Gatogordo and everyone else in this discussion, I apologise.

Getting into a pissing contest because 2 people in different parts of the state, seeing different effects of these programs is not helping anything.

I could go thru and try to pick apart the last response, but it is not worth it, too much of what I said was taken way out of context.

We each have our own opinion about the state of white tail deer hunting in Texas, and the roll TTHA has played in getting things to this point.

Regardless of what Gatogordo thinks of my comments or opinions the following facts do remain, and they are not Bull Shit!

1. The deer herd in Texas is not stable, it is increasing annually.

2. TP&W is managing the herd at the whims of the desires of a certain segment of the hunting population.

3. Dr. Kroll did make the statement about the AR's being implemented to produce trophies and he made it in the Texas Trophy Hunters magazine.

4. Regardless of the helicopter surveys and spotlight surveys, TP&W can not and is not enforcing nor do they have anyway at present of forcing hunters to kill all of the deer they have tags for.

I know of many hunters and many lease managers across various parts of Texas that can not get their hunters to shoot all the does that need to be taken to keep the numbers down on their leases.

It is really easy for someone to set back and cry Bull Shit especially when they have not experienced the same things some one else has.

All parts of the state are different and have different conditions and requirements for the amount of available habitat for deer.

Over too many areas that I am familiar with, deer numbers are way above the carrying capacity of the habitat, and thru supplemental feeding are increasing annually, while the number of deer being killed in those areas is decreasing annually thru the selective shooting of only trophy bucks and not thinning the doe and spike numbers.

Those are actual facts that I have observed myself, first hand in a 4 county area of north Texas over the past 5 years.

TTHA may have been a great organization at the start, but its message and goals went sideways somewhere.

TP&W allowed itself to be manipulated, in the hopes of making Texas the "Go To" state for big deer, just the same way it did concerning Large Mouth Black Bass.

The average hunter in Texas has suffered because of it.

Because of the economy, because of lack of Public Hunting opportunities, because of AR's, Texas is seeing an annual decline in the number of Resident hunters/hunting license sales, but there is a steadily increasing number of the sales of Non-Resident Hunting license annually.

That one is pretty simple math, a Non-Resident license is $315.00 while a Resident Super-Combo is almost $70.00.

The state can lose the sale of 4 resident Super Combo licenses, sell 1 Non-Resident licenses and come out $35.00 ahead, and that is what is happening.

This is an issue that can be hashed-rehashed and it is still

Some folks are gonna look at things one way, other folks will see it another, but it is a fact, there will never be a consensus as to what needs to be done and to the roll each group be it TTHA or TP&W played in getting things to the way they are now.

I am all for property rights and I have no problem paying for hunting access on private property. But once a rancher builds a deer proof around his ranch all the deer inside that deer proof fence become his. They're in effect no longer the property of the state. Deer should be free ranging just like other wildlife. When the high fence craze first started some of the high fencers were using helicopters to herd deer off the adjoining ranches and onto their ranch before they completed the high fence. A lawsuit stopped the practice by basically saying that the rancher owned the air space above his ranch and the helicopter was trespassing. I hope this thread goes on for awhile because I think it's a very interesting discussion. I don't see any reason for sarcasm and BS flags just because you don't agree with someone. I do know that TPWD is very supportive of high fences and deer management. I don't think that there's been a lawsuit filed yet to stop the capturing of deer that are supposed to be state property. If I win the Lottery maybe I'll file suit againt the state for allowing this to go on.

quote:

Originally posted by Silverado:
I am all for property rights and I have no problem paying for hunting access on private property...... If I win the Lottery maybe I'll file suit againt the state for allowing this to go on.

I see a clear internal contradiction there.

If you think it is wrong for a landowner to put a fence around his property because it restricts the movement of wildlife. Is it also wrong for a farmer to put a fence around his field to protect his crop from the state's wildlife? Or perhaps the state should pay him for the damage that the state's deer do to his crop? Or perhaps the state should compensate landowners for the browse that the state's deer eat on his property. Or if a landowner didn't care to have any of the state's deer on his property, perhaps the state should be required to pay for moving them and installing a fence to keep them off his property in the future?

I know it can get convoluted...just food for thought.

BTW have you ever found a basis for your assertion that it is illegal for a landowner to put a fence up around his property?

Well, I'm not from Texas.

Here we have the deer being seen as a public possession. Every year we get a news story about some yokel grabbing deer and driving them down to Texas (or where ever folks are buying them...)

I would ask though, to all of the free range guys- If I own my own land, and am willing to let someone on to hunt, with the caveat of only shooting a doe or a mature deer, what do I do when someone snipes the "big" 2 year old deer?

I can't turn them in to our DNR- I did let them hunt on my land (and MN's trespass laws are a joke). I can not let them back, but how does that stop the behavior? At this point, I just post it, and don't let anyone else there, but they sit on the borders and shoot deer on my land and then "legally" follow up their wounded deer and take it out.

I prefer no fencing, but at some point I may high fence just because of these "hunters".

