olarmy,

I am just trying to figure this out, if they belong to the "landowner" when they are doing no harm why do they get to belong to the State when they are doing harm? If they do in fact "belong" to the landowner shouldn't he be responsible for controlling them.

My whole point is that landowners do not own the game animals, with the exception of high fenced exotics. This is nothing more than my personal opinion though. If landowners want ownership and the benifits of ownership they should also bear the responsibility and burdens of ownership. If you "own" cows and one gets out and causes a wreck you are responsible, same with horses. If we are going to treat wildlife as livestock shouldn't the same rules apply?

I guess the reason I stated that the owner of the last piece of private property the animals were on would be responsible is because they have not changed ownership yet by placing themselves on another piece of private property. If the state does not claim ownership of exotics then they have not changed ownership yet by transferring to another piece of private property.

While I do believe in some merits of high fencing, I also think that high fencing native game is in effect stealing game animals by restricting their ability to leave the high fenced property. My thoughts on high fencing whitetail deer is that it should not be legal.

quote:

I am just trying to figure this out, if they belong to the "landowner" when they are doing no harm why do they get to belong to the State when they are doing harm? If they do in fact "belong" to the landowner shouldn't he be responsible for controlling them.

Guess we'd have to talk to a lawyer to get a definitive answer. My understanding is that the owner of an exotic is the person who owns the land where it is standing. Just like a tree or a bush. As soon as that animal jumps from my pasture into your pasture, it's ownership transfers to you. So my presumption is that when the animal crosses onto state land, it's ownership transfers to the state. But I could be wrong.

are you guys talking about exotics on game ranches?

if so, they are basically treated and regulated as livestock. the landowner or owner of the game ranch is responsible and liable.

if you are referring to exotics that have escaped and have since become more free-ranging, then it gets complicated.

And so it goes! Who has the best lawyer? Rancher/State?

I don't know either. I think this is something that will get addressed in the future though. I do agree it will probably come down to who has the best Lawyer, and if the lawyers get at it before there is any definitive laws written, it will become as screwed up and convaluted as a lot of our existing court precedents already are. And I suppose that's just the way the lawyers want it.

I am curious, and I am probably gonna get blasted, but I would like to know how you guys feel about people making money off native wildlife?

Do you think there should be any restitution paid to the "State" for the utilization of a natural resource for profit?

Do you think there should be any type of licensing for an outfitter or landowner that is profiting off of wildlife that could be revoked for dishonest or illegal conduct?

What do you think about high fencing "native" game? Do you think that this is the same as taking them into possession? And denying access to a resource?

I really would like an honest and open debate here, there are a lot of views different than mine and I would like to hear them.

the wild game animals should belong to the people who purchase a hunting licence as they are the only ones who are legally allowed to make use of that resource.
if you have a river running on your property would you be legally allowed to dam it and keep the resource of water from anyone else?
why should the game be any different.

if someone brings an animal to a certain location and fences it in then it is livestock and if they want to allow people to shoot it then thats no buisness of the state w/ the exeption of sales tax, ect.

noone should be able to resrict the movement of a natural resource or confine that resource for there own use. furthermore those who do such and profit from it should be held accountable.

KSTEPHENS

I realy like your comparison to damning a river that's the first time I've heard that used. We all KNOW there are laws governing water use and rights but it is a good comparison in my opinion.

I don't think I agree with you that the animals should belong to hunting license holders only though. In Texas the animals belong to the "State" and that means all the people. There are other ways to make use of wildlife, photographs for example. I view the hunting license as permit for "consumptive", individual, use of a natural resource.

Sales tax is quite a different take on the matter though, I could get behind something like that if the funds collected were used properly. $7,500.00 for a trophy deer x .0625 = $468.75 to the "Parks and Wildlife Dept." would add up to quite a bundle. Then perhaps Parks and Wildlife could use that money to purchase or lease lands to make for more public hunting opportunities.

quote:

the wild game animals should belong to the people who purchase a hunting licence as they are the only ones who are legally allowed to make use of that resource.
if you have a river running on your property would you be legally allowed to dam it and keep the resource of water from anyone else?
why should the game be any different.

I have a drivers license, does that mean I can go get any car, anywhere I want? By your reasoning, it looks like I own all the cars.

Just because you buy a hunting license doesn't mean you can hunt anywhere you please.

...and noone owns wild game, all hunters, land owners, and game departments can do is manage the game.

rbrown,

I think it's a given that a hunting license does not allow you to hunt anywhere you want to.

And cars are private property. But having a license does give you the right to drive any car you own or have permission to drive. I don't know if that comparison is quite valid since cars aren't a natural resource.

