I have a question for all y'all. What do you think the effect is of fencing in deer populations and managing them for hunting?

My opinion:
I just watched the video of the hunters hunting on small parcels of land in another thread here. The stuff depicted in this video (whether real in this instance or not) are the logical conclusion to the fencing of wild animals. Soon they move from wild to domestic, no matter how ardently one wishes them to remain wild. At that point, it's just like going out into the pasture and shooting a hereford.

I can't blame anyone for trying to make money by fencing their land and improving the trapped deer population, but it's not really hunting at that point. It's shooting livestock.

I want to know what others think about this.

A huge "it depends" type of question. I hunt a 4000 acre high fenced place, and I assure you those deer are anyting but domestic. Another ranch I hunted was only 1600 acres of high fenced property, but it was rugged wooded, and well managed. Those deer were not tame by any means. On the otherhand, I've seen 400 acre high fenced places that were pieces of junk and amounted to a zoo.

I can't describe an unfair place, but I know it when I see it.

I have hunted on several ranches as leases and package hunts of all different sizes.

The largest high fence ranch I hunted on was 47,000 acres and I assure you the deer weren't pets, but you do know that the deer would be in the area next time you went out hunting.

I have also hunted on a place that was 1,600 acres, however I felt like that was more of a zoo and only spent one day on the place. Every deer on there had an ear tag telling what year they were born. Also if you saw a deer with out an ear tag the guide with you shot the deer with a dart gun to do an inspection on it.

Then there are the truly canned hunts that are the 400 acre tracts that are high fenced, that just make me sick.

In conclusion I will hunt a high fenced ranch (like the first ranch I mentioned) but it must feel right, but I prefer low fence.

Devil, I disagree with you. We high-fenced about 5 years ago (2k acres), not to make money, we dont sell hunts.

Our deer are well managed and anything but domestic.

I hunted on this one place that was 250 acres and high fenced. The deer all had ear tags with their age, B&C score, and price (including tax) printed on it. What really impressed me was how well the guide could track these deer. He seemed to know exactly where every single one of them was all the time, like a modern day Daniel Boone. It may have had something to do with the GPS unit mounted to the dash with the deer's names on all the little moving dots, but I can't be sure. The other thing I appreciated was how easy the deer were to shoot. Some places I had been required a tough hundred yard shot to the feeder, but these folks got smart and put the feeders only 50 yards from our tower blind window! Watching Sportscenter on the TV until the feeder went off was a nice touch also. I would highly recommend this place to anyone!

I have hunted a place that is about 2600 total acres outside of Sonora for many years. 1400 acres are high fenced and the rest is normal. I have found there to be no difference in the hunting.

However, I much prefer hunting the low fenced side.

In my opinion, deer hunting on high fenced property is not "fair chase" hunting is tantamount to cheating.

I think it is bad for the deer and bad for "hunters" on high-fenced property.

The real irritation comes from landowners charging more money for larger, more desirable antlers.

I realize that some of these landowners "manage" and invest in the deer population and, in some cases, introduce genes from deer from different locations into "their" local deer herd in order to achieve larger (read: more desirable and valuable) antlers.

In essence, they are modifying the genetics of the property of the citizens of the State of Texas in order to financially benefit themselves . They need to remember that deer are not their property but property of the State of Texas and its citizens.

In some instances, this modification has no real control or oversight other than what the landowner wants to achieve. Some of this management and oversight may be in the hands of qualified people and in some cases it may be in the hands of complete quacks.

I am not a geneticist and I am proffering my opinion and not "getting personal" with high-fence property owners.

In my opinion, I think we have not seen the real reprecussions of this type of "management." The end result could be good or bad. I don't know.

A colleague of mine high fenced nine acres of his home to keep the deer out. Unfortunately, there were three inside when they finished the job. I removed them during the season. But I wouldn't call it hunting. The "hunt" took 30 minutes.

I fully agree with B-1 83's post.

We hunt 2,000 low fenced acres that we manage well.

ConstructionAg01 I seriously hope your post was a joke but I'm sure it's turer than true. Sad that people would want to shoot a deer like that but they do.

"Nature is Smarter than All of Us".

- Tom Lasater

.... "rememberin' the fallin' down and the laughter... of the curse of luck, from all those sons-of-bi*tches, who said we'd never get back up".

quote:

---

The stuff depicted in this video (whether real in this instance or not) are the logical conclusion to the fencing of wild animals

---

This is where you are wrong. The natural conclusion of high fencing is not penned hunts with domestic animals.

The largest problem with high fences is killing enough deer on the inside of the fence so that you don't over populate.

