http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2748549/Red_Deer_on_small_acreage#Post2748549

Another example of how high fence "hunting" knows no boundaries. Exotics are only mentioned, but to have 70-100+ animals on 120 acres? Livestock, pure and simple.
Private property rights rule, but please just call it a ranch/farm, pens included.
I own/live on 60 acres, and get to use the adjoining 100 acres, so I have a good perspective on what this animal density would be like.

Texans are (mostly) eventually going to high fence themselves into some nasty hunting regulations in the long run regardin the differentiation between livestock and game. Once the animal rights activists start getting the idea you're shooting livestock instead of game, they'll smell PR blood in the water.

agree with mouth. high fencing is going to lead us to really bad places.

Give me a break... if people keep doing this crap we are going to see some serious over regulation.

While i respect someone's right to do as they wish with their property, I don't like the fundamental idea of high fences.

I wish the state would head it off at the pass and do as other states have done and put a minimum on acreage you can high-fence (somewhere between 300-500 would be my vote).

Just out of my own intrigue what would be your opinion if someone high fenced 120 acres just for raising deer sake. No hunting,, not selling, just pets. And considerably less head than what was originally posted. Maybe around 30 head?

People should be able to do what they want on their land, but our state royally ****ed up when they allowed individuals to start trapping state property in small high fenced properties. Hell, I think they ****ed up when they legalized high fences period. Individuals do not own those deer.

quote:

---

I wish the state would head it off at the pass and do as other states have done and put a minimum on acreage you can high-fence (somewhere between 300-500 would be my vote).

---

Seriously? 300-500 acres is nothing. Those deer would be your pets if they were trapped in something that small. If they were going to set a minimum, it would need to be something closer to 1,500 to 2,000 acres where deer or other animals on the property could actually roam freely. 500 acres of high fence is NOT fair chase.

[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 11/14/2011 12:20p).]

Another promoter posting on the same forum...

"I currently have 1 deer per 1/2 acre. You can put as many as you want if you are willing to spend the money on feed. They do make a complete feed for deer and that is all they need."
_________________________
www.threefingersbowhunting.com

The late Paul Harvey used to say "self government doesn't work without self discipline", and then his example would be of someone doing something absurd, but legal, prompting a government response (often excessive) to regulate said issue....which would not have been an issue if some restraint had been used by the offenders.

Can't shoot inside a 1/4 mile radius around a feeder.

Don't be braindead...

...we are really fk'd if ya'll push for government control within then confinement of our own property.

The ONLY regulation that would be necessary to deal a death blow to the current order of the Texas deer hunting industry would be to outlaw hunting over bait.

It would entirely re-order how hunting takes place in Texas, and render many properties almost entirely useless for deer hunting.

That is how they will eventually go after it. Might take 25 years, or 50, but I bet it happens eventually.

I'm entirely fine with what people choose to do on their own land with their own exotic populations, and I am an advocate for a one-time fee for properties large enough to support a resident white tail population to pay a one-time fee and go high fence, and be able to manage their white tail deer using exotics rules. They may have to do that to save themselves from getting harmed when too many people high fence too many small acreages and too many city folks are too detached from hunting and what not. It doesn't take too many Bambi movies for a suburban rugrat to grow into a naive voter that would vote for hunting restrictions on a referendum.

[This message has been edited by MouthBQ98 (edited 11/14/2011 12:36p).]

All it would really take is 1 good CWD outbreak.

I don't think that any of us are FOR govt. regulation of the land, but we all see it coming.

txaggie02, the 300-500 was a number thrown out to mimic other states who have minimums on size of high-fenced properties, and that was at a minimum start point to head off the problem before it becomes too large and any regulation swings too heavily the other way in retaliation.

I don't like the thought of hunting becoming an industry (which it really has over the last 10 years), and high fence is the epitome of that transition in my opinion.

Up to me, i would let the state's deer run free.

[This message has been edited by agrams (edited 11/14/2011 12:39p).]

I agree with Mouth, after the an initial survey done by state biologists or authorized biolgists, the LO pays the state a fee per animal on the property that will never be able to leave the property again; everything included varmints would be counted.

This in all honesty would slow all the yokels down in high fencing their 50 acres, but it will still never stop.

Also, does anyone know if i way openings are allowed in high fence ranches, to allow animals in but not out? Look something like this but obivously opened in the nook < with something that prevented exiting.

Plenty of states don't allow hunting over bait and are doing just fine. I hunt in SW Alabama and the deer a day is cool but really just a pipe dream in reality. Stillhunting a whitetail is the coolest kind of hunting.