I do agree with your take on management, but I do think in the U.S. that the "State" owns the game animals. I don't know about migratory game birds though.

JTEX,

Given, it might have been a bad analogy. All I was trying to get at is just because you purchase a hunting license doesn't mean you own the game (as KStevens seems to think).

Here's where we differ, I think the states do not own the game. All the states can do is regulate hunting and fishing through game laws. When you go buy a tag or hunting license through the state, in which you're hunting, you are buying the right to hunt that animal, not the animal itself.

quote:

I am curious, and I am probably gonna get blasted, but I would like to know how you guys feel about people making money off native wildlife?

Do you think there should be any restitution paid to the "State" for the utilization of a natural resource for profit?

Do you think there should be any type of licensing for an outfitter or landowner that is profiting off of wildlife that could be revoked for dishonest or illegal conduct?

What do you think about high fencing "native" game? Do you think that this is the same as taking them into possession? And denying access to a resource?

I really would like an honest and open debate here, there are a lot of views different than mine and I would like to hear them.

jtex - interesting questions, i'll do my best to answer them in turn. these are my own opinions, of course, based on what i know and what i believe.

quote:

I would like to know how you guys feel about people making money off native wildlife?

in general, i am against it, unless we are talking about taxidermy, photography etc. penning up wild animals and selling the right to hunt them is, in my opinion, wrong on many levels.

i have no interest in non-native/exotic species on game ranches, but acknowledge and respect that they might be someone's idea of a good hunt and feel that exceptions can be worked out in these cases.

quote:

Do you think there should be any restitution paid to the "State" for the utilization of a natural resource for profit?

whatever the answer on this one, it would have to apply to everyone, from the photographer to the exotic game rancher to the baitshop proprietor.

quote:

Do you think there should be any type of licensing for an outfitter or landowner that is profiting off of wildlife that could be revoked for dishonest or illegal conduct?

for illegal conduct, any licensing for any activity that would normally be allowed should be revoked. it is more difficult to regulate dishonest or immoral conduct, but in a perfect world, a way would be found and they would be out of business as well.

quote:

What do you think about high fencing "native" game? Do you think that this is the same as taking them into possession? And denying access to a resource?

once again, if the fence is an "artificial" boundary designed to keep game in, i am personally not for it; however, if allowed by law in certain circumstances i believe that they and their descendants should be become the property and responsibility of the landowner and that of course some restitution to the people should be made. the reason for this as you said, is because the owner is by definition denying access to the resource while also seeking to profit from the existence of the resource.

the bottom line is that the game belongs to the people. if you seek to own the game, you must compensate the people. i will say once again that this is not for me and that i would not support it, but on the other hand if it is legal somewhere then i firmly believe that the people should suffer no loss in using the resource because of it.



my thought on this probably aren't articulated as well as they should be. a safe blanket assumption is that while it is not for me and i acknowledge that it is legal in places and acceptable to people; paramount is that the future health of the game and the interests of the people be protected.

What I find amuzing is the pay for the point operation. If the wildlife is owned by the people or the state and not the land owner, which in almost every state is the case, then how can a land owner place a value based on the size of a rack that he doesn't own?

quote:

then how can a land owner place a value based on the size of a rack that he doesn't own?

I'm sure the DNR's would love to generate extra revenue through additional fees (based on a sliding scale of B&C scoring) charged to property owners who charge by the size of buck.

Maybe it should be retroactive too.

If a guy is willing to pay $10,000 and up for a trophy buck an extra few hundred to the state shouldn't be a problem.

quote:

the owner is by definition denying access to the resource while also seeking to profit from the existence of the resource.

outstating point.

how many millions of dollars are made by a stolen resource of the state?

what else is it but theft when someone encloses native wild game so that its ability to free range is hindered.

i dont care how big the property it is still caged. by comparison it is still kidnapping if i move you by force a couple of feet. why is it not theft to hinder these animals from roaming were they want?

you say" they have vast amounts of land" i say "how big of a prison would you toleate as a free man?"

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
for those who feel that the landowner owns the game, can i hold you responsible when "your" deer wanders out in front of my car and kills someone?

Unless you mean YOURSELF (a singular event) how many times do you kill people by hitting animals?

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
i dont care how big the property it is still caged. by comparison it is still kidnapping if i move you by force a couple of feet. why is it not theft to hinder these animals from roaming were they want?

So, you are now advocating removing personal property? I mean, swap out "animals" for "oil" or "gold" or "water" and how many times have the has this story been played out? We don't have Chavez or Castro in the White House, and as far as I can tell, the US still isn't a communist state.


