Crown land is Govt' land

Thanks, I thought so but was surprised they are selling any.

They are not selling it they are leasing it for grazing purposes, usally for 20 year leases

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Templer:
They are not selling it they are leasing it for grazing purposes, usally for 20 year leases

Then I misinperpreted your earlier statement. Sorry.

Boy, you aint kiddin'! Those guys are definetly better funded than we are......thats why next June IdahoVandal is becoming WashingtonStateCougar........

IV

quote:

Originally posted by bill439:
Dungbettle, where in Pointe Coupee is there a high fence? must be a very small operation if one exist there. I guess that's where you hunted when in Louisiana behind the wire enclosure where you can kill them with a stick. I guess this would be your version of a hard hunt- just like the guy on tv this morning shooting blackbuck and sheep on some ranch in TEXAS. it was like shooting a bunch of dumb cows!!!!and the whole time he was talking about hunting???hey, if you want to fence in your property, raise deer, kill them and call it hunting, I guess your version of hunting is different than mine.

Hey, dipshit Willy, there are 3 in P.C. parish, 2 in W.Fel. and 3 more that I know of in southwest/south central Ms. These range from 640 acres to 2100 acres. But, put that aside for a moment, dumb ass.

I know this is asking a lot from your obviously limited mental resources to envision but - what you're talking about doing and are saying on the w.w.w. (world wide web), pure and simple, is destruction of another person's private property, criminal activity, get it? Yet you refer to yourself as a "hunter"? Yeah.

You couldn't stand on your mother's and father's shoulders and kiss a hunter's ass. Get on back to your trailer house with the tires on top and your spandex wearing, ole lady and 9 kids by 3 marriages and your pet vietnamese pig.

Tip for ya, Billy boy - FEMA is giving free meals at the trailer park there close to ya there in Baker town. Hell, you can probably even get one of those FEMA trailers, too and call it your 2nd home or "summer place" and live just like the rich folks do!!

Something tells me your little boney, cur dog ass will wind up in the newspapers listed under Court Records and most likely already has a few times.

DB

quote:

I seriously think that if you want a high fence around your property, and my high fence I mean one that can hold game including elk and moose. You should first have to get rid off all wild game on your property. As this wildlife is public property.

I shouldn't have to remove the state's deer from my property. Since the wildlife is public property before the state removes "it's" animals we need to have a little talk. Like what type of grazing fee's are they willing to cough up over the years when "their" animals were on my property. Then there is the supplemental feeding bill. Next we need to discuss the cost of feeders, bulk feed bins, feed trailers, tractors and equipment used for food plots. And last but not least a little compensation for the labor of love that keeps things going.

And by the way, why doesn't the state pay for the damage to your auto when one of "their" animals jumps out of the ditch and commits suicide? I look forward to the day when the only animals owned by the state are the ones on state property.

M16
You do have a way of cutting through the bull shit !

In Texas the Deer are not owned by the landowner. If A landowner wants, he can charge another person to hunt a deer on his land, fence or no fence. He may shoot a few himself, within the limits of the law and bag limits of the state.

There is no law that states how many deer he can have legally killed off his property. If he has 100 acres and can get 100 hunters to fill their tags with 300 deer, it is legal. Not a great idea, as anyone can see, but legal.

The State has entrusted the care of the Deer to the landowner. Do they require that he take care of it? No. Do they require that he has a management plan? No. Do they require anything, outside of obeying the hunting laws. No. Good or bad, the state allows the landowner to dictate what can be huted, as long as it is within the law.

Wildlife is a resource. As a landowner, it is a good idea to manage your resource the best possible way. For some it is a high fence. The state has given the landowner the opportunity to manage his resource the way he sees fit. He can abuse it (which some do) or he can cultivate it.

As others have pointed out, the fence can protect your investment from unethical hunting practices of your neighbors. A fence can manage your age structure and doe to buck ratio, thus improving your overall herd health.

The cost to fence 1000 acres would be roughly $100,000, depending on the terrain and the shape of the land. If anyone thinks that a landowner would spend $100,000 + on a fence and then abuse the wildlife resource, they are more than a little out of touch.

I fenced my ranch two years ago, mainly because I wanted to have a few exotics. When the fence was complete, there were some deer inside. Whitetail and Mule Deer. The state has entrusted me to take care of these animals. I will tell you, they are getting better care now than before the fence was built.