[quote]I don't see any reason for sarcasm and BS flags just because you don't agree with someone.[quote]

Even though I am guilty as hell of doing it, I agree.

Conditions are not the same all over the state, regardless of what anyone thinks.

One of the conditions as far as I know, and I could be completely wrong on this, but, from what I have been told, when a landowner installs a high fence, they are supposed to try and remove all the native deer from the property.

Again, I could be wrong about that, but I believe it is one of the requirements for the higher level MLD permits, if a high fence is installed.

I support land owners rights completely, and on many things I support the work of TP&W.

In the case of deer hunting however, I feel that TP&W caved in to the desires of a very vocal group that were/are interested in Trophy bucks only.

At the same time, I hold the rest of the "Average" hunters in Texas just as guilty, because they had the same right to go to the Public meetings s held by TP&W and express their thoughts on the proposals, before they were instituted, And They Did Not Do It!

My main contention is that TP&W, even with some of the best deer management biologist around in their employ, do not have real time information as to the make up of the deer herd over the majority of the state.

Basically all of the people who have posited the view that the state "owns" the wildlife are wrong. The state, nor the Federal government, nor the landowner "own" the native wildlife on it's property or within it's borders like we "own" a car, for example. It is a convenient "legal" fiction that allows both the state and the Federal Government to regulate wildlife for the common good. In fact, it is quite possible that the getting to be excessive differences in the costs that State charge residents and non-residents for hunting licenses, especially for licensees hunting wildlife on Federal lands within a state's borders, may be subject to a successful legal challenge if someone has the time and money to structure a case correctly and bring it the Supreme Court level.

I'm not going to try to recreate the whole of some very interesting reading that I will give you a link to, but just for those who can't read very successfully, I will quote part of one of the latest in a long string of Supreme Court decisions on this matter in the case of Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. 1977......

quote:

..."it is pure fantasy to talk of 'owning' wild fish, birds, or animals........The 'ownership' language of cases such as (Geer and its predecessors)must be understood as no more than a 19th-century legal fiction expressing 'the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource."

This is a great link to a book, "The Evolution of National Wildlife Law" by M. J. Bean, M. J. Rowland, et al which should give you a solid understanding of the priciples involved.

Book

quote:

In fact, it is quite possible that the getting to be excessive differences in the costs that State charge residents and non-residents for hunting licenses, especially for licensees hunting wildlife on Federal lands within a state's borders, may be subject to a successful legal challenge if someone has the time and money to structure a case correctly and bring it the Supreme Court level.

Doubt such a suit would go anywhere, given the recent results of the USO vs. AZ case a couple years ago. It challeneged the 10% NR cap on permits. The state court initially ruled in favor of AZGFD, but the 9th Circuit Court overruled that decision, remanding it back to the state court to remove the cap. AGFD appeaed to SCOTUS but they refused to hear it.

As a result, we got this instead, and I'm guessing the same law would apply to the above.

Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 339 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

(See this link http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.339: )



History behind the legislation:

Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce by Article I of the Constitution. This power to regulate has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to also give Congress the power to regulate activities which negatively impact interstate commerce, commonly referred to as the “negative” or “dormant Commerce Clause.”

The Court has cited the dormant Commerce Clause when denying the states the power to unjustifiably discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. If a state regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then the subject matter of the state regulation, which could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, becomes subject to the dormant Commerce Clause.

Congress does have the power to specifically exempt a state regulated activity from the dormant Commerce Clause. In 1890, when the Supreme Court decided that the regulation of alcoholic beverages lay beyond the reach of the states, Congress promptly overrode that decision with the Webb-Kenyon Act. Thereafter, the Court upheld Congress’ authority to commit the regulation of liquor imports to state authority.

Motivation for legislation:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state’s wildlife regulatory authority.

What the Bill Would Do:

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.
Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

******

This is the final wording passed by both houses of Congress and signed by Bush:

RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS

SEC. 6036. STATE REGULATION OF RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND FISHING. (a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.

(b) Declaration of Policy and Construction of Congressional Silence-

(1) IN GENERAL- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.

(2) CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

(c) Limitations- Nothing in this section shall be construed--

(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;

(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or

(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

(d) State Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Sorry, dupe!

sorry, dupe!

quote:

At the same time, I hold the rest of the "Average" hunters in Texas just as guilty, because they had the same right to go to the Public meetings s held by TP&W and express their thoughts on the proposals, before they were instituted, And They Did Not Do It!

I went to three of those meetings in our area, and they were very well attended and, after an explantion of the benefits and the results of the first counties who had what you call the antler restriction law, the support for it was overwhelmingly in favor, AS IS THE SUPPORT for it today. It is a fine example of managing the deer herd.

I'll certainly agree with one of your earlier observations that not enough does are shot, especially in certain parts of the hill country, but in general in much of the state, but that is not the fault of the TPW, they can't make ignorant people change their views. One way, which would be politically unacceptable, would be to require a doe or two be killed BEFORE the hunter could shoot a buck but that would go over like the turd in the punchbowl.