In other words, the world aint fair, and anyone not wearing diapers should have learned that before they got their first pair of pullups.
The universe doesn't play by "your" rules, you play by its

You asked the question. It has been answered, repeatedly, yet you refuse to accept it.

Sorry man, it just aint the way you "wish" it was.

VERY well put, Jeffe!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
for those who feel that the landowner owns the game, can i hold you responsible when "your" deer wanders out in front of my car and kills someone?

Unless you mean YOURSELF (a singular event) how many times do you kill people by hitting animals?

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
i dont care how big the property it is still caged. by comparison it is still kidnapping if i move you by force a couple of feet. why is it not theft to hinder these animals from roaming were they want?

So, you are now advocating removing personal property? I mean, swap out "animals" for "oil" or "gold" or "water" and how many times have the has this story been played out? We don't have Chavez or Castro in the White House, and as far as I can tell, the US still isn't a communist state.


In other words, the world aint fair, and anyone not wearing diapers should have learned that before they got their first pair of pullups.
The universe doesn't play by "your" rules, you play by its

You asked the question. It has been answered, repeatedly, yet you refuse to accept it.

Sorry man, it just aint the way you "wish" it was.

so you are on the side of deer being personal property.
good at least your taking a side.
with that let me ask you this. from were did you get this personal property?
are you going to take personal resposibility for it at all times?
if there is a drought are you going to provide it water and food?
if its personal property its livestock.
you can call me a communist or a child if it makes you feel better but the truth of the matter is the law says the deer do not belong to you personally.
and if you dont think that water isnt personal property i wonder how long you have been out of short pants.
why dont you go dam up a river on your private property and see how long it takes for any number of GOV agencys to show up.
If you fence them in your stealing them from the rightful owners. period.

One very valid point I need to make here is that NO WHERE in Texas where a high fence has been erected does it ruin the hunting around it. There are still as many and in almost ALL cases MORE animals outside the fenced area!!! The idea of a high fence is to micro manage the herd you have to achieve its highest potential.

STEP 1 Bring you numbers down...

A lot of "have nots" use the complaint/arguement that a fence impeads deer movement and "thats not right" but there real arguement is that they dont get the chance at as big of trophies. I know this from personel experience of hunting on ranches that the owners decide to high fence and the neighbors freak out crying foul. The reason the ranchers have high fenced is because the neighbors are abusing the resource in killing anything with horns.

Who owns the game...the state, who manages the game...the landowner AND in Texas high fences are a great tool to do that.

Perry

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
One very valid point I need to make here is that NO WHERE in Texas where a high fence has been erected does it ruin the hunting around it. There are still as many and in almost ALL cases MORE animals outside the fenced area!!! The idea of a high fence is to micro manage the herd you have to achieve its highest potential.

STEP 1 Bring you numbers down...

A lot of "have nots" use the complaint/arguement that a fence impeads deer movement and "thats not right" but there real arguement is that they dont get the chance at as big of trophies. I know this from personel experience of hunting on ranches that the owners decide to high fence and the neighbors freak out crying foul. The reason the ranchers have high fenced is because the neighbors are abusing the resource in killing anything with horns.

Who owns the game...the state, who manages the game...the landowner AND in Texas high fences are a great tool to do that.

Perry

spin it however you want.
answer these questions...
#1 who OWNS the game?
#2 are animals behaind a high fence free to leave that enclosure?

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
olarmy,

I am just trying to figure this out, if they belong to the "landowner" when they are doing no harm why do they get to belong to the State when they are doing harm? If they do in fact "belong" to the landowner shouldn't he be responsible for controlling them.

My whole point is that landowners do not own the game animals, with the exception of high fenced exotics. This is nothing more than my personal opinion though. If landowners want ownership and the benifits of ownership they should also bear the responsibility and burdens of ownership. If you "own" cows and one gets out and causes a wreck you are responsible, same with horses. If we are going to treat wildlife as livestock shouldn't the same rules apply?

I guess the reason I stated that the owner of the last piece of private property the animals were on would be responsible is because they have not changed ownership yet by placing themselves on another piece of private property. If the state does not claim ownership of exotics then they have not changed ownership yet by transferring to another piece of private property.

While I do believe in some merits of high fencing, I also think that high fencing native game is in effect stealing game animals by restricting their ability to leave the high fenced property. My thoughts on high fencing whitetail deer is that it should not be legal.

