If You Could Change One Game Law, What Would It Be and Why

If you could change one game law that is on the books now which one would it be and why would you want to change it? It can have to do with when the season occurs or the bag limit or anything along those lines. Have some rationale to what you want to change.

Well.......I'm waiting!

I would change the dates of mule deer season in the Trans-Pecos Region by moving them back 2 weeks to the last part of December. This would give the season a chance to coincide with the rut.

That we can shoot predatory birds like road runners, hawks, cormorants, etc

This is a good one.

I guess it's technically not a hunting law, but one game law I would change would the the minimum size limit on speckled trout. Too many small trout that are hooked badly or dropped on the deck have to be thrown back. That is a dead trout and I think it should count towards a persons limit.

I'd also like to see an earlier deer season for upper coastal counties. The rut down here starts the end of August and is well over by the start of the regular season. You can catch the end of it during bow season, but it's well off peak.

I would write/clarify the non-existent regulations on MD/WT hybrid kills.

I believe the warden makes the calls based on the tails

I wish they would make Stonewall county a two buck county. I'm about 10 to 1 bucks vs does on my place. I guess my neighbors take advantage of the 4 antlerless bag limit a little too much. For now I do not allow the harvest of does on my place.

I wish they would make Shackleford county a 1 buck county again or at least put some restrictions on the 2nd buck.
Since they changed it 5 years ago our buck numbers have dropped except on big well managed ranches.

This is every mule deer hunters wish in Texas. TPWD intentionally sets the season up to end before the rut starts.

I wish they would issue buck and doe tags based on the amount of acreage you are hunting and the amount of deer the acreage can support.

Remove the shotgun plug rule for migratory birds.
It is just a revenue generator for TPWD.

Good idea

Change opening day of dove season to the 1st Saturday in Sept. and up the bag limit.

Remove the baiting rule for migratory birds.

This is what I was going to say. The devil would be in the details but I like the concept.

I would think the logistics would be a nightmare.

An end to multiple hunting seasons for deer based on harvest tools. Replace all of them with a single season using the harvest tool of your choice.

Such a season is now in place from 1st Sat in November through 1st Saturday in January.

More accurate description of what you want is to do away with archery/muzzleloader-only seasons so you can hunt 3 1/2 months with a rifle instead of just 2 1/4 months as you can now.

Not require a land owner and immediate family purchase a license to hunt their own property.

Exactly.

A lot more mature mule deer would hit the ground if they changed the season

I would trade all of November for half of February on duck hunting season.

That's my problem. Every hybrid looks a little different, and there are wardens who look for any MD characteristics and if any are found they call it a MD. I just think is a topic that can stand some clarification instead of leaving the call to a GW.

proof of sex on male turkey, must have a leg attached with spur accompanied by a patch of skin with breast feathers and beard attached.

Why not just have the leg with spur?

Get rid of the break between dove seasons.

Close the quail season in counties that don't have a huntable population. Why have a season on a nonexistent species?

good cormorants need to go

I would like all active duty military service men and women be able to purchase resident hunting and fishing licenses no matter where they are currently listing their state of residence. Heck, as far as I am concerned they should get a freebe while they serve.

Another law I would like to see is a federal hunting license good for all federal lands, i.e. BLM, National Grasslands, and National Forests. Why does a NM, AZ or CO and other state's residents get to hunt National Forest game at a price much lower than an out of state resident? This will stir up some debate!

That last one is indeed good fodder for debate. The reason given by the states with a lot of federal lands is that the states (read:resident taxpayers) are responsible to pay for most of the wildlife management on those lands (GWs, biologists,etc.). Which is true and makes some sense. But there is no question that the states where those lands and "premium" species like mule deer, elk, sheep, bears, mountain goats, pronghorn, etc. reside are hammering non-residents with sky-high app/license/tag costs and very limited permit #s in many cases. Its a big problem for sure.

Turkey season need to be move back to mid March in the north Texas area.
I 2nd the no plugs and baited fields for dove. Keep limits the same though.

Read more clearly this time.

"Replace ALL of them with a SINGLE season using the harvest tool of your choice."

the state knows that only a small percentage of hunters use bows and muzzleloaders. if they eliminated those seasons and opened up to all weapons, more deer would be killed ultimately and it would affect the seasons and bag limits.

I'm all for keeping bow season bow season and if they want to have a muzzleloader season after general then its ok too

i'll go a step further and get real controversial....




I think they need to disallow crossbow use during bow season unless you have a upper limb disability.



I'm not anti-crossbow but its not nearly as difficult to kill a deer with a crossbow and scope than it is with a vertical bow

The national forest doe permits...Would like to take a doe after archery season in national forest.

If the primary purpose of any hunting season is to keep game populations in check, what exactly is the purpose of creating separate seasons based on harvest methods? As it stands now, bag limits are the same, no matter what method you choose. If the multiple seasons we have now were replaced with a single season, there would be no reason to change bag limits from what they are now.

The answer? Select hunter groups asked for restricted access to the resource, which wildlife agencies initially granted after seeing it as a means to generate additional license revenue. And of course, equipment manufacturers encouraged both groups along the way.

If only the fishing equipment manufacturers could find a way to get everyone to follow the same course. In some states, they already have.

I don't think the primary purpose of hunting season is to keep populations in check, its to preserve populations in general.

At least allow one undersized trout.

You can't discuss this subject with him.

Depends on your perspective perhaps. Some see the glass as being half empty, while others see it being half full.