Deer that I would have shot in a heartbeat are now passed and observed to try to determine if they are 5.5 or 6.5 years old. Since I fenced the ranch we have only killed one Whitetail deer there. I do not anticipate shooting a Mule Deer in the next two years.

Because I have a fence, The deer, that the state has entrusted me to take care of, will live to a ripe old age. All the while eating the finest food Purina or HiPro, etc. can produce.

Now, if you personally have a problem hunting behind a game fence, then you should follow your heart and not do it. I respect hunters with any sort of reasonable ethics, even if they differ from mine. But don't knock the management benefits of a fence.

M16

Nobody asked you to feed them you did that on your own accord. If you wanted a feed plot knowing there was wildlife in your area and did nothing to protect it too bad. It still does not make those deer yours. You almost sound like one of the local ranchers up here who bitched about the elk getting into his hay stack and wanted compensation even when he did nothing to prevent them from getting to the hay. Any way I did not enter this conversation to start fight against landowners as most are really good and down to earth people. I don't know if you know much about Alberta or hunting in Alberta. So I will tell you a lttle story about up here, about what happens when Landowners and outfiftters get toghether.And before I start please don't assume that I am bashing landowners and outfitters. Here goes.

About 100km west of where I live there is a area called Kanaskis country it is a provincial recreation area where you are allowed to hunt. No motorized vechiles off the main road. It is aprox 200 000 acres in size. Just to the east of Kanaskis there are the foothills where there are alot of ranches. Alot of these ranches are made up of private land and grazing lease. Grazing lease is land that the owner leases from the goverment for stock grazing only and that stock must be out by a certain date. Now some of these ranches only own about 640 to 1280 acres and then about 4000+ acres of grazing lease. The goverment years ago put in road allowences aprox every one or two miles and had actually developed some of these right through to Kanaskis country or to the grazing lease. Now here comes the outfitter he is allocated a certain amount of licences to guide in Kanaskis country. So he talks to these ranchers. Holy crap the ranchers have put up locked gates across these roads denying publc access to Kanaskis. Now some of these roads do go through part of the private property but the road itself is goverment road. So we have an outfitter hiring the landowners sons to guide in K country and when the season opens in the ranchland which is ajacent to K country the outfitter can guide as many people as they want to. But locals cannot because there is a locked gate across the road. This is just an example of what is happening here and that is just with a five strand barb wire fence.

If you own private land I have no problem if you want to say no hunting it is your right. But if you want to High fence it and start up feed plots and have private hunting for your friends and charge people also no problem as long as you supply the animals that are going to live on your land. If I wanted to take up game farming I would have to buy the land then the animals to start it up.

Dark Templer
I didn't notice that you were from Canada. What we have are two very different situations. Texas is 97% private land. So nobody is restricting access to public land by high fencing. This land has been in private hands for over 150 years. Therefore my comment about the government paying for the grazing of "their" animals.

I have had the good fortune of hunting Crown land in British Columbia. It was quite a culture shock to be able to hunt almost anywhere you pleased as long it was in the outfitters concession since I was a non-resident. I agree with you in your situation that it is flat wrong for someone to block access to Crown land. This has been occuring in our western states where there are large amounts of public land.

I think we are in agreement. We just have diffent cultures and different situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Templer:
... if you want to High fence it and start up feed plots and have private hunting for your friends and charge people also no problem as long as you supply the animals that are going to live on your land.

What if it isn't high fenced? Should the landowner still supply the animals to be hunted?

Part of the benefit of owning private land, in almost all states, is that you get to utilize the resources of that land. Wildlife is one of the resources. Fenced or not, it is the option of the landowner how he manages this resource.

The wildlife resource is a factor in the pricing of land. Hill country land in central Texas is not selling for $1000-$4000/acre based on an agricultural use value. If that was the case, it would cost about $150-$200/acre.

Matter of fact, now, just about all land in Texas is priced according to the recreational value. The agricultural value is a secondary value.

The fallacy in your reasoning is that you believe a landowner who game fences his property is "stealing" deer from the public. A simplistic reasoning I suppose. But you must consider that a certain number of deer will live on the property, fenced or not. Is he stealing these deer?

If you have two properties one fenced and one unfenced. On each property, the deer density will start out the same, for all practical purposes. The unfenced property has the option, to grow food plots and attract deer from the neighbors property where he can utilize them as he sees fit. He can shoot them, have people pay to shoot them, whatever he wants. His choice. He has the ability to abuse the resource.