Since you're from Texas, just so you'll know, in fact, a rancher IN TEXAS is NOT responsible if his cattle get out (not sure about horses but believe the same rules apply) and someone hits one with a car. In fact, the driver can be held responsible for the value of the cow/bull. The only time the rancher would be held liable is if it could be shown that it was a repeated incident where he had knowledge that the fences were down and did nothing to control the problem.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, it is common legal knowledge that the State, any state, IN LEGAL FACT does not "own" the game, regardless of what a State claims, but that "legal fiction" is treated as fact by all the major parties involved because it is a convenient device that is useful to control of the resource. One way to look at game is to consider it like air, we are all free to use air, and it obviously goes where it wants but there can be restrictions placed on individual or group users if their actions could damage the resource, such as air polluting plants, etc. Equally we can capture air by compressing it in a cylinder with no penalty. Wild game is not "owned" by anyone, government or individual until it is harvested and in someone's possession. Just as an example, if someone has a prize breeding whitetail buck, and it escapes and someone else legally harvests it, tough on the previous "owner". Obviously wild game is controlled with the broad consensus of the people by various government entities, hopefully to allow maximum harvest while sustaining or growing the resource.

I'm not even going to get into why or whether State's should be allowed to charge non-state resident US citizens more than their residents to harvest game that is on ALL of OUR, that is Federal, land.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
olarmy,

I am just trying to figure this out, if they belong to the "landowner" when they are doing no harm why do they get to belong to the State when they are doing harm? If they do in fact "belong" to the landowner shouldn't he be responsible for controlling them.

My whole point is that landowners do not own the game animals, with the exception of high fenced exotics. This is nothing more than my personal opinion though. If landowners want ownership and the benifits of ownership they should also bear the responsibility and burdens of ownership. If you "own" cows and one gets out and causes a wreck you are responsible, same with horses. If we are going to treat wildlife as livestock shouldn't the same rules apply?

I guess the reason I stated that the owner of the last piece of private property the animals were on would be responsible is because they have not changed ownership yet by placing themselves on another piece of private property. If the state does not claim ownership of exotics then they have not changed ownership yet by transferring to another piece of private property.

While I do believe in some merits of high fencing, I also think that high fencing native game is in effect stealing game animals by restricting their ability to leave the high fenced property. My thoughts on high fencing whitetail deer is that it should not be legal.

Since you're from Texas, just so you'll know, in fact, a rancher IN TEXAS is NOT responsible if his cattle get out (not sure about horses but believe the same rules apply) and someone hits one with a car. In fact, the driver can be held responsible for the value of the cow/bull. The only time the rancher would be held liable is if it could be shown that it was a repeated incident where he had knowledge that the fences were down and did nothing to control the problem.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, it is common legal knowledge that the State, any state, IN LEGAL FACT does not "own" the game, regardless of what a State claims, but that "legal fiction" is treated as fact by all the major parties involved because it is a convenient device that is useful to control of the resource. One way to look at game is to consider it like air, we are all free to use air, and it obviously goes where it wants but there can be restrictions placed on individual or group users if their actions could damage the resource, such as air polluting plants, etc. Equally we can capture air by compressing it in a cylinder with no penalty. Wild game is not "owned" by anyone, government or individual until it is harvested and in someone's possession. Just as an example, if someone has a prize breeding whitetail buck, and it escapes and someone else legally harvests it, tough on the previous "owner". Obviously wild game is controlled with the broad consensus of the people by various government entities, hopefully to allow maximum harvest while sustaining or growing the resource.

I'm not even going to get into why or whether State's should be allowed to charge non-state resident US citizens more than their residents to harvest game that is on ALL of OUR, that is Federal, land.

again another high fence supporter cant answer simple questions and would rather divert the conversation to "shoulds" rather than fact.

this is your most telling statement

quote:

"if someone has a prize breeding whitetail buck, and it escapes..."

if it escapes then it was being held and you cant hold whats not yours unless you took it from someone wrongfully.

you cannot keep a natural resource for your own private use or sell that resource to someone else and think that its right.

the reason it has been overlooked in TX is because it is used as a tourist attraction.

High fencers are stealing from the tax payers who pay for the TX Parks and Wildlife Department managment.

