Breeder Deer Are Not Private Property

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.

Also, I see more "breeders" releasing their captive bred deer on low fence hunting areas. They end up killing them, and since they are now "wild" deer, they qualify for the record books. I know of multiple locations doing this. I take the new B&C and P&Y entries with a grain of salt now. The rules have changed on how record deer can be grown and taken.

Chad the disease deal is a myth.

THAC has been working and certifying well before TPWD.
Scientifically it’s been said THAC is better equipped since disease is what they actually focus on.

Removing TPWD eliminates any turf war and simplifies governing body. It’s been stated that many feel TPWD is too political, but then again what state body isn’t.

But any way THAC has being monitoring and working with breeders in disease issues for years.

I personally believe that TPWS really screwed up when they started giving permits for breeding Deer. Look at what it has come to.

Dang, I thought I already posted this so I hope it wasn't on wrong thread.
I just left TWA Convention and the update they gave on Legislative session just ended was about captive deer. They said brand new law just passed says captive breeder deer can only be released on High Fence ranches. Also another bill passed about the identification standards of released deer. If someone knows better then correct me but I heard it personally in committee meetings and in the TWA Presidents remarks during Director meeting. Also, Dr Dittmar the TPWD head veterinarian gave an hour presentation to update CWD.

I may be wrong on this but I think that releasing deer from a breeding pen onto a LF property was stopped around 2014. I was told that at one time you could release deer from a breeding pen onto a LF or HF property prior to 2014 but if you TTT deer that had to be released onto HF only. Allowing deer from breeding pens to be released onto LF properties was not very smart IMO. I know of a good size LF ranch that is about 7 miles to my SW that released about 60 bred breeding pen does onto their ranch from 2010-2014.
As far as B&C or P&Y, their regulations have been the same on what qualifies as far as I know. Same for TBGA entries as to what is allowed or not allowed, as it should be. For as long as I can remember TBGA never allowed a deer to be entered that had been touch by a human hand when the deer was alive.
Also as far as I can remember the ruling in the OP has not changed as far as who "owns" the deer and what deer breeders can or can't do with deer. They never officially "owned" the deer but were allowed to sell and move them with proper permits since the 80's. They were just allowed to do what they do if they had a permit and followed the rules.

Im not at all sure what the regulations were before but they just made a big deal at the meeting that the law had changed and "breeder deer could NO LONGER be released onto LF". Stx, I don't even know what "TTT" means. As far TBGA, they do not currently allow entries of deer that have been handled by humans but I don't think it has always been that way-not certain.
Also past my bedtime, im worn out from a record day of posting for me.

TBGA has had a clause on the entry form about release or breeder deer not being allowed since the early to mid 90's. You had to sign the score sheet and enter the info about the ranch, size, fence, location etc. I know of a ranch that had a hunter kill a release deer and then entered it in the TBGA in the mid 90's and would have won it had it not been brought to TBGA attention. The landowner did not try to hide that deer was released and the hunter had still entered the deer in the TBGA. The LO never denied anything about the deer. IIRC the TBGA added in to their rules about deer being bred in DMP pens and released onto ranches in the past few years also. They gave a time frame after the last release date that a deer could be then be entered. IMO if a ranch brought in and released TTT deer, breeder deer or used DMP with native genetics from their ranch they should not be allowed to enter deer in TBGA. TBGA should only be about native genetics to each ranch.
TTT is Trap, Transport and Transplant. It has been used for 30 yrs or more now by ranches wanting to "improve" their genetics with deer from a different or better managed ranch. To me it was similar to what TPWD did by going to larger LF ranches in South Texas many many years ago and catching deer, then relocating them to restock other areas of the state that had no or low populations of whitetails.

Is a 223 enough gun for a " breeder " deer ?.......................Joking

Legitimate question.


In most cases, yes. Unless they’d have been fed double down.


Then you will need a .338

It’s a shame these questions have to be asked, at all.

I think if you could get a map of all the deer breeders ranches in Texas you would be shocked!
There are deer that are going to be turned loose or get out on their own, and the native populations are going to be diluted when those deer breed with the native deer.
It's been going on for years, so TBGA is saying they want people to sign a score sheet saying their deer was not a breeder buck?

An example is all the escaped exotics running around in the hill country on ranches where they were never stocked.
I hunt on a LF ranch a ways down the road from a breeder ranch, and have seen a doe with an ear tag running with native does, so she will get bred by a native buck I would assume.
No hunter who kills a trophy buck on a non breeder ranch is going to know if his buck was not an offspring of one of those breeders from years back, and the genie is already out of the bottle.

I think the reason this was breeders wanting compensation when "their" deer were destroyed by TPWD when CWD was present. Breeders aren't compensated for deer that are euthanized because the state owns them. If they are private property, the state would have to pay for the euthanized deer.

Actually other way around, Proven fact that you simply can not influence genetics with a few deer, native genetics will swamp them out pretty quick. Mathematically its even pretty easy to prove.

Perfect a example is genetic swamping via DPM pen were one buck is breeding 10+ Does and you are trying to swamp the herd with a certain genetic, even then if you stop it slowly reverts back to native.

Another example is trying to cull 8pt genetic out of a herd. Stop culling and you have 8pts again

The idea that a gene will just go away is absurd. Genes don't work that way.

That buck may breed two does in one year, it’s genetics’ will not stick around for years.... and that native doe immediately contribute to washing down the genetics on his first generation off spring...