He has the ability to take more deer than the guy who fenced his property because he can attract deer from the surroiunding properties.

The hunting on fenced property has no impact on the local herd dynamics. Abuse it or manage it, it has no effect on the population outside the fence.

Ok, so when he fences it, he does secure a certain amount of deer, His "take" of deer is a one time deal. And it is probably no more than the amount of deer that usually live on the property anyway (for all practical purposes). This amount of deer are deer that were unavailable for you to shoot anyway, because it is privateland, and hunting is restricted. He does not effect the numbers of deer on the neighbors property, that density remains the same, for all practical purposes.

The unfenced landowner who grows foodplots can continually "borrow" deer from neighboring properties during hunting season to harvest. Thus impacting the number of animals available in surrounding areas.

I see people get upset because they believe the rancher has taken something that they believe to be public property. Not true.

It is a complex issue, one that will always have people divided. What I have noticed from reading opinions about this is that guys from the West are the ones who are more opposed to it. This may possibly be because of what they are used to. Hunting out West (or in Canada for residents) is a whole lot different than hunting in Texas. You have tons of public land and so many options of where to hunt that it is mind-boggling.

Texans are used to having to ask permission, or pay for permission to hunt.

As M16 pointed out, it is a difference of experience and culture.

I have already posted my thoughts about high fence killing so no need to gegurgitate it again, but if landowners fence off small populations of deer (and then mistakenly think they are having no effect on the deer outside of the fence) what are they basing that on? What about geneflow?

IV

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
I have already posted my thoughts about high fence killing so no need to gegurgitate it again, but if landowners fence off small populations of deer (and then mistakenly think they are having no effect on the deer outside of the fence) what are they basing that on? What about geneflow?

IV

If the population is 20 deer/sq mile in a particular county and a landowner fences one square mile of land, he would, theoretically, have 20 deer in his 640 acre enclosure. What then would the population be outside the fece. Wouldn't it still be 20 deer/sq mile?

"Geneflow" ???? what are you trying to do, turn this into a "matchking" thread.

Truth is, these deer do jump these fences. Watergaps go out, deer escape, deer come in. It is not a foolproof system. A fence will stop the majority of deer movement, but there will always be some "new blood" introduced occasionally.

Look at the hill country of Texas if you think fences are 100% secure. There is, literally, no telling what you might see in some of those counties. Fallow, Axis, Sika, Blackbuck and Aoudad are commonplace. These are "escapees" proving that there is flow.

Yes a fence will limit the gene flow. Any studies on how it effects the animals? (A serious question as I have seen one.)

Size of the property fenced would obviously be a factor as would the population inside when the fence is completed.

My Whitetail population is large and diverse enough that I am not too concerned about genetic diversity.

I will say I am a bit concerned about my Mule Deer. I did not consider the population large enough to provide great genetic diversity. It is not legal for me to "trap" more Mule Deer. It is possible to buy Mule Deer, which may be what I do just after I win the lottery. $$$ Pricey!

A fence has its benefits and its drawbacks, nobody in their right mind could dispute this. It is a good solution for some, and a legal and viable management option.

As with most things in life, it is a complex issue with no simple, clear-cut explination that will satisfy everyone.

Is mule deer sperm and artificial insemination that expensive? Or could ranchers get with Texas Fish and Game (or whatever authority) to gain permission to trap and swap mule deer bucks? (probably would be a bureaucratic nightmare It only takes 1 new grizzly per year to keep Fst levels acceptable in the GYE. Zoos do this with snow leopards, clouded leopards etc. to keep geneflow at acceptable levels.

I realize this is somewhat nitpicky but I suspect it is a criticism that may gain more attention in the future and those ranchers or proprty owners who are thinking about it may have a leg up...

IV

Hi Wendell,

No you should not have to supply aniamals if you are not using a high fence. Animals then can travel from no hunting or private hunting areas to public or permission granted areas and vise versa. I think most people here are in the hunting community and are mostly concerned about the wildlife we hunt and our ability to be able to hunt them. As the cities get bigger and the surrounding lands get subdivided there are alot more no hunting signs around. If everone high fenced there property there would be no way for game to move around. Animals couldn't get away from being hunted in the high fence they could not get out of the no hunting areas and they woud not be able to get into the no hunting areas when pressure built up. AS we all know there is alot more money in the no hunting community than in the hunting community. So what happens when well to do people who don't like hunting start buying up large land tracks or rich so called conservation groups say PETA for example start buying and high fencing. As we know money talks just look at this link http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2118480 .
It could easy happen down there as well.