Kstephens:

First of all, I wasn't replying to any of your incredibly ignorant posts, so piss off. Second of all, you CAN own whitetail deer if you are a breeding facility or high fenced with Texas Parks and Wildlife permission, thus the "escaped breeding buck" statement. Third, I'm not a "high fence" supporter, I am the owner/improver of a Level 3 game Management Ranch with roughly 4,000 barely and low fenced acres next to another Level 3 with about 22,000 low fenced acres. I don't particularly like high fences, haven't ever hunted on one for personal preferences, but certainly can understand why people who are in certain areas or are surrounded by people like you, would use them. It is expensive and time consuming to improve a deer herd, high fenced or not and having some idiot come around and shoot the too young results of your and others work is the main reason that high fences exist. Finally, you're a fucking idiot who gives the normal idiot a bad rap.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Kstephens:

First of all, I wasn't replying to any of your incredibly ignorant posts, so piss off. Second of all, you CAN own whitetail deer if you are a breeding facility or high fenced with Texas Parks and Wildlife permission, thus the "escaped breeding buck" statement. Third, I'm not a "high fence" supporter, I am the owner/improver of a Level 3 game Management Ranch with roughly 4,000 barely and low fenced acres next to another Level 3 with about 22,000 low fenced acres. I don't particularly like high fences, haven't ever hunted on one for personal preferences, but certainly can understand why people who are in certain areas or are surrounded by people like you, would use them. It is expensive and time consuming to improve a deer herd, high fenced or not and having some idiot come around and shoot the too young results of your and others work is the main reason that high fences exist. Finally, you're a fucking idiot who gives the normal idiot a bad rap.

ignorant is not being able to see things from any perspective than your own.

you cant even begin to consider the fact that support of game fencing and captivity of wild animals is legally corrupt.
i suspect you have finacial interest in the procedure.
being against high fence is not akin to agreeing with poaching.
why does it have to be that because i see the fault in the logic that makes me someone who would cross a low fence to shoot a deer?

please repsond to the logic (or lack therof) in how the deer can be the property of anyone other than the land owner when they are behind 15' fences.
furthermore , if you can explain that then explain how that land owner can sell them for profit in vilation of the law.

you guys want it both ways.
you want to keep the game confined when the law says its not your game
AND
you want to sell the game animals when the state says selling venison is illigal.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
ignorant is not being able to see things from any perspective than your own.
/QUOTE]

could I politely suggest that you consider picking up a dictionary and checking that definition?

KSTEPHENS wrote:

quote:

...when they are behind 15' fences.

This alone shows you don't have a single clue about high-fenced operations or anything that goes on in the state of Texas. It's just one of the many, many incorrect statements you continue to spew.

look, its really simple.
the general public is the owner of wildlife. not the landowner, not the government not any agency or beureu.
when someone imprisons something that is not htiers they are steling from the rightful owner (s).
what is so hard about understanding that.
that is fact.
no speculation, not opinion.
the deer are not the high fencer,s property and by enclosing them they are stealing from the people of TX and any other state.
NO that doesnt mean people should be able to go onto another persons land and hunt without permision.
NO that doesnt mean that guides shouldnt be able to charge for taking people hunting.
It means that stealing from the general public and then selling what you stole is wrong.

you know what i did look up in the dictionary?
fencing; the practice of receiving and disposing/ selling of stolen goods.
that about sums it up.

quote:

Posted by Gatogordo:
Since you're from Texas, just so you'll know, in fact, a rancher IN TEXAS is NOT responsible if his cattle get out (not sure about horses but believe the same rules apply) and someone hits one with a car. In fact, the driver can be held responsible for the value of the cow/bull. The only time the rancher would be held liable is if it could be shown that it was a repeated incident where he had knowledge that the fences were down and did nothing to control the problem.

Growing up on a farm/ranch in Colorado which is an "Open range State" same as Texas it is the responsibility of all land and property owners to fence out unwanted livestock. Any livestock that is involved in an accident is deemed as an unavoidable road hazard and neither party rancher nor driver is responsible for the accident. The driver can get a ticket if they were found to be driving at an excessive speed when the animal is struck but they are not responsible for the cost of the animal. Livestock are treated the same as wild game struck by a vehicle. The motorist is responsible for the cost of repairs or deductible on their car and the farmer/rancher absorbs the costs of the lost animal.

I think in either AZ or NM there is a civil case that the National Cattleman Association is following or fighting quite heavily. A Rancher was being sued for one of his cattle being out on the road and the resulting accident either killed the driver or passenger, I'm not sure as to the exact details. The Judge ruled since someone died the Rancher had to pay some amount of money even though the "Open range laws" say that he is not legally responsible. I haven't found out the outcome of this case but I'm sure I'll know as my family will have something to say about it.