Again is simple mathematics. It doesn’t take many generations for those traits to be irrelevant. Same reason The practice of DMP is so popular vs just live release. You would have to live release more deer then what’s currently present. Most live release are for that deer @ an older age not it’s offspring for same reason offspring wash down


It’s already proven science, There isn’t a specific 200 inch gene, it’s a plethora of genes..

I never was good at math!....

Took me a while to realize it too, biologist wrote it on paper except he used one blk bull, 4 Charolais bulls and 10 Charolais cows.

I had a Texas biologist tell me that the genetics to make 200"+ deer are out there. She said that you can get Hill Country deer and put them in a pen and feed them only protein and you will be surprised what you get.
It would seem that a 400" pen raised buck that is released is only going to generate as big of deer as the food source will allow, regardless of his genetics. It isn't like you suddenly have a few generations of monster deer.
I see post from guys loving the fact that some HF deer got out and might breed with the natives. Due to the wash down of genes that Bobo explained and lack of a high protein diet, I think these deer will not affect the native herd at all.
Monster deer are as much a product of their food source as they are of genetics.

Interesting

TP&W Code Sec.1.011 (which mandates all wild animals are public property and which I have been citing on here for years) is in direct conflict with the entire deer breeding industry and the laws created to support that industry. You can’t have it both ways. Either the deer belong to the public or they don’t. Yet here we are.

Bad laws lead to strained court decisions.

The reason it is easy to see both sides is because there are laws supporting both sides - laws which are in direct conflict.

But what about dominant vs recessive genes? It's not necessarily a direct reflection of the numbers. The more dominant gene is more likely to be passed on.

How can you tell which one is the dominant gene that will be passed on? You probably don't know until it's been passed on.

That's why you can't completely cull out a gene, and when you stop culling it returns. It's a dominant gene.

Definitely more than just simple math!

Got people that flunked biology trying to tell us that you can breed out a gene.

If it is the dominant gene it's more likely to be passed on. That is a scientific fact!

That’s my point, native genetics are the expressed genes that have stood for years.

200” isn’t a singular gene, now brows might be. If you want to argue 200” is a set of dominate traits then we wouldn’t have the prevalence of 120” 8 pets @ maturity, and a single release would yield multiple 200” equivalents of the sire

Take a homozygous blk bull and put him in with a bunch of charolais cows and bulls, remove him, so how many generations does it take to get the blk back out of the herd? Depending on his sired %, Not many usually three per generation

If you want to continue to argue you can change genetics with a deer or even a few that probably won’t breed more then 2-3 does each a year, knock your self out, again it’s been shown time and time again it waters down... not up.

Well well let’s get to name calling.... because you think you are right. Show me where 200” native set of genes is expressed more so then any other ....look forward to this one....and explain why singular release are the least use /preferred method compared to gene swamping with DPM for herd improvement.

My own experience with genetics. Not Deer but Ibex. Around 15 years ago I saw that Nubian Ibex were bringing quite a bit more money than the Persian type I had at the time. I wanted to get more knots on the horns plus get the light tan color of the Nubian as opposed to the dark color of the Persian. I bought a good Nubian and put him with the females. Every year I sell the amount of older females that are born females that year. I keep the Nubian male for 3 years then sell him and replace him with another good Nubian male. This year I am putting in the 5th. Nubian male. This year I had 9 females born so I will sell 9 older females. So for each year the females genes should be better than the last years. It has taken around 13 years to finally get to where all the kids born are of the correct color and now are getting the correct knots on the males. So it would seem to me to be a very hard if not impossible task to breed wild deer and get the results you are wanting to establish in the herd.

It's because the genetic traits we like are not necessarily a result of the dominant gene in the wild.

I agree that given all these different sets of DNA, if one is no more dominant or recessive than the other, you can expect the gene to mostly go away. But if you are dealing with a dominant gene, that gene is going to be passed on to a higher percentage of offspring. It may take awhile but it will work it's way around unless you can eliminate every animal that carries it.

Realistically though, if you had to breed and raise animals to achieve something, probably a good chance you're not dealing with a dominant gene in the first place. But you never really know until you see how it works out in practice.

No idea where this is going but neighbor HFed their 500 acres about 7 years ago. Bought some doe and bucks to throw in there.... guess which deer are the biggest now. The natives. Simply by putting age on them. One grew to a 14 point per them.. But us and neighbors have got some good ones and would have been incredible with 2 or 3 more years. But ain't happening on leased land in our part. Would need control of 2000+ acres. We got 3 leases and 12 to 14 hunters in those acres. Should be 1 trophy to 700 acres honestly.

Be cool if ya'll could all work together on that. One high fence around all the properties, separated by low fence, and managed how you like to manage it would be something else. It could turn into a big miney venture just for managing your land and doing something you love, that you're gonna do anyway.

I would bet alot of the big ballers in hunting ranches start out that way.

All good in theory but there is a lot more to a lease than just killing giant deer. Yes would be awesome but we are all working folks with kids and aren't in that position. And quite honestly it is nice to have a place to lease as opposed to one person controlling everything doing what I mentioned with zero access by others. It will happen some day and then we will all have no place to hunt.... even doing a strict management plan in our area on 2,000 acres would mean abt 3 trophy bucks. Which we do anyway but kids would be shut out. Kids always get their first buck at our place still. I just make sure I get the biggest and rip the gun from my kids hand if need be. Lol...

If they are not private property, how can you keep them penned up?