I don't think lumping the animal rights groups into this argument (discussion?) has merit. Two different issues.

I would like to reiterate that this is a cultural divide more than an ethical one. I bet the anti-high fencers as a group have virtually no experience at this type of hunt and that is a shame. To argue from ignorance isn't much of an argument.

OTOH, free range hunting can be as easy or as hard as one wants to make it as well. Bottom line, there are various ways to enjoy the activity and we shouldn't be taking pot shots at each other because we let our political beliefs bleed into our sport.

That is what it amounts to; the political mindset that what's yours is mine too and the opposite that what's mine is mine and I'll make you a deal if you got cash. Capitalist leaning or socialist leaning. That's all this argument ever boils down to.

Having just returned from hunting whitetail in the great brush country of S. Texas, I report to you that high fencing is alive and flourishing in the "golden triange"! I thought five years ago or longer the great majority of miles of high fence was going up. NOT. Much more is going up as we speak than I have ever seen. If you are a landowner in S. Texas you are probably looking at some portion of your land being high fenced and if not today probably tomorrow. My personal thoughts are that the next generation of hunter will be able to take advantage of some cheap hunting as these fences become old, holy and run down. No way can prices continue to escalate and this deer farming is a long way from cheap. Also if you do not have a poaching problem just put up a high fence and you now have a poaching problem- why do children put their hand in a fire? Yeah, ya'll can talk the talk about the hurt you're going to put on the poachers but can you walk the walk? I hear that first night in prison is when you have to make the choice of being the husband or the wife! I know first hand that we have no trespass law in Texas especially in S. Texas so you can take it as worth what you paid for the advice. I know several owners of "high fence" ranches and not one of them has been able to enforce poaching and all of them have it and know who is responsible. Just my $0.02.

The only way to stop poaching is to get out at night and patrol your own property. Word gets around and poachers look for greener pastures. Like all else in life, you get out what you put in.

The last two we caught were on a property seldom hunted near Freer. We ended up calling the game warden before we went in after them (as we always do) and three of us went in including him. We caught both and one was a felon on parole and the other was a felon with existing felony warrants. Both were in possesion of rifles and the one with warrants happened to have a pistol under his shirt, too. No shots were fired but it wasn't fun. So yeah, I take it much more seriously than just the poaching offense and yeah, at night I treat it completely different than when I can see. And I doubt I'd be the one in jail if either of those yahoos had been inclined to fight back. OTOH, if that Warden had to go it alone who knows what would have happened?

It sound to me like your friends just made the conscious descision that fighting it wasn't worth the time, money or risk. That's their choice but don't say because they can't control it no one can.

IV,

Yes, that is the problem. It would be a nightmare to try to legally get permission to AI (artificially inseminate) a Mule Deer in captivity if you didn't have a scientific breeders permit.

Ok, so get a Breeders permit, right? Nope, that won't work either. If I got a breeders permit, I still can not AI any deer that I did not purchase. I can not AI any deer that were within the fence when it was completed. Very accurate records must be kept.

Dark,

I can see that we are speaking from a different standpoint. Like M16 said, we have different experiences and different situations. For all practical purposes, in Texas, there is no public hunting for deer. It is dang near all private, so the argument about fence and public hunting is not a concern or a viable argument here in Tx. Maybe elsewwhere it is. But I have seen that where there is a lot of public land (out west and Canada) there are very few high fences.

I can see your point though and in certain instances, maybe you are right. That reasoning is not valid in an area that is all privately owned.

tiggertate, very well said.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
I know first hand that we have no trespass law in Texas especially in S. Texas so you can take it as worth what you paid for the advice. I know several owners of "high fence" ranches and not one of them has been able to enforce poaching and all of them have it and know who is responsible. Just my $0.02.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. The laws of tresspassing and hunting on private land in Texas have gotten more severe in the past few years. If you are tresspassing on private property with a firearm, buddy, you are in trouble. If you shoot a deer on privateland without permission, it is a felony in Texas. Think about that ... a FELONY.

Sure, if you can't catch them, you can't convict them. That goes for any lawbreaker from a parking violation to a poacher to a murderer.

Most poachers do eventually get caught. It only takes once, and you are a fellon. No voting, no firearm ownership, a felony record to follow you forever.

Think about it.