I think most of the miss understanding about high fences comes from the northeast where it's common to hunt small parcels of land with few deer on them. When they see videos of hunts where 30 or more deer come in they can't believe it and assume the deer must be domestic or pen raised simply because they have never seen anything like it.

I generally try to stay out of these debates since they tend to get pretty hostile quickly. All that in mind, I have been hunting in the Hill Country religiously for many years now and have game managed deer on two different ranches, one being low fenced and the other high fenced. I have honestly seen absolutely no difference in how "wild" the animals appear to be in either case. On a 2500 acre high fenced ranch, it's really not that much different than five contiguous low fenced ranches. The "domestication" seems to happen once the animals associate human activity with food, IMO, such as feeders attached to trucks and 4 wheelers, essentially ringing to dinner bell.

We have a neighbor out where we are at that fed deer in his backyard for decades and essentially domesticated them. There was no high fence involved. The deer simply associated him and his children with food.

I believe there are valid arguments for high fencing and valid arguments against it. Ultimately I believe property rights trump and must always trump in our society.


As an aside, the TP&W biologist I word with was out on our place a few weeks ago re-doing the new survey route with me and we were having this same discussion. He told me that he was going to a conference soon where the topic would be discussed as the concept of "who owns the deer" is starting to cause issues the courts (for a number of obvious reasons - valuing estates, divorce settlements, etc). There are many that are pushing the idea that deer on a high fenced ranch should be owned by the land owner who would essentially pay the state a one time fee for the animals and then they would own them, as far as the state is concerned. Should be an interesting debate in the future.

quote:

---

The largest problem with high fences is killing enough deer on the inside of the fence so that you don't over populate.

---

boy howdy

I have a question for those who would argue that deer can belong only to the state...

When a hunter buys a hunting license, he is allowed to harvest a certain number of deer. To me, he is buying deer from the state when he buys the license. If he chooses to capture them instead of kill them, why can he not claim ownership of the live deer as he would any dead deer he harvested?

If you own the land you own whatever the hell is on it! You didn't just buy the dirt!

quote:

---

land owner who would essentially pay the state a one time fee for the animals and then they would own them, as far as the state is concerned.

---

Great way to try to generate more BS revenue for the state!

Master - I am not advocating it, just passing on what my contact is telling me is being considered.

This is an issue that will have to be resolved at some point. The courts will necessitate it.

I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were. Sorry if I did. Yes it will have to be resolved at some point. I just think the "common sense" approach to it is to say .....You bought the land and everything on it comes with it.

Saying the state owns the game to me is like saying the state owns the air and we have to buy that too.

My comment on the natural progression = domestic deer is based on a long-term view. In 100 years, will the deer fenced into a 2500 acre preserve be the same as deer not fenced? I doubt it. The fenced deer will be larger, better fed, less diseased, etc.

I don't see it being much different from ranching cattle. You will have to introduce new blood or risk the danger of inbreeding. If your herd gets ill, you'll have to take steps to cure the disease. If you find a deer with a large rack and breed him, you'll be rewarded with higher hunt fees.

Maybe one day, you'll even run them all through pens, vaccinate, and tag them.

Just as the federal government governs migratory game animals, the State of Texas governs non-migratory game animals.

The SOT (TP&WD) is the advocate for these animals.

Owning the property does not mean you "own" the wild game on it. They need to be protected as a public resource. Otherwise, over-hunting and poaching would run rampant.

This is why game laws were established. Not necessarily to explicity control property owners, but to protect the public resource. This ability to protect the public resource leads to controlling the wild game on private lands, ergo controlling the landowner and his visitors, invitees, customers....and what they do with the SOT-owned public resource.

If wild game was soley owned by landowners then, unfortunately, anarchy would reign on some private lands. It should be noted that REPSONSIBLE land owners would "manage" their lands with great care. The problem is the IRRRESPONSIBLE land owner and the affect he has on others including wild game.

A good example is the regulation of private landfills. Imagine if there were no sort of governmental checks on that type of land use. While dumping may happen at one location, the effects can be felt in the surrounding properties.

The same could be said for deer as a public resource. The SOT needs to regulate this public resource. The only way they can do it is by maintaining the resource as its advocate through game laws.

Sure, I'm a little right of Atilla the Hun. I don't want the government getting into my business. With that said, in order maintain the greater good for all, some amount of power needs to be ceded to a duly elected government.

Let's hope we can get wise people elected.

bear in mind that the natural home range of a whitetail is only about a square mile or 600-some odd acres, provided there is water, food and cover. They'll range a little further during the rut, but a good square mile is plenty. So when ranches high fence thousands and thousands of acres, the natural home range of a deer isn't disturbed.