Let youth shoot under 13 inch deer in AR counties on on youth weekend and the last two weeks of the season.

Why stop with crossbows? Let's get rid of all modern equipment during bow season. Stick and string only because we all know how easy compounds are compared to traditional equipment. Because before the argument of the crossbow we had the very same argument about compounds. I'm good with a bow only season but there can't be selective reasoning based on what you think is too easy. Stick and string only shooting instinctively with no gadgets. This gets rid of 95% of the wannabe archers.

Kids need to realize there are rules in life and sometimes the answer is NO. Kids these days (parents fault) think they are entitled to what they want! Sap I understand your reasoning because my first buck was a 4 pt. I will remember that buck forever. But back then we couldn't shoot doe and for my first couple of years that was all I saw. I wanted to shoot a dang doe so bad but l couldn't. I learned to be patient and became a better hunter and finally got a buck. After that my dad wouldn't let me shoot a buck unless it was bigger than the 4pt. I gradually climbed the hunting ladder to bigger bucks.

Get rid of the 13" AR.

horrible idea

Yeah, except no one ever had an issue with compounds after the first little acceptance curve was over. So that's just a new made up "talking point" without merit. A straw man.

Why stop at crossbows? That's simple. Crossbows are a whole different weapon in every respect from manual draw bows. Not having to: 1)draw the weapon and 2)hold the draw in order to execute the shot makes them much more akin to a short-range rifle than real archery equipment. Actual bowhunters know this fact and accept the challenges/limitations as a given. All crossbows being allowed did was allow rifle hunters who aren't willing to accept the challenges and limitations of bowhunting to hunt during bow season. It was promoted, lobbied for and passed largely as a result of the crossbow manufacturers clout.

Now folks like Dan just want to eliminate the bow season entirely - using the allowance of crossbows as a lever to do so.

Archery season is open to everyone willing to do what it takes to bowhunt. Not being willing to do so is not a reason or justification to claim "discrimination" - because there is none. But, as with many who want what others have without accepting what it takes to get it, the whining sounds pretty familiar.

Places are either under populated, at carrying capacity or over populated. its not a matter of perspective its about numbers and facts

Amen to this . I was in the same boat you were in and it didn't hurt me nonwe

my reasoning is not only to allow the kid more opportunities to shoot a cull buck but to allow the land owner or lease member a way to help manage his or her bucks without going MLD. I don't believe in participation trophies.

Nog I know people that still don't accept compounds. News Flash....Just because YOU are ok with it doesn't make it ok. As for holding the weapon at full draw that's a joke as well! Lock-a-draw....look it up! I have hunted with a crossbow and for me it wasn't easy! The damn things are so top heavy you need a rest to hold them steady and are awkward to maneuver. I sold it because I didn't enjoy shooting it and I shoot my compound better. That's just me and the guy I sold it to had the same opinion and it's now for sale again. That's just 2 real life experiences that don't match the so much easier to use argument. I think as long as the challenge is playing the wind and getting up close and personal then I'm not going to judge them for slinging an arrow from a horizontal bow instead of a vertical one. It's an archery season and both weapons are archery!

I love the 13" rule. What it really did was make it so my daughters' first bucks didn't have to be goatheads like mine and my buddies' were.

Shouldn't need a hunting license for exotics; hogs, axis, etc

I wish they would limit the number of hunters to each County. Permanent residents and landowners get first shot at tags and the remainder would be up for draw.

That won't happen in a state with 5,000,000+ deer with an annual harvest of 500,000 plus or minus. Just not necessary.

Get rid of weapon specific seasons and just have deer season. Oct-feb

What? Why would that make any sense ?

I'd be willing to bet 75% of landowners don't shoot deer on their own place, and a lot of heavily hunted counties arnt populated by a large number of hunters.

Appearantly you have not set foot in the counties I live and own land in. There are plenty of people taking limits off of 50-100 acre pieces of land. I will explain a situation I have. My West fence has seven different landowners join it. Each piece of land varies in size from 40-105 acres. Each piece has at least 6-8 hunters on it all year and they flat out shoot the heck out of everything they see, and some of them bring guests in as well. They have bought and paid for two calves and a mule they have shot of mine when their drunken judgement is bad. They were on my side of the fence. They throw trash on the county road and drive like a bat out of hell. All but one of these places are leased to the hunters, all from other counties. The OP asked what our individual wish was and this was mine. Everybody is going to wish for what benefits themselves the most.

No high fences.

Oh no!

I wondered how long it would be lol

Allow a 2 week spotlight whitetail season.

How 'bout no fences? 'Same level of logic.

No, it's not. Low fences are "no fences" as far as it concerns deer and all other wildlife for that matter.

Amen, move dove season back as well. We have hou sands of dove around us in December/January.

Buffalo would disagree.

i'd like to see nilgai put into every county.
or some big bodied tiny antlered animal so the
meat hunters could have theirs, and the bragging
rights folks could have theirs and the feuding might stop.

Well, buffalo (American bison) are not wildlife in Texas.

I don't believe pronghorn jump fences do they?

Pronghorn sometimes jump them but mostly go under/through them. Fences don't confine them.

Net wire fences can be an issue, but are seldom used.

All of which misses the point. HFs are by and large used for WTs in Texas.

Take down all of the fences and I bet they would be... again.

blinds and or feeders must be no closer than 50 yrds from the neighboring fence.