Getting back to the original post, I still say you should know your neighbors when hunting. Make arrangements for any incident that might happen that you can think of before hand. If you are worried about not being able to recover the game make the proper arrangements.

enjoy your "HUNTING", Killers.

quote:

look, its really simple.
the general public is the owner of wildlife. not the landowner, not the government not any agency or beureu.
when someone imprisons something that is not htiers they are steling from the rightful owner (s).
what is so hard about understanding that.
that is fact.
no speculation, not opinion.
the deer are not the high fencer,s property and by enclosing them they are stealing from the people of TX and any other state.
NO that doesnt mean people should be able to go onto another persons land and hunt without permision.
NO that doesnt mean that guides shouldnt be able to charge for taking people hunting.
It means that stealing from the general public and then selling what you stole is wrong.

you know what i did look up in the dictionary?
fencing; the practice of receiving and disposing/ selling of stolen goods.
that about sums it up.

That's is the dumbest thing I ever heard. I have a buddy that owns/operates a high fence. In no way do I feel that he is stealing "MY" deer. I also don't know why you think he is stealling "YOUR" deer.

If you don't like high fence ranches....DON'T HUNT THEM
If you don't like hunting in Texas....DON'T HUNT IN TEXAS



..and where do come up with these definitions?

quote:

In no way do I feel that he is stealing "MY" deer.

how you feel is not relevant.
fact is fact.
deer belong to the general public.
he's keeping them behind a fence, thats theft.

-----Original Message-----
From: TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us
[mailto:TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:17 AM
"The general public owns the wildlife species in Texas. It doesn't belong to one individual, group, entity or agency."

so how can you sell a 160" buck if its a wild animal that doesnt belong to you.

these places are beyond selling a "hunt". they are selling an animal.

quote:

In no way do I feel that he is stealing "MY" deer.


how you feel is not relevant.
fact is fact.
deer belong to the general public.
he's keeping them behind a fence, thats theft.

OK, prove this so called "FACT" that the game belongs to general public. Until then I'll go on to believe that no one owns the game.

Also useing your theory on fencing.....I'm stealing my dog, and my cows. That a brilliant peice of logic there.

OH NO, my family also owns 1/2 the mineral rights on our land. I must be stealling that from the general population as well. (full of sarcasm)

"Also useing your theory on fencing.....I'm stealing my dog, and my cows. That a brilliant peice of logic there."

rbrowntx, are you really dense enough to think that cattle nad domestic dogs are in anyway, shape or form comparitive to wild deer in this argument? what do dogs and cows have to do with wildlife?




here is the e-mail i got from the wildlife agency in your state.

The general public owns the wildlife species in Texas. It doesn't
belong to one individual, group, entity or agency.

-----Original Message-----
From: TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us
[mailto:TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:17 AM
To: hunt
Subject: Web Site - E-MAIL REPLY REQUESTED - Hunting


*** E-mail reply requested!
*** Reply to: kstephens2355@charter.net

User was on this page:
/huntwild/index.phtml

Comment or Question:

who owns the deer in TX?
legally? does the landowner "own" it? does the state own it?
does the taxpayer own it?

now what?

you said prove it, there it is.
what are you going to do now?
say i made it up?
say they are wrong?
im sure you have some way to weasle out.

you know, at first i thought you guys might just be stubborn and maybe a bit arrogant.
now i see that its really deeper than that.
if you condem fencing you have to diminish any deer you or another person has taken from that operation.
but down deep you know that its got to be one way or the other.
if its wild then TX says its not the landowners deer. that makes it stolen property.
If its not wild its livestock and you didnt hunt it, you slaughtered it.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
A) who said anything about blocking escape?

B)What if it ran into your house and died of a heart attack? You are supposed to allow me to come into your house without permission to retrive my dog. I don't think so!

C) also, the dog clearly belongs to me. The live deer that jumped on to your property does not belong to the hunter, until until he "brings it to bag", the deer belongs to the state, remember?

D) bottom line, a property owner should not be forced to allow an uninvited guest onto his property.

Another issue that muddies the concept of public game on private property, is why should the landowner have to pay to feed the state's deer. If the state owns the deer, shouldn't the state compensate the landowner for the groceries that the deer eat?

If your dog runs into my house he will probably die of a gunshot wound. The law will be on my side. If he runs onto my yard or property you can call him off or go get him without legally tresspassing as you have no criminal intent.

Every time I have received an email from TPWD it had the name and position of who was replying under the message.

I guess for some reason it didn't show up on your email?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
no need to speculate or guess. In Texas, at least, it is very clear: The state owns the native wildlife and set the rules, while the landowner controls access to his property.

Exotic (non-native game, like hogs, sika, axis, etc) belong to the landowner.

KS: the above was the first post in response to your question on this thread. The answer hasn't changed:

1)The state owns the native wildlife,

2)the landowner controls access to his property.

3)The state writes rules on the management of native wildlife which the landowner has to comply with.