Muygrande,

Maybe I misread your post. If you are saying it is difficult to enforce, then yes. I believe that is accurate. It is difficult to enforce. But there are laws on the books to take care of it if you are caught.

I missed that part about tresspass. Of course there are Tresspass laws here. Enforced, too. There is just the requirement that the land be posted. You have a much harder case to prosecute if you don't make a potential violator aware that you do not allow tresspassing by posting along your property line.


Again, a lot of folks are too cheap, lazy or just don't care enough to buy or make the signs.

Wendall, certainly you are correct! Sometimes facetious comments do not come clear on the "net". I was trying to say that very few trespass cases are ever taken to court and even less given jail time. Trust me, if you have a wetback hurt while trespassing across your ranch best you bring out YOUR checkbook!

I have feelings pro and con on this issue, but in Texas, the system works. On a larger scale, most of the ranches in South Africa, Namibia and some in Zim are fenced. The biggest was the Lemco area - 600,000 acres I believe.

I don't like the idea of fences, but it is reality and seems to take the pressure off game in the more open areas.

Tigger, as you are obviously aggressive about control on your property perhaps you can bring me up to date on the huge "bust" about five years back where your local law enforcement, Texas Rangers and TPWD wardens busted five to ten trespassers for illegally selling hunts for drugs, etc. To my knowledge not one of those were sent to jail or fined? These guys were wearing boots with soles made to leave the impression of cattle etc. Took many very nice trophy deer for their "clients".

I remember those guys and I never heard what happened to them afterward. I know the two I talked about are in the slammer. Obviously they lacked the clout big drug money can command. But that poaching operation was shut down on that ranch, right?

Those guys were taking about $10,000 and up per client as I recall and had a net tunnel from outside the fence to a complete camp under camo net inside whatever big ranch they were on. Complete with bunks and galley.

I don't think that's the typical poacher we're discussing here. And you can't do crap about the local JP who won't prosecute or fine all his cousins, uncles and kids.

That's why the ranching lobby was able to get the state laws changed to take the offense to to a higher level and away from the local JP (who probably poaches as much as anyone in town).

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I have feelings pro and con on this issue, but in Texas, the system works. On a larger scale, most of the ranches in South Africa, Namibia and some in Zim are fenced. The biggest was the Lemco area - 600,000 acres I believe.

I don't like the idea of fences, but it is reality and seems to take the pressure off game in the more open areas.

Somebody had a bunch of bucks to fence 600,000 acres; even with RSA labor rates!

What a difference being out west must really be! Here in Idaho, although it is reccomended (and respectful of course) that you secure permission first, but if non-agricultural land is not posted, you can hunt it without fear of being prosecuted for trespassing. Of course, a landowner can immediately ask you to exit but we just have so much land and so few hunters it seems to not be a problem.

I have seen a CO even go as far as to write a ticket to a landowner who refused access to claim a wounded animal. It was not as though granting access was going to cause any type of damage to the property (that would obviously be a valid reason) but the landowner was merely being "pissy". The CO agreed with the landowner (about refusing access to his land) and said more or less, "yeah, you don't have to grant this person acess to your land to claim the animal, but I am giving you (the landowner) a citation for wasting game...have a nice day."

I would imagine this only works because most people here are so friendly to hunters etc. We have access to private land that we don't have enough tags for-- so many landowners want deer, elk and turkeys pressured out of their areas that we can't help them all.....

Again, I wouldn't say I am against high fences, I just don't consider it hunting.

IV

I do not recall the ranch nor would I mention it on here but I believe it covered several large ranches in Webb/Duval. Concur with your assessment of the political climate in which we deal.

Just last week a "hill country" deer farmer was driving his country and found several of his "prizes" outside his high fence. On closer inspection found a 3X3 hole in his fence and sign of dragging. Once again no sale but high cost of goods poached. My comments simply go to the point of high fence oftentimes means an attractant problem with little gratification.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
I do not recall the ranch nor would I mention it on here but I believe it covered several large ranches in Webb/Duval. Concur with your assessment of the political climate in which we deal.

Operation Venado Macho. If you look it up you will find the names of the ranches.

Thanks Charles. Looks like some of my info is inflated. Local rumour mongering I guess.

quote:

Thanks Charles. Looks like some of my info is inflated.

Not so Tiggertate. You are correct. Here is the statute. The laws have been changed since Operation Venado Macho.