Actually buffalo don't care about ranch fencing. Ask any rancher in Wyoming or Montana when the buffalo decide to migrate out of Yellowstone. They simply lower their heads and mow barbed wire or net fence down and trample it. I have hunted on a couple of ranches that have this problem. Luckily most of those ranches are large enough to support the buffalo and their sheep and cattle.

Talk about low fences that enclose 99+% of rural lands in the entire country is just a silly distraction.

Banning HFs is not. Many states do. The two have zero in common.

Buffalo are fenced in all over the place. I can drive down the road and point out dozens of places.
Facts are not a distraction.

There is a slight difference between livestock buffalo and free-ranging wild bison. Those are the facts.

Wrong. difference is in migration habitat due to Mother Nature and will to survive winter

Really....seldom used??? Now that's funny

If you think there is a big pronghorn/fence issue, you are living in a fantasy world.

Depends on snow fall....RMEF and Mule deer foundation sure do spend a lot of money cleaning up old netwire fences....but guess they ain't an issue like you say....


.. but pardon me while I laugh at the seldom used part more...


Oh why did Montana get so mad at Ted Turner..

That is what you get with MLD. It's good.

"Net wire is seldom used"... Man, that is as deep and rich BS as I've ever heard.

Oh, and for the record, the shotgun plug and no baiting laws, when you have a bag limit, are the most ridiculous laws on the books.

Isn't that fairly accurate for most of the state where Pronghorns are located?

Best idea yet

Make AR 14"

I would like to see them outlaw all baiting and supplemental feeding of deer. I would also like to see all elevated and manufactured ground blinds outlawed. Also no Deer hunting with anything larger than 223's.

So you actually believe a pasture buffalo from the sale barn and a wild bison from the Henry's in Utah are the same, huh?

Wow.

Yes. I said it though. So it must be challenged by a couple.

There are no problems with pronghorn and fences out west to speak of. Never have been. Which was the subject.

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

Allow the 13 inch rule to have exceptions. Such as if a deer reaches a certain age and not going to get any bigger and also a kid under a certain age can shoot one under 13 inches

We need 3-4 years of 4 points on one side is legal. Then go back to 13" Though that wont help you kill a 6 point but I think it will help get rid of alot of narrow racked mature deer. Sure some young ones will get shot, but thats on the hunter who thinks a 2 year old was 5.

If there was a good way to police it, I wouldn't mind changing the AR restriction to an age restriction.

For all of you who say 'let a kid shoot anything', aren't most of you against participation trophies? Isn't that exactly what you're requesting?

Folks can't age deer. Any law that assumes they can would be a mess.

Agreed times 10. You would have to build bigger jails.

I could get behind this!

We already know they're all between 2 1/2 & 3 1/2! At least on here anyway!

If a kid is 7 or 8 years old and by the time they are 10 and still hasn't gotten a shot a buck 13 inches or over that can discourage them a pretty good bit whether they are seeing a bunch of deer or not and they might not want to hunt anymore. Maybe just one kid gets one deer under 13 inches. Not 1 per year but 1 period just to give them a taste of what it's like.

The regulation (or set of regulations rather) I would change would be to implement a system whereby...when a piece of land (regardless of size) is high fenced, all of the animals within the confines of that fence (regardless of whether they are native or non-native) become the property of the landowner to do with as he wishes (with the exception of endangered/protected species). This should also include the ability to trap/sell/hunt/cull/shoot whatever game species are on the property (including Whitetail Deer) without any regulations whatsoever (no seasons, no bag limits, no restrictions). Let the landowner decide how to best manage his property/herd. Much of southern Africa operates this way, and they have thriving herds of native game managed this way.

I know this will not be popular with many of you, but so be it....it is my opinion. Carry on

I agree with this 100%

One general season, choose your weapon.

I have nothing against high fence, have hunted behind two of them!

But why would you give such blatant powers to High Fence only?
I get it that theoretically nothing should come in or out of a HF, so if they shoot everything up their tough chit or they can buy more animals. What if they do not have that kind of money anymore? Lower the fence to let the free range game in for now then raise fence and shoot them up?

Quite a while back my X brother in law who has a HF place bought a bunch of free range doe from the nail ranch that were netted by helicopter. So what's to stop a rich person behind a HF from shooting all of his and continue to buy captured free range deer and deplete the supply of those free range deer in any given area?

I am talking only native (indigenous) game animals like White tail deer, dove ,quail etc.
Exotics, hogs, yotes etc. shoot all you want whenever wherever

The reason it is not popular with many is because it is very self serving.
In particular the "without any regulations whatsoever" is nonsense.

Lol I am always amazed that so many HF proponents accuse others of "jealousy", "wanting what others have", "not willing to work/manage", "elitists" and on and on and on....

When the reality is they want to pen wild animals up so they can have them all to themselves! The "we should own them" deal is just the extension of it. You can cut the irony with a dang knife.

No question, there are those, who for good reason, throw up a high fence to protect their financial investments. Consider the owner of a 500 acre tract who feeds year round and has a neighbor hunting an adjacent 5 acre tract. The neighbor throws up a feeder next to their fence just two weeks before the season opens with obvious intentions of drawing deer from his neighbor's land.

Just another day in the continued evolution of the sport.

Why should anyone care if the 5 acre guy did throw up a feeder? The 500 acre rancher doesn't own those deer.
I have a neighbor that owns one acre and kills his deer out of his kitchen window. Why should I begrudge that man legally killing deer?
I really can't believe all of the whining over someone putting a feeder on a fence line. It's just a deer.