Finally you are blaming, whether you agree with the current laws or not, the TPW for "caving in" when, in fact, it is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission which actually sets the laws and policies. Of course, they usually but not always, go along with the TPW recommendations. Theoretically, and I stress theoretically, since all bureaucrats are politicians, the TPW is not political, whereas the TPW Comm. is composed of political appointees, who, as we all know, are often subject to political whim.

Tony:

I believe you're wrong and you're definitely wrong if you think the Feds can't abrogate state law on Federal lands if they so choose, read the first 35 pages of the above book and you'll probably see what I'm talking about. It basically boils down to unfair treatment under the 14th amendment, which says in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The law you cite is just that, a law, subject to Constitutional challenges.

Like I said, read the first 35 pages or so of the above linked book and I believe you'll see what I'm referring to.

I do agree that it the commissions fault, not the rank and file TP&W employees, as all of those folks that I know and have met, do not really agree with a lot of what comes out of Austin.

One way, which would be politically unacceptable, would be to require a doe or two be killed BEFORE the hunter could shoot a buck but that would go over like the turd in the punchbowl.

In some states, I believe one or both of the Dakotas, that is a regulation, called "Earn A Buck", and a hunter has to check in 2 does before being issued a buck tag or something along those lines.

Unlike the meeting you attended, meetings in other areas of the state were not well attended, and if you will notice my reference, you will see that most of those attending, were people that were in favor of the AR's, again, the average hunters did not attend, they were happy with things as they were and did not fully realize the impact of their non-involvement.

In my opinion, the main culprit in regards to the problems with deer management in Texas, is the hunting public.

This is not a fight between me and you Gatogordo, in my opinion, this is a situation where the management of a resource is being carried out without really addressing the concerns of all interested parties, and devising management practices that realistically address the situation of increasing deer numbers and decreasing hunter numbers and opportunities to hunt.

As I have stated, I have no problem with what another person wants to kill, until they pass legislation which, while possibly good intentioned, allows inferior animals to remain in the herd passing along those inferior genetics.

This is all just my opinion, not meaning or trying to offend you or anyone else.

quote:

As I have stated, I have no problem with what another person wants to kill, until they pass legislation which, while possibly good intentioned, allows inferior animals to remain in the herd passing along those inferior genetics.

This is where you are completely misunderstanding the AR restriction laws. They do NOT allow inferior animals to remain in the herd, indeed they do just the opposite by encouraging the shooting of spikes and does. Many hunters I know do shoot two spikes instead of a larger buck and a spike. The instances of an "inferior" buck not reaching the legally required 13 inch inside spread are EXTREMELY uncommon. It does occur but very rarely and is insignificant in relation to the total deer herd or annual kill. Whether landowners, hunters, etc want to take spikes or bucks with less desirable antlers is NOT a function of the TPW regulations but of hunter/landowner choice as it always has been when someone chooses to pass on a buck, for whatever reasons. Many leases allow and encourage the hunters to shoot "management" bucks as well as a trophy buck for this exact reason, but, of course, some of the "management bucks" in South Texas are damn fine trophies anywhere else, like 150-160 8 points for example.

In fact, the "old" law, which you seem to be in favor of, was much worse, you could only shoot one buck and that was VERY rarely a spike or a poorly antlered deer IF the hunters were on a ranch where they had the luxury of seeing many bucks.

quote:

they were happy with things as they were and did not fully realize the impact of their non-involvement.

and, of course, they still are "happy with things as they are". The polls of hunters in the AR counties are overwhelmingly in favor of the new regulations. Why would a hunter not be, he can do everything he could do, but more. I truly don't understand your objection to it, unless you like to shoot young bucks with good antler potential before they mature?

quote:

The instances of an "inferior" buck not reaching the legally required 13 inch inside spread are EXTREMELY uncommon.[/quote]

Maybe where you hunt, but not in the areas I am familiar with, in fact it is quite common.


[quote]In fact, the "old" law, which you seem to be in favor of, was much worse, you could only shoot one buck and that was rarely a spike of poorly antlered deer IF the hunters were on a ranch where they had the luxury of seeing many bucks.

Again, you misinterpret what I am saying, I am not in favor of the old law, as from experience, the areas I am familiar with can with stand the taking if two bucks of any size.

I am in favor of allowing hunters, the possibility of going out and killing a deer, any deer, which is allowed in many counties, versus the regulations whereby hunters chances of shooting A deer are diminished due to regulations that are designed to manage only one segment of the herd as regularions now stand.

As I keep saying, conditions are different all over the state.

A "One Size-Fits All" set of regulations does not work.

I ser in stands this year, probably as much or more than you, and watched folks turn down mature bucks, simply because they were not classic main frame 8's or 10's with symetric racks.

Some of these bucks were not legal due to the AR's, even though they were mature, and some of them just did not meet the "Hunter's" criteia.

You, me, nor TP&W can change hunters attitudes or force them to shoot animals they do not want to shoot.

The problem, at least in the area I am familiar with, is that those bucks are being left in the herd and breeding does.