I have no problem with high fences. I have a problem with shooting deer at feeders.

Yes, MasterAg, that was a joke. I do most of my hunting with a bow or stalking with a rifle because I don't like hunting from a blind.

I hunted a high-fenced place near Pleasanton once and it was awesome to see the size and quantity of the deer, particularly since I grew up hunting (and still do) around Comanche. We shot 12 does that weekend as "population control". It was a 3500 acre place and I couldn't tell any difference in the deer behavior.

quote:

---

The largest problem with high fences is killing enough deer on the inside of the fence so that you don't over populate.

---

Thats exactly right

quote:

---

I just think the "common sense" approach to it is to say .....

---

Unfortunately, that approach is seldom used anymore.

No kidding!

Devil -
You have hit the nail on the head. There is no way that deer in a < 5,000 acre ranch will ever be the same when comparing high and low fenced ranches. It is a system of manipulation. You can definitely tell who hunts high-fenced and low-fenced ranches on this board. I will be the first to say that I will NEVER hunt a high-fenced place that is less than 5,000 acres. I currently hunt a 700 acre ranch and a 20,000 acre ranch....both of which are low fenced. I have shot deer off both.....good bucks, cull bucks, does and don't consider the success of the hunt by the size of the horns. My problem with high-fencing is that you are taking the natural causes of death percentage out of the equation and putting greater odds in the hunters favor. Many people that high fence kill off hogs, coyotes, etc. You are also cutting off the possibility of the deer jumping a low fence and being shot by someone else (I understand this is the point of most people high fencing their place but it is still all in the probability numbers.) Whenever I see a deer on someone's wall, I always ask where it was shot (geographically) and if it was high or low fence. Much more respect for the low fenced guys out there. Now let's beat the hell out of bow season and tech! Thanks for your time

My best deer of my life was shot off a 300 acre ranch 4 miles outside of Corpus Christi. It scores in the 150's. It helps that this low fenced ranch backs up to a wildlife refuge, and the deer use his ranch as a crossing point.

quote:

---

Many people that high fence kill off hogs, coyotes, etc.

---

I just wanted to point out that hogs are not naturally part of the Texas wildlife habitat. Our current feral hog problem is the direct result of irresponsible people turning them loose into the wild, with an enormous economic impact to the agricultural productivity of Texas.

true

Correct! Sorry for the way I worded that. I didn't mean for that to sound like hogs kill deer. I just threw the hogs in there with the yote dogs.

hogs do kill fawns quite often.

I think the hogs killing fawns deal is few and far between compared to coyotes killing fawns. Maybe that is just me though.

most times that is true.

but, for about 3-4 years, we had hogs decimating the fawn populations out near Sonora. there weren't many coyotes in area at the time. for some unknown reason about 3 years ago, the hog populations started dwindling. it was wierd.

I've read several times that the laws regarding state "ownership" of deer and other mammal wildlife is a carry-over from British law, which once dictated that the Crown owned all game wildlife on British soil, even private land.

In Britain in those days, it was illegal for a land-owner to shoot a game bird, a deer, or even remove a salmon from a stream running through his property in order to feed his family, unless so authorized to do so by someone in the Royal family.

However, I'm not sure this theory about the origin of state ownership is correct, since one doesn't need a fishing license in most states, Texas included, to fish in privately owned waters.

Most game birds migrate to some degree, so I can see the state or feds claiming ownership in order to control the health and population.

But a high-fence not only keeps deer in, it also keeps deer out. So a high-fence ranch owner doesn't have a chance to impact his "neighbor's deer", for better or for worse. He's controlling only the deer on his property.

Don't have a high-fenced ranch and have never hunted on one, but, like others have said, I see it as a property rights issue.

To each his own.

Hap -
You said it correctly......"He is controlling the deer on his property."

It is a controlled environment.

I don't think that when you buy a license you are necessarily buying a deer from the state. I would say that you are buying an opportunity to take a deer and that you now have a license that allows you to drink beer with your buddies and bs around the deer camp.

However you look at it, I will be doing all of the above on a fence that both I and the deer can jump over. That way if I see a deer on the neighbors place, I can jump over there and get it

I think the high fence thing depends on how many acres you hunt. I've hunted ranches with high fences that were around 10,000 acres. In those cases the predictablity of what you will see is unknown. Smaller ranches with high fences aren't much fun in my opinion because you can see the same things over and over. The predictablity and patterns of the deer stay so constant that it isn't much fun to me.