That's the way the system works. Your approval or disapproval of the system doesn't change much. And accusing of people (who are acting fully within the requirements of the law) of "theft" just shows your ignorance (in the true definition of the word)

quote:

Originally posted by rbrowntx:
Every time I have received an email from TPWD it had the name and position of who was replying under the message.

I guess for some reason it didn't show up on your email?

let me tell you something pardner, i dont know who the fuck raised you. but from were i come from if a man calls you a liar he can expect a rap on the mouth.
no you may have just been raised poorly, i dont know.
but i have a pretty good idea of what you little statement is impling and i dont care for your tone.
now, i copied that e-mail ver-fucking-batem from my message list. if you have a problem with your DNR agent not listing thier name thats between you and them.
i may have said some rude things on this thread but i have not called anyone a liar and i damn well am not gonna tolerate it from you.

The general public owns the wildlife species in Texas. It doesn't
belong to one individual, group, entity or agency.

-----Original Message-----
From: TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us
[mailto:TPWD.Web.Site@prodweb.tpwd.state.tx.us]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:17 AM
To: hunt
Subject: Web Site - E-MAIL REPLY REQUESTED - Hunting


*** E-mail reply requested!
*** Reply to: kstephens2355@charter.net

User was on this page:
/huntwild/index.phtml

Comment or Question:

who owns the deer in TX?
legally? does the landowner "own" it? does the state own it?
does the taxpayer own it?

=========================
SERVER INFORMATION
HTTP_HOST = www2.tpwd.state.tx.us
HTTP_REFERER =
https://www2.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/webcomment/?p=%252Fhuntw
ild%252Findex.phtml

HTTP_USER_AGENT = Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT
5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
REMOTE_ADDR = 68.119.36.194
QUERY_STRING = p=%2Fhuntwild%2Findex.phtml
REQUEST_URI =
/business/feedback/webcomment/index.phtml?p=%2Fhuntwild%2Findex.phtml

SCRIPT_NAME = /business/feedback/webcomment/index.phtml
=========================

There is sure a lot of "facts" being posted here. I did a bit of research and I did find this doesn't help a whole lot ( Lawyers again ) but here ya; go.

Is Texas Still an Open-Range State?

Not really, and assuming it is could cost you a bundle!

By Susan Wagner



"One of my cows got out and was hit by a car; am I liable?"

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association gets questions like that more frequently than you may think.

Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut answer. It depends on a complicated set of livestock laws that vary from county to county and even to different subdivisions within a county.

Open range in Texas is rapidly falling victim to exploding population. Between 1990 and 2000, state population increased by 22.76 percent (3,865,310 individuals), for a total of 20,851,820.

As most of these people moved into urban areas, the tendrils of city limits have spread into previously rural land. Farms and ranches have been subdivided and once quiet rural roads have become crowded with commuters.

These new Texas landowners are changing the results of local elections, including those on stock laws.



Texas range law
"Texas in general still uses open range law for its livestock," says Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. "Texas common law does not impose a duty on owners of domestic animals to prevent their animals from running at large."

However, "Chapter 143 of the Texas Agriculture Code* allows a county or portion of a county to decide by local option election whether to prohibit certain classes of livestock from running at large in the locality," Abbott explains.

"Separate subchapters provide for elections concerning cattle or domestic turkeys (subchapter D), ...and horses, mules, jacks, jennets, donkeys, hogs, sheep, or goats (subchapter B)."

The Agriculture Code prohibits certain counties from conducting countywide elections on running cattle at large. Those counties are Andrews, Coke, Culberson, Hardin, Hemphill, Hudspeth, Jasper, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kinney, LaSalle, Loving, Motley, Newton, Presidio, Roberts, Schleicher, Terry, Tyler, Wharton and Yoakum.



Local stock laws
It’s important for livestock owners to be familiar with the stock laws in their area. Each county clerk should have records, but finding them might be a problem.

"Results of local stock law elections are recorded in the minutes of the county commissioners court," says Judon Fambrough, attorney with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.

"There’s no index," he says incredulously. "A livestock owner might have to read through decades of minutes to find out if there are any local laws pertaining to his land. Part could be closed range and part could be open."

Fambrough thinks there should be a statewide standard for recording and indexing local stock laws in official records. He says deed records would be a logical place.

Whether livestock are in an open- or closed-range jurisdiction determines who has the responsibility for fencing and the potential for liability.

"In a closed-range jurisdiction, the cattlemen must fence in (enclose and restrain) their animals or face liability," Fambrough explains

"In an open-range jurisdiction, farmers and other landowners must exclude (fence out) the livestock. Cattlemen face no liability if their cattle are not properly excluded."