I think high fencing small acreages like that is idiotic.

The place we had to sell a year ago, due to family issues, was high fenced. It is only a 106 acre tract and they high fenced 80 acres of it. Black Buck, Axix, red deer and whitetail.

knowing that place as well as I do, the only way they can keep those animals alive is to constantly feed. Even without the drought, they will need to fee heavily to sustain them.

All their high fence did for me was herd the deer right to the stand I have had on my place for over 30 years.

the only problem I see is when they shoot out the whitetail, they plan on opening the fence to trap more. At that time I will call the Game Warden.

Doc H....I didn't bring it up in the "How close is too close" thread but people offsetting a high fence property have discovered "one way gates" as well as one way fences entering the high fenced area.

quote:

---

Can't shoot inside a 1/4 mile radius around a feeder.

---

does that mean you can't shoot anything that is within a quarter mile of the feeder or that your blind has to be at least a quarter mile from the feeder? the later would have a significant impact on my ability to drink and successfully hunt.

quote:

---

It would entirely re-order how hunting takes place in Texas, and render many properties almost entirely useless for deer hunting.

---

I'm not for any regulation outlawing hunting over bait because to do so would satisfy the above statement for my property.

I own just shy of a quarter section and without the aid of bait, we would likely not see many, if any, deer. As it is, we often go without seeing one deer throughout the season.

Of course, managing the habitat to maintain its appeal to the local deer population would likely offset hunting over feeders.

It depends on what the property looks like. We have a 500 HF and a 10000 HF. The habitat on 500 is so much better than the other that even with 8 game cameras and 5 people there are deer we see on a consistant basis that we had never seen before. Appropriate density given the available food and environmental manipulations is more important than size.

quote:

---

you can't shoot anything that is within a quarter mile of the feeder

---

That is what I meant.



[This message has been edited by sunchaser (edited 11/14/2011 2:56p).]

quote:

---

The habitat on 500 is so much better than the other that even with 8 game cameras and 5 people there are deer we see on a consistant basis that we had never seen before.

---

You see deer on a consistent basis that you have never seen before? WTF?

...because there's nowhere for them to go?

No, it indicates they are content with the habitat and density without the necessity of 10000 acres. If we see them once or twice, it means they are happy where they are and dont feel the need to go on a bill and ted sky excellent adventure.

Are you trying to convince us that your 500-acre pen is fair chase hunting?

txaggie02 you crack me up. When you get off the FIL tit ill take your opinion into consideration. I bet if he said he was high fencing a 500 acre place you keep youd little mouth shut and wouldnt say a word to him about the lack of sport etc. In fact, I bet youd hunt it and then run here to post pictures.


[This message has been edited by nnichols (edited 11/14/2011 3:18p).]

What do you think my FIL pays for? My house? My truck? My bills? The only thing my FIL pays for is a management hunt for me each year. He does that for both me and his other son-in-law for taking care of his daughters. If I want to get on the lease as a trophy member, then I pay the difference. I'm sure most people on this board would love to have a FIL like that, but I would not consider that "being on the tit".

Now let's get back to the conversation about your little piece of land that you use to "hunt deer".....

Do you really think that is fair chase?

[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 11/14/2011 3:26p).]

quote:

---

dont feel the need to go on a bill and ted sky excellent adventure

---

if you see socrates walking around, shoot that f***er.

^
POTD

I am curious as to how you equate them to being happy to showing up on your game cams.

It's not like they have much choice about where they hide, since they can't get away...

Also, use flash cameras not IRs, and I'll bet you'll stop seeing them. The reason they are showing up is because they don't know their being watched.

High fence doesnt equal inability to get away. It means restricted access. They can jump it if they really want to and if you have a water gap they can come and go quite easily when the water level drops.

Also, if you have ever been to our place you would know there are infinite places to hide as we have over a mile of creek frontage. Habitat is not a problem.
Id say that we have some of the best if not the best small acreage habitat in our county if not multiple counties per multiple TPWD sources. (ursusguy can comment on that if he would like)

[This message has been edited by nnichols (edited 11/14/2011 3:30p).]

quote:

---

I bet if he said he was high fencing a 500 acre place you keep youd little mouth shut and wouldnt say a word to him about the lack of sport etc. In fact, I bet youd hunt it and then run here to post pictures.

---

He has just over 500 acres in Brazos County and would never consider high fencing it. It's chicken ***** He thinks it is. I think it is. And my BIL thinks it is. Wouldn't ever happen. But I can see exactly why someone like yourself thinks it's a great idea.