Have you ever hunted or have any experience with the deer herd in the Young/Archer/Baylor or Throckmorton county area?

Do you even know where the area I am talking about is?

I do not know here you are from, but I am willing to say with some certainty, that I have probably never hunted there, so am unfamiliar with how things are in that area.

But I grew up in the counties I am talking about and have observed what has changed in regards to deer numbers and where they have expanded into for at least 40 years.

Can you, tell me with all certainty that I am completely wrong in my observations?

Well, since you don't like the "old" law and you don't like the "new" law, what's your preferred variety of regulation? Criticism is easy, tell me how you'd fix it.

BTW, it doesn't matter, but it is extremely unlikely you set in deer stands more than I did this season, I'm still "setting" and have been since Oct 3. I'm a Level 3 ML ranch and have been for about 12 years or so. The AR restrictions don't apply to my ranch for that reason, but, of course, I would never shoot or, by choice, allow a deer anywhere near 13 inches inside to be shot on my place. It has happened by a kid or two, but not with my approval. Now if I could only get a sat link to a computer, I might just go live in a deer stand (of course I'd have to do some remodeling)......

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Tony:

I believe you're wrong and you're definitely wrong if you think the Feds can't abrogate state law on Federal lands if they so choose, read the first 35 pages of the above book and you'll probably see what I'm talking about. It basically boils down to unfair treatment under the 14th amendment, which says in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The law you cite is just that, a law, subject to Constitutional challenges.

Like I said, read the first 35 pages or so of the above linked book and I believe you'll see what I'm referring to.

In the 1980s, They tried using the EPA to find the requirement for a NR to have a guide in federal wilderness areas in WY as unconstitutional. It was shot down because the STATE -- not the Feds -- control the wildlife. The law I cited -- passed 20 years later --further confirms that status.

The case wrap-up:

http://wyomcases.courts.state....nt.asp?CiteID=121527

I'll say what I've always said to people who bitch about AR's. If you have land and/or a lease in an AR county, and you don't like the AR's.....enlist your property in the MLD program and get to MLD Level III. When you get to level III, the antler regulations no longer apply.

I really don't see the problem here. I think the AR's are okay. I mean, they're not perfect, but they are better than rednecks in East Texas (which is unfortunately my part of the world) shooting a 1.5 year old 6 pointer for their "trophy buck". I really wish there was some way to change the AR's so they only allowed the taking of mature bucks (4.5 yrs and up) but unfortunately there would be no way to enforce this. If there was, the AR's would be damn near perfect.

I hate hearing about "Bubba" shooting that 1.5 year old 6 pointer because "he's a meat hunter and doesn't care about horns". Well if you're a meat hunter and don't care about horns.....don't shoot ANY buck.....SHOOT A DOE. No buck should ever be shot before 2.5 years old.....and only horribly obvious cull bucks should be shot between ages 2.5 and 4.5. In a perfect world, everyone would shoot enough does, and not shoot any good buck unless he was at least 5.5 years old. If everybody would follow those two rules, there would be no need for the AR's.....but we have them, and it's because of hunters with no self-control.

If you're a "meat only" hunter, you should only shoot does. If you're a trophy hunter, like myself, you should concentrate on managing the herd as a whole, because the by-product of a properly managed deer herd is.....guess what.....TROPHY DEER.

quote:

In the 1980s, They tried using the EPA to find the requirement for a NR to have a guide in federal wilderness areas in WY as unconstitutional. It was shot down because the STATE -- not the Feds -- control the wildlife. The law I cited -- passed 20 years later --further confirms that status.

The case wrap-up:

It was tested again in either the late 90's or early 2000. By a lawyer from Florida, who was born and raised in Wyoming. Go figure. I don't really agree with that law myself, it is designed to employ outfitters and nothing else. You can fish, horse back ride, backpack, hike, run naked, but you can't hunt in a wilderness area without a guide or resident accompanying you.

quote:

BTW, it doesn't matter, but it is extremely unlikely you set in deer stands more than I did this season, I'm still "setting" and have been since Oct 3. I'm a Level 3 ML ranch and have been for about 12 years or so. The AR restrictions don't apply to my ranch for that reason, but, of course, I would never shoot or, by choice, allow a deer anywhere near 13 inches inside to be shot on my place. It has happened by a kid or two, but not with my approval. Now if I could only get a sat link to a computer, I might just go live in a deer stand (of course I'd have to do some remodeling)......

I concede the point, but with that information, that is why we are having such a problem in our outlooks/opinions on this matter.

Everything I am describing is happening on properties where the difference of about 10 miles or less determines whether you can kill any buck and whether you have to abide by the 13 inch rule.

See, you are the one sertting the rules on your property, but the AR's are setting the rules for everyone in a given area, sort of like the rain falling on the just and the unjust alike.

As for how I would fix it, I would first off explore the concept we discussed earlier of earning a buck, but as you so aptly pointed out, that would go over like a turd in a well.

I am also in favor of a mandatory check in,of all deer killed, but again, that is as popular as a truck load of dead babies on Mothers Day.