No one owns all the fish in a public lake, but that doesn't make it ethical to throw you hook right next to another fisherman's line.

I guess you never fish any brush piles that you didn't put out yourself, or fish around someone else's dock. Just because someone improves habitat doesn't mean they should own the game.

You need to understand how TTT works. They are not depleting anything they are removing excess animals off the ranch

Look, everyone would like a "level playing field". I get that. Two points:

1)They are wild animals. There is no way to make everybody happy when it comes to wild animals. No way. Period. One man's "level" is another man's "unlevel". Life ain't "fair" in everybody's eyes. Accept it and get over the idea it can/will be.

2)Penning wild animals in for one guy to the exclusion of all others ain't "level". It's taking control of a public resource to the exclusion of everyone else. That ain't "fair". That ain't "leveling the playing field". That's tilting it completely in one guy's favor. Period.

I'm happy to elaborate....and there are perfectly logical answers to all of your questions.

1) Why give these "blatant powers" to high fence only? Simple....because a high fenced property is a closed system (or at least should be for the most part) that requires more control and intensive management to manage properly. In this situation, the landowner usually knows better than anyone, what needs to be done to properly manage the animals on his land. Now in theory, this is why they have the MLD program for Whitetail Deer (to more intensively manage your herd). Unfortunately, there is also a certain level of politics involved....each TPDW biologist basically has full authority over who gets approved for the MLD program in their area, and often times they are EXTREMELY biased and irrational in their implementation of this authority. (A good friend of mine owns a high fenced property with only Whitetails on it....and his biologist flat out told him that if he put one single exotic animal of any kind on it, he would kick him off MLD...which is utter BS)

2) You cannot just "lower the fence and let the free range game in". That's called "trapping" and it's illegal to trap Whitetail Deer without a permit.

3) Similarly to the above point, nobody can just trap or net deer from a helicopter. You must first obtain a TTT permit and those permits are only approved by the state for taking EXCESS deer. In other words, they are not depleting the free range deer, they are taking the extras to an area with fewer deer.

True very redundant. I'd add have the aggregate limit for the group, not per person... if my wife and I are hunting, 30 should be the limit, so she could have her 20 and me have my 10

Numbers, facts, TPWD, regulations, science..... these just never go together. Antler restrictions are a poor solution to a problem based on poor science, that TPWD knows is wrong but can't afford to change now.

My ONE change, check stations for Whitetail Deer. That is the only way to really know what's out there and what's being taken.

The census taking and MLD and other crap is a farce; as is the county based management...

Speaking of facts, you state the rather factually, but it sounds like opinion to me. Can you elaborate further?

ARs have overall been a huge success. Hardly anyone even tries to dispute that anymore. Not perfect, but nothing is.

maybe cormoerants, but absolute not hawks, like snakes they keep the rodent population down. and why for geeze sakes road runners???

Hawks kill too many quail


Roadrunners....just cause

I've looked it up and posted it alot. Don't have the inclination to do so, but there was a TPWD scientific review several years ago that said exactly this... their "data", often relied on 8 deer reported in other crimes by Wardens or highway patrol in some counties; they based it all on counties, ignoring soils, deer populations, sub-species,

I did a FOIA request for their data, it came garbled, had to try again, it was horrific what they were actually using. Even their own sanctioned peer review pointed these things out.

If age alone made for larger healthier deer, they should all be B&C by now.

Genetics play into it.

Some areas won't grow large deer no matter what.

It's about age structure in the herd not antler size

Tpwd doesent profit at all from areas that have big deer or small deer. They are managing a resource

Shooting something just cause is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. You never shoot something just cause. That's not hunting that's just killing and there is no use for it. Shooting something just cause is just sorriness IMO.

Killing is fun, too. That's a use, wouldn't you say?

I kill a ton of tank turtles every year because I like killing turtles. The sun on my face, a light breeze and a log full of fish eating turtles is my idea of heaven.

I'll x3 that all hawks and roadrunners should be shot on sight. Cormorants should be seasonal entertainment for everyone on the lake. When I lived on lake Palestine my 87 year old neighbor kept a scratch pad on his balcony next to his 10/22. He killed 100's every year and still never made a dent.

I must be sorry then.


Cause a accurate .22, accord beverage and a tank full of turtles is pretty close to heaven


And I didn't say open a hunting season on hawks and roadrunners either, I just said be allowed to shoot them. Hunting for them would be pretty lackluster

That's the reason fish eating turtles. I am a fisherman and I have killed my fair share of turtles because they were over populated in my cove and competing with the fish. Also seen them eating baby bass so that's why I shoot them. But a road runner? What does that do to anything accept worms?

You saw a turtle catch and eat a bass?

Turtles, hogs, cormorants? OK.

Roadrunners, hawks? Nah...

I shoot turtles because it's fun and because their turtles. The best ones are the females full of eggs, a very satisfying yellow colored mist floats away afterwards.

Roadrunners and hawks are hell on quail. That's why they should be shot on sight.

They have fast turtles in Pittsburg TX.

Baby bass meaning just hatched off of the bed. Fry and fingerling size

They eat snakes. I like snakes.

I don't think I'd shoot a roadrunner, but there is no doubt they're hell on baby quail and horned toads

They are pretty cool critters. Sometimes, on location, we have them pay us a visit. I've seen them rummage through toolboxes and perch on pickup mirrors.

