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.

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!!

Yes it is a simplistic argument....because it is a simplistic issue. Yes, I know HF restricts movement (that's why they exist). Yes, I know PARTICULAR deer move from property to property....my reading comprehension is also quite strong. My question is.....why is it so important that those PARTICULAR deer on your neighbor's property be available to you, when there are countless others outside the fence that move about freely?

Bottom line is we will probably never see eye-to-eye on this....and that's okay. Thanks for having a calm and polite debate with me. I appreciate it.

to the statement in red...honestly its only important to ME if its a shooter buck you fence in and I want to kill him. again, this almost always, whether you/they want to admit it, boils down to antlered bucks and whose wall they go on. both LO's want to kill them and in turn keep their neighbor from killing them, its just turned in to who wants to spend the money on a fence to make sure they win.

I can also understand the frustration of having "bad" neighbors and wanting to take them out of the equation.

I am all for LO rights and really don't care what anyone does on their property, as long as you aren't my neighbor planting rye grass in giant dong patterns and such.

first off, I could care less whether someone else hunts behind a HF if that is what they want to do...

but can it really be called a "trophy" if taken from behind a HF? based on B&C and P&Y eligibility rules.

This should add eight or nine more pages to the thread.

I feel for the OP, having to read through the disagreement that doesn't have anything to do with his question.

I don't ever recall seeing an 8 page thread that ended where it started.

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

good cormorants need to go

I would make it illegal to have HF/LF discussions.

I would make it illegal to have HF/LF discussions.

But then what fun would I have? Don't make it illegal. Poor old NP would go off the deep end if it wasn't for HF-LF.

In general I like the concept of the 13" AR rule, it needs some type of modification to allow the harvest of mature deer that are inside the limit. Nothing irritates me more than seeing a 5 Year old tall thin tined 6 point that is inside the 13 and not be able to cull it

I agree on cormorants, never had a need or desire to shoot the others.

But then what fun would I have? Don't make it illegal. Poor old NP would go off the deep end if it wasn't for HF-LF.

Did you not see my coffee cup above?