My idea, is that there is no single "Blanket" regulation that will work state wide.

You have enough land, and a workable idea as to what needs to be done, that you dictate what goes on, as long as it is within TP&W guidelines.

It works for you, and probably quite well.

My concerns lie with the folks that have the smaller, less than 500 acre or even less than 250 acre places, that have no resident deer on them, and because of personalities or whatever reasins can not or will not join forces with their neighbors in managing the resource.

I envy you in some ways, but in others, I wonder how much damage you may be doing to your property.

Even the best biologists allow thenselves a window when guessing the age of a deer on the hoof.

Is your property high fenced?

If not how do you really know how old a certain deer is?

Unless you have discovered a better method, the only way that I know to accurately age a deer is to have one of its front teeth cross sectioned at a lab.

How often have you done that?

And that information comes from a 3300 acre high fence level 3 MLD deer hunting and breeding facility that I have worked at.

I ain't getting back into a pissing contest with you.

Your opinions are based on how things affect you or work for you in the area where your property is located.

Mine are based on the areas I anm familiar with and the stuff I am experienced with.

Neither are 100% right or 100% wrong.

No buck should ever be shot before 2.5 years old.....and only horribly obvious cull bucks should be shot between ages 2.5 and 4.5.

So you believe that EVERY buck walking around out there has the potential to reach the Lucky Number 13?

Don't know about your experience level, but from mine, it don't work that way.

An inferior buck, is an inferior buck regardless of his age.

add to that the fact that no matter the quality of a bucks genetics, if he can not get enough food in him, his ahtlers will not reach their potential.

I am open for anyone to prove me wrong on that point.

Age does not matter if a buck can not get enough to eat, antler growth is tied directly to protein intake, and the supplemental feeding of protein pellets will not help one thing if the buck is not getting enough food.

That extra protein only goes toward antler growth, AFTER, all other bodily physiological needs are met.

If you are a True Trophy hunter as you state, then I salute you.

But if, as many I have seen over the past couple of years, your idea of Trophy management is only shooting trophies, then you are not managing the herd, you are only managing one segement of the herd and that in the long run is self defeating.

Crazyhorse,

Don't take this the wrong way, I've always enjoyed your posts and think of you as one of the more level headed fellas on the forum. I like the fact that a lengthy discussion is occurring without name calling and the rest of that BS that occurs in most of the arguments. But anyways.....back to what I was saying. I know I speak for myself (but probably for Gatogordo as well) when I say that aging a deer to be a specific age can be challenging. HOWEVER, if you know what you're doing, it should not be hard at all to classify a deer as young (0 - 2.5), middle aged (3.5 - 4.5), or mature/old (5.5+). In my experience, it is blatantly obvious when a deer is 5.5 years old or older. They are very easy to pick out when you see them, which is not very often, unless you are on a well managed property.

The proper age structuring of a herd is the main reason I am a big supporter of high fences. I know you don't have anything against them, but many here do.....and to them I say this. High fences are a tool, nothing more. A tool (such as a hammer or a gun) can be used the right way or the wrong way. To say hammers are bad, because some dude went crazy and cracked someone's skull open with one, is completely ignorant and doesn't take into account the way hammers were intended for, at all. Of course there will always be a small minority of the human population that abuses a tool, but we should never base decisions on such a small segment. The vast majority of high fenced property is only high fenced to better manage the wildlife AND the habitat.....or in other words, the ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM. Having a high fence is the only way a landowner, who cares about his/her ecosystem, can have control over how it gets taken care of.

Okay I'm done rambling.....for now at least. haha.

ES,

be careful about speaking for CAT, you might get scratched.
GWB

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

If you are a True Trophy hunter as you state, then I salute you.

But if, as many I have seen over the past couple of years, your idea of Trophy management is only shooting trophies, then you are not managing the herd, you are only managing one segement of the herd and that in the long run is self defeating.

Yes sir, I do consider myself a true trophy hunter, one that is concerned with managing the ENTIRE deer herd. I actually haven't shot a buck in 4 years....but I've shot numerous does. I haven't had many opportunities for hunting in the past few years, but I will always take a doe instead of a buck if I'm looking for meat.

Also, in regard to your question about a buck making it to the magic number 13.....

I don't consider the magic number 13 to mean anything, other than a "line in the sand" for TPWD to base their buck harvests off of. I personally don't mind a heavy horned, 5.5 year old buck that's only 12 inches wide. To me, inferior genetics are only displayed thru either abnormally uneven racks or bad traits such as missing brow tines, very short tines, etc.... Width is a preference, not the determining factor for whether or not a deer has inferior genetics. I've seen pictures of many 150"+ bucks that were under 13 inches wide. I'd be proud to put them on my wall. Width is also a regional thing.....the average 5.5 year old deer in South Texas tends to have a rack several inches wider than the average 5.5 year old deer in East Texas. That's just how it is.....now whether or not that has anything to do with the management being practiced (or not being practiced) is unknown to anybody. There are theories, but nobody really knows for sure. I had a professor in a wildlife management class tell us (the class) that he believed deer in East Texas evolved narrower racks over time to allow them to move thru the timber more easily. I think it's kind of a goofy proposition, but who knows??.....I don't. He could be right for all I know.