§ 61.022. TAKING WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHOUT CONSENT OF
LANDOWNER PROHIBITED. (a) No person may hunt or catch by any
means or method or possess a wildlife resource at any time and at
any place covered by this chapter unless the owner of the land or
water, or the owner's agent, consents.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a person who
violates Subsection (a) the first time commits an offense that is a
Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor and is punishable in
addition by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of
hunting and fishing licenses and permits.
(c) A person who violates Subsection (a) the first time by
killing a desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, or
white-tailed deer commits an offense that is a Parks and Wildlife
Code state jail felony and is punishable in addition by the
revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of hunting and
fishing licenses and permits.
(d) A second violation of Subsection (a) shall be classified
as one category higher than the first violation or a Parks and
Wildlife Code felony, whichever is lesser, and is punishable in
addition by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of
hunting and fishing licenses and permits.
(e) A third or subsequent violation of Subsection (a) shall
be classified as a Parks and Wildlife Code felony and is punishable
in addition by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015
of hunting and fishing licenses and permits.

I was talking about the fees the poachers were charging. Local scuttlebutt had it that some of the places they were hunting commanded some poaching fees higher than a lot of trophy ranches charge but some of the ranch pastures they were poaching were legendary places not open to outside hunting at any price.

Tiggertate,

The reason I brought that article in was to show ways anti hunters are trying and in some cases succeding in eliminating hunting. What I see with high fence hunting is that it sets a dangerous precident in our hunting future. If you give rights to one group such as hunters who want to hunt theese animals, you must also give the same rights to anti hunters. Like I said before money talks it only takes a couple of unfortunate circumstances and some of you landowners may have to sell. Or maybe someone down your line just dos't share the same interests in the family ranch and sells it to a anti group. It could happen just like that outfitter in that article and dont say never, as never is a long time. But if you make certain regulations for example you must remove the wild deer on your property and purchase deer maybe from a game farm to start your herd. I don't know but I suspect it would discourage groups such as Peta or genral anti from installing a high fence. Could you actually imangine if PETA brought a large tract of land and high fenced it how they would bugger up the deer herd in a short time.

Didn't the article state that the anti's could only prohobit non-resident hunting? That means you, as resident can still hunt "your" game. And it still needs a Federal ammendment to the licenses laws for them even to begin to ban non-residents.

We have similar situations in certain public lands that were set aside as parks like Yellow Stone.

One instance shouldn't be cause for alarm in a place as large as B.C., much less Canada as a whole. Hunting revenues are too important to have the pendulum swing that far to the antis. Don't panic yet.

Put differently, as long as they are willing to pay the concession fee like everyone else, who am I to say it's wrong if they want to organize a place for "photo safaris"? Wouldn't it be nice for non-hunters to go to a place where they can roam freely without worry about stray bullets flying around (bear with me here)?

As a free-market guy I think they should be able ,as long as they compete for it fairly in the martketplace. Besides, as their animal density becomes unsupportable on the natural feed, excess fauna will migrate to the shooting areas. And if it's fenced, the government biologists will force them to trap and release outside the enclosure or allow hunting anyway for management reasons.

Whitetail deer in Texas are more equal than other wildlife when it comes to state law and even to interpretation and enforcement of state law.

Over the past two decades, deer in Texas have been transformed from a simple natural resource into antlered currency. And although the letter of the law says deer, like all wildlife, are a public resource with no owner and can't be bought and sold like steers at an auction, reality is quite different.

Actually, the law reads: "no person may sell, offer for sale, purchase, offer to purchase, or possess after purchase a wild bird, game bird, or game animal, dead or alive, or part of the bird or animal."

It would seem logical that charging a hunter a fee based on the Boone and Crockett Club score of the antlers on a buck the hunter shoots, a common practice in Texas, is no different than offering to sell a field-dressed doe for $1 a pound. But don't expect game wardens to be issuing citations to the operators of the businesses selling deer by the antler inch.

In Texas, WT bucks and many of the people marketing them are, it seems, a little more equal than the rest of us.

Like someone else said, writing laws that accomodate a public resource on private land is bound to be controversial. OTOH, no one has told you that you can't hunt by the inch on those same ranches either; that is your prioritization of your hunting ethic and relative income. So the inequality is self-imposed in that regard.

IMHO, looking for potential preys inside areas sorrounded by high wire is more alike shooting than hunting in its pure sense ... sadly it appears that it would be the only way to exercise our instincts in the future ....

True but if start with my basic rule to live by ("life sucks and then you die") it takes more than something like that to get you down.