Burros
Not so much a problem in Texas but in the western states they are a scourge. The Feds decided in the 70's they and feral horses need to be protected, the tree huggers think they are native species! Oh, they are so cute. A major cull is in order.
Burros foul the waterholes and drive off native animals, generally nasty creatures.

Amen. Those jokers were everywhere during my AZ sheep hunt in 2014. Why they are not simply eradicated is a mystery to me.

Protection of Dolphins(they need thinning)and baiting for migratory(if you have to stop at 6 why does it matter)

Good response Wade

One would think that it would be easier to manage a HF property because for the most part you know what animals you have and what it takes to manage them versus a LF property where you have so many more variables on what is coming in and out of your property and how to effectively game plan for it

Red Snapper season should be number 1

The documentary Unbranded talks about this and is are ally good watch, it's on Netflix.

I have a little different take. Regardless of the acreage if a person wants to high fence that person has to pay the state one time for every deer they fence out of the free range. If someone poaches a deer they get charged a fee for that deer, I think someone that high fences should have to pay the same fee. The landowner would be responsible for doing a fly over survey after the fence is up and would be billed for the animals he has entrapped. After that I think eland slayers idea is fine. But only AFTER the person high fencing the ranch buys the deer.
Although I am definitely not pro poacher I find it ironic that if I shoot a deer off someones property I am fined and have to pay a fee for the deer yet someone can put up a high fence and get all he can trap for free. And it is BS that high fences don't trap deer. They do it one time for sure.

[/quote]
I have a little different take. Regardless of the acreage if a person wants to high fence that person has to pay the state one time for every deer they fence out of the free range. If someone poaches a deer they get charged a fee for that deer, I think someone that high fences should have to pay the same fee. The landowner would be responsible for doing a fly over survey after the fence is up and would be billed for the animals he has entrapped. After that I think eland slayers idea is fine. But only AFTER the person high fencing the ranch buys the deer.
Although I am definitely not pro poacher I find it ironic that if I shoot a deer off someones property I am fined and have to pay a fee for the deer yet someone can put up a high fence and get all he can trap for free. And it is BS that high fences don't trap deer. They do it one time for sure. [/quot]

I think this a very interesting idea. Valid points!

And what would that per deer fee be?

And how would you accurately count them?

If I'm not mistaken the cost of wild game is often
figured by the state when restitution is needed.

And population surveys are done all the time.

I like this idea more and more.

The price per deer better be cheaper than the cheapest stocker whitetails from a breeder. Otherwise the landowners will invite everyone they know over to hunt the place into the ground prior to putting up the fence. That would ruin it for the neighbors more so than just letting them fence in the animals.

I agree with the earlier comments though. Once a fence is up I could care less what they do to the game on the other side of it. Those animals are no longer available to everyone around so what difference does it make if they wipe them all out in one year?

The fee would be the exact same fee the state puts on deer when someone poaches one. They claim that is the costs of raising that deer. It is a in house published list. go to the TPWD site and look under Pentax ties and restitution it will explain it to you.The fee does not include the law breaking penalties just the animal cost.

You count them using aerial counting in the winter when the foliage is the least. That is the way deer are counted. It isn't 100% accurate but you would be amazed at how close the pros get to the number.

This would work and raise some money for the state.
Of course existing hf ranches would not be included only going forward. If a guy doesn't want the deer put up the fence and get them out. That can be done also.
A large amount of high fence ranches cull and get numbers right and add breeder bucks but use native deer does. Why should they get those for free?

Direct from TPWD site

I understand where you're coming from....but I will respectfully have to disagree. Just because the fence is taller, it does not mean the high fenced ranch is keeping any more of those deer away from their neighbors than a low fenced ranch....it just happens to be the same deer all the time instead of an ever-changing population of deer that are roaming from property to property.

To put it another way, if that ranch was low fenced instead of high fenced, you still would not have the ability to hunt those deer that live on the low fenced ranch....yet nobody is asking for the low fenced rancher to pay for any deer.

Sounds just like a high fence arguement. You say it doesn't change the numbers but it does your arguement doesn't hold water. I can't even respectfully disagree with you on your point as it doesn't even make sense. If you have a high fence ranch it alters the natural ebb and flow of the deer herd. You also want complete ownership of the animals but don't want to pay for them because they could escape. Well anybody that owns cattle can say the same thing. And a high fence if kept up will keep 99% of the deer in so your disagreement doesn't hold water.
If you or anyone else are going to capture one single native whitetail that cannot free range it is now not available to other hunters period. See I don't have any problem with high fences or how you treat your land, my problem is the free deer.
Then after you get those deer you ask for and many times receive permits to kill the fire out of them to bet YOUR deer herd numbers balanced. So basically the HF has created too small of an environment and have to kill more than the county limit to keep from over crowding. This is especially true on the Up to about 1000 acre places.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about HF proponents - they want everybody to act like it's not there. Own it, just own it. Sheesh.

Well this isn't a game law but how about we change the law that allows politicians to use $ generated by sportsman in the general fund instead of it being used for the betterment of fish and wildlife in this state.

i recently caught a road runner in a coyote foothold trap. Yote got the bird before I found it.

All that was left was a leg and feathers

I'm not really sure why you don't seem to understand. Let's try putting it another way....

Let's just say that a given area of the state has an average deer density of approximately 1 deer per 10 acres. Let's also say that there is a 1,000 acre low fenced ranch in this area. Based on the average deer density, there are approximately 100 deer on this property at any given time. The deer which are on the 1,000 acre property are not available to be hunted/killed/watched/etc by the neighboring landowners.