Notice one thing ES, you have done the same as the best biologists I have talked to around the state.

Deer "X", is at least this old(3.5), but maybe older(4.5), but no older than (5.5).

Just like TP&W's best biologist and even Dr. Deer, James Kroll, you are giving yourself, and I do it also, a 2 season window on the age of the animal you are looking at.

But the only way anyone can tell for sure as to how accurate their guess is, is when the deer is on the ground.

Even then, the individual health and diet of the animal can scew the outcome, a healthy 4.5 might look better/younger than a sickly 3.5, or vice versa.

Again, my gripe if there is one, and as I have said elsewhere, I don't shoot bucks of any size or age, is the fact that these regulations, the AR's are not a blanket "One Size Fits All" cure for the problems that are going on across the state.

Neither myself or anyone else involved ibn this discussion has a solution that will be 100% palatable to the hunters of this state.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Again, my gripe if there is one, and as I have said elsewhere, I don't shoot bucks of any size or age, is the fact that these regulations, the AR's are not a blanket "One Size Fits All" cure for the problems that are going on across the state.

Neither myself or anyone else involved ibn this discussion has a solution that will be 100% palatable to the hunters of this state.

I agree with you. Not only are AR's not a "one size fits all" cure, but a "one size fits all" cure does not even exist. Like I said earlier, I think they are okay, but they damn sure aren't perfect (is any govt. run program perfect?? lol). The only reason I think the AR's are okay is because landowners/leasors have the option to put their land/lease into the MLD program if they are serious about managing their herd. In my opinion.....any landowner that has a sizeable piece of land in an AR county, and wants to manage his deer herd correctly, should absolutely enlist in the MLD program. If he doesn't, I think he is foolish. Once in the MLD program, you and the biologist can customize a management plan for your piece of property with the issuance of permits for does, management/cull bucks, and trophy bucks. It all depends on your goals as a landowner/leasor/hunter.

quote:

.....any landowner that has a sizeable piece of land in an AR county, and wants to manage his deer herd correctly, should absolutely enlist in the MLD program. If he doesn't, I think he is foolish. Once in the MLD program, you and the biologist can customize a management plan for your piece of property with the issuance of permits for does, management/cull bucks, and trophy bucks. It all depends on your goals as a landowner/leasor/hunter.

That is a statement I can agree with and drink to.

Have I missed it or did CHC give a workable deer hunting scenario/regulation that he likes? The "shoot a doe" first ain't going to work, and he should know it. If that is all you've got, then silence would be preferable.

To answer your question, no, my property is not high fenced, it's barely fenced at all.

You wrote: "See, you are the one sertting the rules on your property, but the AR's are setting the rules for everyone in a given area, sort of like the rain falling on the just and the unjust alike."

Well, no shit, but my "rules" are much stricter than the AR restriction rules that you are railing against, so your point is.....

Just to be clear, my "rule" is if it ain't good enough for you to mount (which I qualify as 17 inches inside more or less MINIMUM), then don't shoot it unless it is a long horned spike or some poorly structered rack, like a big 6 with no brow tines, for example.

Finally, to repeat, you have given me NOTHING that is a workable deer hunting reg for ANY PART of Texas to replace what is in place. Is that the best you can do, bitch about what's in place?

Tony:

I'm not going to argue the point with you, but I will categorically state that a Wyo SC decision is a fly on horse's butt compared to the horse of the SCOTUS. Finally, if you'll carefully read pages 20 and 21, give or take of the link I provided, you'll see my point, I believe. I'm not saying I'm right, but I guarantee you that I'm closer to right than the "it can't happen" group. I don't care, I'm not going to pay those "fuck the non-resident fees" anyway anymore, and for the record, I think Texas's non-resident hunting license fees are an example thereof, but there is almost no Federal land/game to throw into the mix in Texas, especially compared to the 50% or more of most Western states that is Federal (read OUR, the citizens of the US, not just the citizens of that state) land.

Okay, Gatogordo, let me try this one more time.

There Is NO Workable State Wide "One Size Fits All" Management Program That 100% Of The Hunters In Texas Will Like.

I have been saying that all the way thru this discussion.

Ask TP&W, they will tell you or anyone else that asks the same thing.

Your restrictions are not any better, because not everyone wants to have a deer mounted no matter how big it is.

You, me, nor TP&W can force anyone to follow the rules if they don't want to.

The problem that is going to surface after the AR's have been in place for 10 to 12 years in an area, is going to be the same one that was in effect when the AR's were first instituted, there will be no BIG mature deer in the area.

There will be mature bucks, but not the size or types of trophies the AR's are meant to produce.

On MLD properties the hunters are controlled somewhat better, but just putting a county under the AR's and telling folks to deal with it, is just not accommplishing what it was intended to do.

