer. It was incredible to see several hundres acres of prickly pear vanish in about three months.

CHC-

If you take a second look at what I said, I believe you can figure out I was being facetious about the number of deer taken per amount of acreage. My point is, the rule has worked in Lavaca county and every other county it has been tried in and is much better than some of the alternatives.

I really don't know what to suggest about Collin and Grayson counties, it would seem prudent not to be shooting deer where there's a good chance of nailing a human if you miss. If not, most golf courses would be bloodbaths. What are your thoughts on dealing with the Collin/Grayson county problem?

Your last thought about what has shooting deer in Red River county got to do with me in Lavaca county just about sums up the problem. As long as everyone has the attitude that restrictions are fine as long as they are enforced somewhere else we are doomed to make the same mistakes. If we continue to kill most of the bucks (and in some cases does)in an area, sooner or later there won't be any.

I agree we have way too many deer in certain areas and I have lobbied to have extended seasons and increased bag limits in those areas. We need to do a better job of managing the resource in these areas, just as we are attempting to do in those areas with the 13 inch rule.

I have never seen a deer in Collin or Grayson counties.

I have to jump in with the post of first shot outfitters on spikes...if these areas would take the spike tag and agree to the 13" or better buck it would be a HELL of a lot BETTER buck herd in those areas. Letting a spike go to shoot a 1.5-2.5 8 or 10 pt is killing the genetics in some of those localized herds. I would say the best mgmt plan in some of those localized east texas herds would be to take ALL spikes and only take 3.5 or older bucks (13" RULE). The 13" rule makes sense but not as effective if the spike tags are not used. By the way...I would recommend taking all spikes on ANY property in TEXAS. Saves having to take a lot of 3 and 4 year old mgmt bucks later that have already bred some doe. IMO

Need to get off 75 and look around. Plenty of deer in Collin and Grayson County.

As for ethics, let's look at this......Ethics is a personal choice, everyone on here has a gun and could committ murder, but we don't. Is it the laws that stop us or personal choice? Would you committ murder if there were no laws? No.

I actually hunt three places, one is west texas where we have rules among ourselves (6 on 1800 acres), and try to manage the herd there. Can't inlfuence the ones around us other than to try and meet them and hope they are lured to hunt the same way we do. I personally pass on some younger bucks, trying instead to take a nice one (like the 8-point last year), or a mangement buck (like the slick-headed no-brow tine 6 point a year ago, an undersirable dominant trait).

However in east Texas (2 places in Red River County), its a different story. My friend can't afford $1000 a year, but gets one place for $300 and the other we get for free. He needs the deer (and hogs). Should his (or my) hunting decisions be based on whats best for the trophy hunter, or whats best for him and his family? No one in their right mind will pick the deer herd over family. What we are doing with mandatory ANTLER management is choosing for the individual, based on the desires of Trophy Antler Hunters. It discriminates (I hate that word) on the people that don't hunt that way, or can't afford to hunt that way. CHC is right, I am not changing my mind on this.

As for the poster that took my idea and stretched it to No Laws of any kind, please don't. Be realistic, read the whole post, and don't paint something that isn't there. Especially with my name in the post, that's just not right. I never said anything about having no laws whatsoever. No its not being a hypocrite, I drink, but not while driving; I hunt for nice deer, but welcome anyone who does not care at all about antlers; I speed sometimes, and gripe when the HiPo catch me; but let's not take that saying that I want no laws at all. Wow.

One last thought. I don't duck hunt much. I have never hunted alligators, or snipe for that matter. Actually would not affect me if they banned both. But I would defend your right to do so to anyone, any time, any place. I like to eat wild hogs, especially sausage and ground meat. What if I started a movement to require anything killed to be over 100 pounds, so that more of them reached breeding age? That's trying to impose the ethics and desires of one over the other.

A year ago I started a thread for fun, a fake post about the minimum and maximum caliber requirements for deer hunting in Texas (I think it was 25 cal or larger, and not more than 30 caliber). I got a ton of replies and email about it, with a lot of people telling me they like to hunt with a 243 or a 45-70 or whatever and it was not the states responsibility to tell them what to hunt with.....same concept. (and for you....whoever you are....no I do not promote abolishing all game laws and using an M60 for deer or dynamite for fish, so please don't quote me as such).

OK, now I am going to check ghog traps in the rain, so I can cool off.

I said this earlier and i will say it again because i think people see the trophy side of it, and not the management side. Management does not always mean bigger and better horns. THere is a serious deer problem in some parts of the state, as in there arent any because people shoot anything and everything alive out there. This rule is the states idea to try and fix that. Might there be a better way, sure, like giving out 1 doe tag per person. But it doesnt mean there shouldnt be resrtictions in place to help the population increase. Thats the goal, not bigger horns for trophy hunting.

Rowney, you've been on the right track ever since your first post in this catagory. Do you walk-the-walk?

My point on Grayson county, is that it is an Archery Only county, Collin county could be an Archery Only county also because there are plenty of deer there, and there are still some decent sized tracts of land left.

Because of the increasing human population along the I-35 corridor, I feel that more counties will become Archery Only in the next 5 to 10 years. Collin would benifit from an open deer season, simply to get the deer in the county to manageable level, simply to reduce the future problems of deer/auto accidents, and deer living in populated subdivisions and the associated problems that creates.

Vernon,

I am the guy who brought up laws. I was simply disagreeing with your point where you said it is wrong to legislate ethics or personal choice. I merely was disputing that (hopefully in a polite way) because I don't agree with you. No big deal. I believe that ethics have been legislated in game laws for many years. Just my 2 cents.

Also - we can agree to disagree all we want, but I don't agree with you that this is all about trophy hunting. I believe the state is trying to do something to build a herd in these counties.

Lastly - you made a statement that your friend needs the meat. Just say for instance that the deer herd is in trouble (I don't know where y'all hunt, but let's just suppose). Does his need supercede the needs of the herd? I also struggle with this because the need for the meat has never been what hunting has been about (subsistence hunting) for me.

Tough questions and obviously not easy answers.

Obviously, you are not changing your mind and I respect your right (and mine) to an opinion...

I see what you are saying, and am trying to be polite too. If its not about antlers, then why are the only restrictions based on antler size?

I do agree that ethics has been legislated in many areas of our life, for many years, but that doesn't make it correct, nor does it make it any easier for me to agree with.

As for the states desire to build a deer herd, maybe, but their own charts and graphs show the average age of deer going up over the last 10-15 years, and the average age of deer taken going up, and that there are more deer in Texas today than in any recorded history. My stance is that they are managing the herd, for antlers, not for the health of the herd.

As for my buddy that needs the meat, while its probably not as drastic as starving andhaving to kill to survive, it is important. If it really was about subsistence, then I am sure he would kill a cow rather than a deer. They are easier to snaek up on, provide more meat, and are readily available. But there are laws against that too.

I don't mean to be an (donkey), nor am I totally anti-government or an anarchist. I do believe that the state and federal governments inroads to wildlife management that comes from the "to promote interstate commerce clause" of the constitution is a huge stretch from where our founding fathers stood on game management and individual rights.

You are also correct that I feel these guidelines are directed toward benefitting a small group of people, and their desires, and that I am unwavering in that opinion.

I don't believe that all hunters stick together. We would be much, much more powerful if we did.

Thanks for the conversation!
I look forward to meeting you all someday!
Vernon