Now let's say that same 1,000 acre ranch erects a high fence around those 100 deer. Nothing has changed on the neighboring properties....their deer densities are still the same, the quality of their hunting is still the same. It is simple logic. I'm not saying you have to agree with the concept, but the numbers do not lie.

Aerial counts are often only 30-40% of the herd.

So would you be ok with them only paying for 30% of the herd?


Also, how you gonna figured out the score for male deer?

Eland your arguement is BS. But you miss my point. It doesnt matter if the deer on the ranch you high fence never leave it, they could and are considered the states and therefore the public deer. When you high fence them in they are no longer the public deer and you should pay for them.
I'll assure you if I could get enough people behind this I would pursue it. It is a double standard that the state has.
And double standard for people with your belief that you should own the deer. Name one other thing you think you should own that you don't have to pay for!

Like I said....we will agree to disagree. Obviously you are having a difficult time understanding simple logic.

I can tell you are quite emotional about the topic....and I think that is probably clouding your thinking.

I'm an optimist so I think they should add 70%.

And I've never cared for antler score so have no opinion there.

Again I have nothing against HF. I do not understand your logic though on the above comments

1. If the ranch is HF it is certainly keeping more if not all of those deer away from neighboring properties.
2. If that HF ranch was LF you might be able to hunt those deer because they have the ability to cross over onto your property.

The law should read "rights of parties in possession". If the deer is on your land at time of capture be it with a weapon, net, fence, etc then it's your deer.

The herd can be manged as a public resource with private ownership. The deer that are living in elands property are no more mine than the guy driving the ice cream truck

It's different in western states where you have herd migrations over long distances. Most deer in Texas live their whole lives in a few section area

I'm not pro or anti high fence but when people complain about a fence going up and capturing "their " deer and talk about having to pay the state restitution is reduculous

There is no logic to those comments. Period. The HF keeps deer in as well as out. It stops deer movement/access cold (both ways). The HF is there for a reason. It is totally nonsensical to act as if it affects nothing.

I agree. Just think about the rut. When the does are getting chased and bucks are looking on a LF the deer are going all over the map in that area. Your property, my property even that guys property a couple miles down the road. When it's a HF where in the world are they going to go? They get to a fence and a doe hauling butt from a buck is just going to turn a corner and run the other way because the fence is an obstacle preventing those deer from coming on my property.

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!!

I would have liked to have all WT off my property when it was HFed. But that was not possible unless all the WT in a 5 mile radius of here were exterminated at the time of the fencing. It is not my fault that some were destined to have to be thought of as the dreaded "HF Deer". But the name calling must not be that bad in the WT community as they keep jumping in to get out of the LF land.

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

I own 2 high fenced ranches and one low fenced ranch and I wholeheartedly agree with you that I should pay for the states deer in exchange for calling all the deer on my place MY deer and being granted ownership of those deer.

However, you are being less creative than you need to be. There are many ways to skin any cat. For example:

First, I don't WANT any of the states native deer on one of my high fenced ranches. I should be able to remedy this any number of ways.

1. Why can't I lease it to hunters who pay both me AND the state to hunt (with the specific purpose of eradicating the states vermin from my property)? I have skin in the game because the states deer are eating the resources I own. 50:50 split until all native deer are gone or mostly gone?

2. I could either leave a side down or lower a side and chopper and bait animals onto the neighbors place (if the neighbor is willing). I think the state should share in this cost since their deer are tresspassing on and consuming my surface resources.

3. Let the state put my place on their public hunting program for a year. One season and call it good.

NP is again (as usual) FOS about how the state views aerial surveys. In order to establish harvest rates they assume you see 100% of the deer from the air. We all know that's bogus but the state isn't operating with a full deck.

So, the last option would be run a survey from a state approved chopper service and pay the state HALF the value of the deer. Remember, those stinking state owned vermin are eating my resources. That needs to be fairly compensated.

I would like the possibility of an AR cull tag. I would be willing to spend a little more per tag or be able to purchase separate on top of the regular license.

This tag would allow you to take a typically illegal deer. At my current lease we have atleast 3 bucks that are old old and nothing can be done.

I feel this would be both a win for the hunter/manager trying to improve the gene pool and a win for the state.

Excellent idea.

And/or remove AR restrictions for youth hunting. Better yet give a week each year where AR's don't apply so that bucks like you are describing can be shot.

I applaud the effort, man you are trying hard, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still BS.

Winner

Well I'm sorry that very simple math and logic seems to be completely lost on you.

I haven't said anything about aerial surveys one way or the other,sir.

Problem with the whole dang discussion is HF folks want to talk/act like they "own" wild animals. When they don't. (TP&W Code Chapter 11). Without HFs, they come and they go as they please - which is kinda what wild animals do.

But the HFs, for all practical purposes, grant folks 'ownership'. So its no wonder they talk like that these days.

It's just sad to hear deer talked about as if they are livestock.

"I haven't said anything about aerial surveys one way or the other,sir. "

My apologies NP. I got your post confused with one of tt85's. Honest and easy to make mistake...

My snowflake detector is buzzing. For the sake of argument, lets play devils advocate for a moment.