In either of these situations, liability depends on whether a fence is "sufficient" to restrain ordinary livestock permitted to run at large.



Fencing requirements
The Texas Agriculture Code specifically states that, "In order to be sufficient, a fence must be at least four feet high and comply with the following requirements:

"A barbed wire fence must consist of three wires on posts not more than 30 feet apart, with one or more stays between every two posts;

"A picket fence must consist of pickets that are not more than six inches apart;

"A board fence must consist of three boards not less than five inches wide and one-inch thick; and

"A rail fence must consist of four rails."

Texas also has different laws for different kinds of roads. The Agriculture Code states that it is unlawful for a livestock owner to knowingly permit livestock to roam unattended on a U.S. or Texas state highway. Numbered farm-to-market roads are specifically excluded, unless they are in an area covered by a local stock election law.

Violating these provisions is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. There is a separate offense for each day that an animal is permitted to roam.

Note the word, "knowingly;" it’s essential in determining criminal liability.

"The livestock owner must have actual knowledge that the livestock are not fenced in to be in violation of the Agriculture Code provisions," says Stephen M. Spitzer, an attorney with Cowles & Thompson in Tyler, Texas.

"The fact that the owner should have known that the livestock were out is insufficient to establish a violation. Actual knowledge is required because a criminal penalty is involved as opposed to a civil judgment."

However, there may be liability in a civil case for property damage and/or personal injury resulting from a motor vehicle collision with livestock. The determining factor is whether the owner has a duty to fence his livestock.



Supreme Court decision
The Texas Supreme Court is very clear on this subject. In their 1999 decision on Gibbs v. Jackson, the Court ruled that a livestock owner has no duty to fence his livestock unless such a duty is created by statute.

In their opinion the Court stated, "With its policy-making authority, the Legislature has considered fence and livestock restraint laws for virtually every type of roadway over which it has jurisdiction.

"It is noteworthy that the Legislature has specifically excluded farm-to-market roads from such regulation. We think it unwise in this instance for the Court to erect barriers that the Legislature has declined to impose."

The Court also deferred to the right of the citizens within a county to adopt local stock laws.

"Those citizens, who know far more about their roads and livestock than do we, apparently have deemed it unnecessary to adopt such a law for the road [in question]. We decline in this instance to impose upon them a duty which they have declined to self-impose."

So, a livestock owner might be liable for damages only if the accident occurred on a U.S. or Texas state highway or on a road covered by a local stock election law.



Reasonable actions
The question then becomes whether the actions of the livestock owner were reasonable under the circumstances, says attorney Steve Spitzer. Some things that might be considered in evaluating what is "reasonable" include:

When the fence in question was constructed;

The quality of materials used to construct the fence;

The steps taken by the livestock owner to periodically inspect, repair and maintain the fence;

The steps taken by the livestock owner to monitor his livestock to ensure that none had escaped.

Spitzer adds that in cases where livestock owners pasture their stock on land owned by others, the duty to control the livestock usually rests with the owner of the animal, not the owner of the land.

What about injury to the animal? If the livestock owner is not liable, can he collect damages from the driver of the vehicle?

Probably not. The Texas Agriculture Code specifically states that, "A person whose vehicle strikes, kills, injures or damages an unattended animal running at large on a highway is not liable for damages to the animal except as a finding of gross negligence in the operation of the vehicle or willful intent to strike, kill, injure or damage the animal."

Your best protection

So how can livestock owners minimize their liability? Your best protection is prevention:

Assume that your livestock are in a closed-range jurisdiction.

Inspect, repair and maintain fences on a regular basis.

Monitor livestock periodically to ensure that none has escaped.

*A link to the Texas Agriculture Code is posted on TSCRA’s Web Site at www.texascattleraisers.org. go to “Related Sitesâ€, click on “Government,†scroll down to “Texas Agriculture Laws.â€

So, as usual, there is some right and some wrong with most "facts" posted here.

Its just funny how that statement contradicts itself.

The general population (which is a group of people) owns the wildlife species in Texas.

It doesn't belong to one idividual, GROUP, entity or agency.

KSTEPHENS-

He never directly called you a liar. But you plainly called a number of ranchers "thieves."

Here is what you said:

quote:

he's keeping them behind a fence, thats theft.

I didn't realize you were qualified to be prosecutor, judge and jury...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
KSTEPHENS-
I didn't realize you were qualified to be prosecutor, judge and jury...

one need not be to see the simple truth that taking whats not yours is theft.

theft can be legal.
the govenment does it everyday. that doesnt make it not theft.

only someone who is so heavily vested into keeping it legal would see it as anything else.