The only way ANY management plan will work in Texas, is for TP&W to implement a Mandatory Check In Program for ALL deer killed during the seasons, STATEWIDE, And That Will Never Happen.

In the 4 county area I am familiar with, there are ranches that straddle the county lines, part of the property in the county with the AR's, the rest of the place, in the county with out the AR's.

Now depending on the gate the person goes out of, they don't have to follow the AR's if thry don't want to.

While a neighboring property that borders, but does not cross over the county line, has to or is supposed to abide by the AR's.

To me that does not represent sound, scientific management, maybe it does to some folks.

I don't know how to state it any plainer.

No matter what plan TP&W puts in place, someone is not going to like it.

Just like on a large part of the places my friend manages in Archer county, he and his partner have a management plan in place, and most of their hunters abide by that plan, until it comes time to shoot does, and over the past few years not enough does are being taken out, same with spikes.

I was in on the killing of 2 spikes during the Late General Season, both were between 2.5 and 3.5 years old and had definitely been fighting during the rut and probably breeding.

This discussion has become circular, as every discussion on this subject does, you think your ideas and plans are best and I don't, and that will never change.

Bottom line is if you hunt with a weapon and clothing behind any kind of fence you are NOT a hunter. As far as this thread is concerned it is wrought with misinformation from certain people with no REAL experience and typing from ideology not statistical information.

And for what it is worth TP&W will work with you wether you have 10 or 10k acres.

Perry

Then I take it that you don't hunt in Texas at all???????

And for what it is worth TP&W will work with you wether you have 10 or 10k acres.

Gatogordo or someone else more familiar with the system than I can answer this, but I believe to qualify for any part of the MLD program you or your co-op has to have control over a certain amount of contigous land in the hundreds or thousands of acres in size.

The only thing TP&W will tell you on 10 acres is the following:

hunt in a subdivision with lots 10 acres or less in an unincorporated area of a county if the commissioners court, by order, prohibits the discharge of a firearm or the use of archery equipment in such subdivisions. (Contact local county clerk and ask about 235.022, Local Government Code.)

There is not one single piece of ground in the state of Texas that does not have a fence around it at some point, whether it was erected by the landowner or the neighbors or the state, there is a fence at some point.

Perry,
Lord love ya now you've gone and done it.

just for shits and giggles let's look at your short rant.

Don't you think you might be attributed a little more credibility if you had used the words.......

Bottom line is if you.... "stand" ....behind

Bottom line is if you.... "sit" ....behind

Bottom line is if you.... "ride a bike" ....behind

Bottom line is if you.... "ride down the road" ....behind

or even

Bottom line is if you.... "jack off" ....behind

but no you said "hunt".

Now as to.....
As far as this thread is concerned it is wrought with misinformation from certain people with no REAL experience and typing from ideology not statistical information......

I think that would be hard to back up/prove up your statement.

I've made a couple of hunts with Gato, and no we were not circumbscribed by a fence that I knew of, but he definitely has knowledge of which he speaks.

Crazy is an outfitter that advertizes his "hunts" that he guides on this forum, I imagine he could provide references of folks that could attest to his knowledge and proficiency.
Tony, better known as Outdoor Writer certainly can prove his bona fides.
If you were to do a search of my posts over the last 8 years or so on AR you could find at least a couple of examples of my interests.

I've met Troy Hibbits, and his lovely wife at the Big Bore shoots and have read Troys numerous posts.

I've met Bobby Tomek, and evidence of his knowledge and prowess abound on the board.

Billinthewild needs no defense, his posts speak for themselves.

In fact, you've posted here for at least four years. I don't think I've ever challenged the veracity of any of your posts.

Where did this rant come from?

As to Ideology, it sure would be a boring world if everyone thought the same. Just think how hard it would be to talk someone into
standing/sitting/jacking off, or even hunting...... behind a fence, with clothes on.

GWB

olarmy,

quote:

BTW have you ever found a basis for your assertion that it is illegal for a landowner to put a fence up around his property?

Where did I say it was illegal for a landowner to put a fence up? I was referring to high/deer proof fences that restrict the deer from their natural range. In my opinion high fences should be illegal. That's what I was talking about when I said I might file suit if I win the Lottery.

quote:

There Is NO Workable State Wide "One Size Fits All" Management Program That 100% Of The Hunters In Texas Will Like.

I have been saying that all the way thru this discussion.

Ask TP&W, they will tell you or anyone else that asks the same thing.

Your restrictions are not any better, because not everyone wants to have a deer mounted no matter how big it is.

You, me, nor TP&W can force anyone to follow the rules if they don't want to.

The problem that is going to surface after the AR's have been in place for 10 to 12 years in an area, is going to be the same one that was in effect when the AR's were first instituted, there will be no BIG mature deer in the area.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, all you are doing is bitching because you have not proposed one or multiple deer regulations that is better and more workable for Texas deer hunting than any of those in place today.

Now, to answer the above, TPW does not propose, nor currently have, a one size fits all statewide plan, indeed they are trying to shift to more plans that better suit the 30 odd eco areas they deal with.