So, someone owns a bunch of acreage, and that's supposed to entitle them to controlling how adjacent landowners use their property? It's bad enough when a HOA dictates the types of trees, bushes and flowers you can grow in your yard. A yard the property owner owns (....more like "right to use". Plant the wrong bushes, let your grass grow too high, or fail to pay property taxes and see what happens)

If I remember correctly, except for narrowly defined exceptions, wildlife is considered a public resource, a resource that can cross property boundaries as it pleases. If a sense of entitlement to wildlife on the property is manifested due to owning the land and feeding the wildlife residing or transitting the property, it's misplaced.

Getting upset when the landowner of an adjacent, postage stamp sized property puts up a feeder doing basically the same thing (on a smaller scale) when they have the legal right to do so, on property they own, is analogous to what I'm hearing from intolerant snowflakes who want to enforce their will upon others. They want to enforce their opinion or perspective on someone that they disagree with, at the expense of that parties legal rights, deflecting attention from the real meat of an issue by making noise that ignores facts. The fact being if you own an acre in a rural area next to a large ranch that feeds deer, you can do as you please on your land, within reason (and legal boundaries). Unfortunately, the ability to rationalize issues without resorting to emotion at the expense reason, or using hyperbole or obtuse analogies to deflect the inherent silliness of their position in an argument, seems to be happening more and more in today's political and politically correct climate.

I'm curious, what does fishing near another fisherman on a public lake have to do with putting a feeder on your own property, near the fence line of larger adjacent property? I've fished elbow to elbow on public water and no one's gotten pissy about it. And I've put feeders up on my side of fence boundaries and the adjacent property owners were fine with it.

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 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.

Now we are on an island, which one Maui or Alcatraz
Some of your logic has valid points but does not encompass the whole scenario, only your perception.

Sad part for you is I am looking for about a 2,000 acre ranch and was going to call you. I have a rich uncle thats in Lew Sterret right now, as soon as he gets out he is giving me the $$$$

If for some reason my uncle does not get out, my rich hunchback grandmother said she would give me the $$$$ when her back straightens up

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.

That's my whole point of this HF stuff. IMO the HF is changing the game so you can "win". But you have "won" a different game because you changed it by penning in the deer. So, what have you really "won"?

It seems that simple to my pea brain. I wouldn't care about it near as much if it didn't affect others. I do understand that the 5 acre man shooting 3 bucks affects others too. But at least the deer are still free so the game is still the same.

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.

more like 30 pages

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.

Nah, it's like that game where you line 30 people up, whisper a message, and see how it changes by the end.

We all must be really bored to go trough all this BS over and over and over and over. But after reading some of the posts that were written by those with a very good knowledge of big words and the English language it does make it more interesting.

That is BS not a slippery slope. The state already charges for shot deer no difference. No matter the reasoning the state has already set a price for taking a deer from the public. HF deer no longer available to the public.

Allow Pre-Charged Pneumatic (PCP) air rifles for hunting game animals. At least give us the ability to shoot Ducks and Turkey's.

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

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.

Nah, I'm good. And tired of them too. Believe it or not, I've never started one.

I have come to appreciate the 13" rule as well. I did not like it when 1st implemented, but it has proven to be successful in allowing deer to mature. However, I run into the same problem. Where I hunt, in Atascosa county, I am positively covered in bucks that are well inside their ears. I saw at least five 3 1/2-5 1/2 YO deer this past season of varying mass and point total that were all near 10" inside width and unshootable. There needs to be some exception made that allows for the harvesting of mature bucks with inferior genes.

I am not in favor of allowing youth hunters to harvest deer inside 13" unless the above exception is used. You're never too young to learn how to age deer by sight. If you're old enough to hunt, you're old enough to allow a deer to grow up.

Cant speak on road runners other than I like seeing them. But you've probably never had chickens that the hawks go after, or had a hawk try to steal your mojo while dove hunting.

I can't say that I have had either of those. I have had a hawk grab a bass out of the Brazos that was previously attached to a fishing lure of mine. I didn't really want to shoot him for it. It was actually pretty spectacular, but I understand your point.

I just like seeing hawks and roadrunners. Maybe there should be some kind of exemption for landowners, though that would likely be impossible to enforce. I know my granddad used to shoot blue herons all the time because they ate the fish from his stock tanks.

I think cormorants are a nuisance, and in my neck of the woods, they seem to be way over populated. Kind of like grackels.

Well, I think you're right. It is an endless source of entertainment. And deep down we know NP love those arguments.

Did you not see my coffee cup above?

If you are selling those I need two dozen for a few prosecutors I know.

Let youths shoot any size buck in an AR county.

NMFS has really screwed the pooch on this issue.

Speaking of nuisance wildlife, last summer I had a ton of hummingbirds that kept attacking the flowers in our garden. TPWD should add them to list of migratory birds that can be hunted.

A strap of mounted hummingbirds would look good on the wall in my trophy room.

Same way at our place. Way too many bucks and not enough does. We made a decision not to shoot any does this year. We even let our kids take some spikes this year to try and thin the herd.

I think hunters do a pretty good job of policing aka shooting what they think they should in relation to does to bucks. We took no does this year and no one mentioned a word about it. Some years we take 1 and some 9. We hardly saw any this year so none were taken.

One rule I would like changed would be when you tag your game. Wait until you are gutting or taking to processor. No one ever gets nailed for it, but law is as soon as you shoot it. Not many of us have pens on our body before we move the animal. MLD gets to wait until their final destination which is the barn. Why not regular folks? I know a 100 scenarios can arise but 99.99% of the time there would be no issue. How many times are guys in trouble for this but never actually commited a real game violation?? Poachers are poachers and get busted. A tag has hardly even come into play.

I don't think it's about whether or not he understands it....he simply doesn't care what your defense is...because as he stated once you fence them thy are no longer the States deer because they no longer have free range....they become yours and you should pay for them if you high fence. I kind of like the idea...the money could go to improving the hunting in the state.

The whole concept of wild game "ownership" is one of the reasons we fought a revolution to break away from the King of England. Sad to see it worming its way back into the minds of American hunters.

Lol...the closest we've come to having a king just left office...the "ownership" is by the "people" for the people. Wild game has not been...until lately, last 40 yrs or so, viewed the same as cattle.

I bet those sell like hot cakes in bookstores at law schools.

40 years ago most farmers where smoking everyone they saw..... via a 22/223 out the window of a truck,

Values change and so do management principles

I worked with a guy back in 1987 told me that's what they did on their family farm outside of San Antonio, they were nuisance that ate their crops.

I would reduce the 13" AR rule to 12". I have always believed they went an inch too far. A 12" AR would protect the younger bucks the way it was meant to and yet allow the harvest of bucks that will never make 13". If you don't believe there are bucks that are mature and between 12 and 13" wide then you haven't looked at the antler mounts and deer heads on walls all over Texas.

I'm certain the price would double if they were autographed

what is a yoot?

It is always interesting to see how long it takes for threads to take a turn for the south from the original post. Oh, and by the way, I am certainly guilty at times!

Well, I have read every response on this sideways thread, and unless I missed it, I've not seen my one gripe discussed. I would like to see all the spike bucks protected unless they can be proven to be 2.5 or older. Anybody should be able to tell a yearling spike, and if they can't, they need to hang it up !

Lmao

I don't understand the "let youths shoot a non-AR deer in AR counties"?


One, that teaches them that rules don't apply to th.

Secondly, it's not good management practice

Excellent points TT85.

No different than youth season where they get to use guns the last weekend of bow season and all of muzzleloader. Then if that's the case it would be ok if they get to shoot a deer under 13 during the yourh season.

Its a lot different. They are letting them use modern weapons not changing what animal is legal.

If a deer is shot with a gun or bow or muzzleloader it's still a dead deer. It's not gonna affect the herd if a different weapon is used.

A bunch of under 17 year olds who start shooting yearlings and two year olds will

Ok then have an age limit on it. Say if you are 10 or under you can shoot 1 deer under 13. Not 1 per year but one period

And how would they enforce that?

Special lifetime tag?

I want one of those!

Well in Missouri they have telecheck numbers on their tag and after every deer you shoot you call and check it in and they put it on file. Missouri conservation has an app on your phone that when you pull it up it has all of your tag history and if you shot anything or didn't shoot anything. So maybe something like that with youth 10 and under. Maybe not the app but the telecheck so they at least have it on file.

Y'all are making some of this entirely too complicated and convoluted. We need need apps or check ins or exceptions to rules. Just keep it simple.

When it comes down to it none of this really matters because it's not going to change I was just trying to make the point there is a way to enforce it.

Sure, I get it. It's just that most of this stuff isn't practical.

I never understood why they didn't lower the quail limits/season when they were dang near extinct a few years back. Thankfully, quail hunters self-policed and no harm was done.

Instead we should just take all our poor kids who have to wait for a legal AR buck or spike to Missouri and shoot those deer

I don't get the "let kids shoot a goathead" mentality. ARs have helped make it possible for them not to have to do that anymore. They work. If they just have to shoot something while they wait for a buck, shoot a doe or hog. It's not like they are handcuffed from shooting something.

Thanks to ARs, my kids both got nice bucks as their first ones. Wife too.

Missouri has ARs too. I never said we should do that or any of it. Personally I like ARs, but You asked how we would enforce it so I told you an idea they could use to enforce it.

I agree, same for my youngest daughter. Good things come to those that wait.

it the "everyone needs to win all the time" mentality

I don't have that mentally but I know what's it's like for a kid. I shot my first buck then they put the ARs into place. Don't get me wrong I'm glad they did it but I have now been hunting 11 seasons and have not gotten one over 13 inches so I know how tough it can be and I have only had 4 opportunities to shoot one over 13 inches and 3 of them were in the same season. So I believe you need to earn what you get but a bunch of times you can do everything right and still not be successful.

have you thought about switching hunting locations? Sounds like the issue you are having is hunting in a sub-par area

Thought about it but the big bucks are there we have them on camera they are just nocturnal

Maybe we could petition the state to allow youths to hunt at night then

There we go now we are getting somewhere.
Just kidding but that might force them to coming out in the day. There would be a lot bigger deer shot that's for sure, but on the other side there would be a lot more deer shot too.

I'd like to be able to hunt deer at night. The problem is that I don't want everyone else doing it.

Moon light, spot light, or NV.....

Uh oh - y'all are going all east TX on me now.

Now can we get back to hunting Turkey with airguns?

I think that each county should make every person that hunted in that county have to go to the court house whenever rules are made. They would then vote on what they thought would make the most sense for that county. Good luck on that happening.

Spot light. I'd have killed a pretty nice subpar buck this year.

I should be able to shoot whitetails on my hf ranch with a .22 lr

I would like to see that rule passed

Who is stopping you?

If you can hunt coyotes and other predators at night then why the heck cant we hunt pigs on the national forests after dark.

If it was a safety issue then we wouldnt be able to hunt predators at night so that argument is out

Pigs are competing with the other species on the national forests and should be allowed 24 hour a day hunting.