My "restrictions" are just those, MINE, on my ranch and I am certainly not suggesting that everyone should follow my ideas, they can do anything they want that is legal on their ranch. I have no idea where you dreamed up the idea that I was suggesting my "restrictions" as some kind of universal game regulations.

Well, we may not be able to "force" someone to follow the rules, but TPW can make the person who chooses not to wish they had.

Finally, I find it incredible that you know what a current plan is going to do to the deer herd "10 to 12 years" from now. Amazing, what crystal ball are you using? Just for giggles, explain why you believe the current AR restrictions will lead to "no BIG mature deer" in the area? Do you think there were more under the old hunting regs?

Interesting thread,with interesting comments.

quote:

I hate hearing about "Bubba" shooting that 1.5 year old 6 pointer because "he's a meat hunter and doesn't care about horns".

I've heard it put slightly differently: "I only hunt bucks." (Though in most parts of Texas it doesn't take much "hunting" to get a 6 point.) But either way, this is a huge part of the problem. This notion that there's some problem with shooting does is what causes so many people here in Texas to blast the first hard-antlered deer to pass the stand on opening morning. Bubba got "his" buck, but it was that 1.5 year old 6 point that could have been a really nice deer in a few years. It seems to me that the Texas antler restrictions have been necessary just to keep Bubba off the trigger.

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by LWD:

quote:

I hate hearing about "Bubba" shooting that 1.5 year old 6 pointer because "he's a meat hunter and doesn't care about horns".

I've heard it put slightly differently: "I only hunt bucks." (Though in most parts of Texas it doesn't take much "hunting" to get a 6 point.) But either way, this is a huge part of the problem. This notion that there's some problem with shooting does is what causes so many people here in Texas to blast the first hard-antlered deer to pass the stand on opening morning. Bubba got "his" buck, but it was that 1.5 year old 6 point that could have been a really nice deer in a few years. It seems to me that the Texas antler restrictions have been necessary just to keep Bubba off the trigger.

LWD

You're completely right.....I forgot to mention what I call the "old fart cattle rancher mindset". This consists of:

"well you don't shoot your cows do you? why the hell would you shoot your does? that's what makes your bucks.....You only need one bull to breed all your cows, so deer must be the same way"

This is a serious problem in Texas, and I'm sure in other parts of the country as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Silverado:
olarmy,

quote:

BTW have you ever found a basis for your assertion that it is illegal for a landowner to put a fence up around his property?

Where did I say it was illegal for a landowner to put a fence up?

Well on Jan29 @ 10:28 AM you said: "A rancher doesn't actually have the legal right in Texas to fence any wildlife either in or out."

After which I asked what your basis was for that assertion, since as far as I know a rancher has the legal right to install whatever kind of fence he likes around his private property.

In response to my question you said on Jan29 @ 12;12PM: "I took a quick look at TPWD's website but didn't find any regulation there. I'll search again later. Maybe someone else has some info"


I was just following up to see if you had done any more research and found a legal basis for your assertion.

Of course you have every right to you opinion as to what a property owner should be allowed to do. And I fully respect that. I was just asking for the basis what sounded like an recitation of fact, not an opinion.

[quote]Finally, I find it incredible that you know what a current plan is going to do to the deer herd "10 to 12 years" from now. Amazing, what crystal ball are you using? Just for giggles, explain why you believe the current AR restrictions will lead to "no BIG mature deer" in the area? Do you think there were more under the old hunting regs?[/quote]

No, I do not think there were more under the old regs.

What I am seeing, and I do not hunt where you are at and I bet you don't hunt where I am at, is that bucks are being shot and if they don't meet the AR restriction, they are being left in the field, or taken home and processsed there and the GW's never see them.

The reason for my assertion about the future, is the fact that with the AR's, hunters are selectively killing only bucks that fit the criteria of a main frame 8 or 10 point and the 13 inch minimum, REGARDLESS OF AGE!!!!!!

They are letting LEGAL bucks, such as 8 pointers with No Brow Tines walk.

They have to let 5, 6, 7 and even 8 point Basket Rack bucks that are 3.5 to 5.5 years old, yet will never reach the Lucky Number 13, walk.

Add to that the fact that these hunters are not killing any does.

The area I am familiar with is not your property, there
fore you have no factual knowledge of the conditions I am seeing, if you can prove me wrong on that pouint do so.

If you would take just a minute to read what I am writing instead of automatically thinking I am wrong, you might see that you and I are not that far apart in some aspects.

The places or points where we do differ, is that I do not think everyone hunting deer, is after a trophy buck, better than anything they have on the wall.

Some folks just like shooting a deer.

For the umpteenth time I do not hunt or shoot bucks, I shoot does, so the regs really do not affect me. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT POINT!!!!

Now, to answer the above, TPW does not propose, nor currently have, a one size fits all statewide plan, indeed they are trying to shift to more plans that better suit the 30 odd eco areas they deal with.

How come when you say it, it sounds okay, but when I have said the same damn thing about 3 or 4 times you could not / can not understand it?????