well, game does belong to you and me, and I get annoyed when some big landowner puts up a high fence to keep "his" deer from going onto his neighbor's property (i.e. mine). Those deer are as much "mine" as "his", and his high fence limits my opportunities at them.

And, in discussions with non-hunters at work, the three things that they comment on about hunting (that are negative) are: 1) "high-powered rifles are unfair" 2) "how sporting is it to shoot a deer over corn" and 3) "how sporting is it to shoot an animal in a 'pen' (meaning high fence)".

Everyone has his or her own definitions of what fair chase means. For me, that basically means that the movements of deer are relatively unrestricted - they can go where they want to as much as possible. While I'm a B&C Associate, I don't know the details of their definition . . . but I'll stick with mine.

Troy

Sorry but that is collectivism in a nutshell. "We" own these deer so you cannot do anything "we" don't approve of. The hell with that. If you want collective hunting, go to PA. I'll take good ole' Texas public lands which have benefited immeasurably from the efforts of private biologists paid by private landowners whose work has benefited us all and would not have happened otherwise. And just for discussion, what the hell is a "Big Landowner"? Lastly, if the people at work are non- hunters then you cannot reasonably expect that they would differentiate between a deer shot "unfairly" in a private ranch from one on free range. If you think otherwise, you simply have not had that conversation with one of them yet. Sorry about the constant edits but thoughts keep comming. Virtually every landowner I know personally in South Texas (more than ten, less than 20) put up fence to stop poachers, not keep "his" deer captive. I've read your posts for a while now and you seem like a good, dedicated sportsman but most of the people we run into who think deer belong to "us" seem to have no qualms about shooting "their" deer wherever they can poach; hence my attitude about that mindset.

first off, if you disagree with who "owns" game, and the definition that I presented, then you disagree with TPWD and other state agencies. I'm simply presenting the state's definition of wildlife ownership. One that I happen to agree with

As far as TX public lands benefiting from private landowners and private funded biologists - I don't follow. First off, TX has very little public hunting land, and those that are managed are done so with State Biologists . . .

As for the "big landowners" - in my situation, I have access to 500 acres of land, owned by a good friend. To our north, we have a large ranch (don't know how many 1000s of acres, but much larger than ours) to our north which recently put a high fence. Now some of the deer which used our place as part of their home range no longer can. That is the sort of thing I'm opposed to.

I can't argue with your experiences regarding why landowners put up fences. However, the reason you state is counter to what many landowners state as their reason in the hunting magazines (for one) and is counter to reports generated by TPWD. The most common reason stated is to be better able to manage deer population structures . . . or to introduce exotics (which is an entirely different kettle of fish).

As for the non-hunters at work - true, many don't think much about hunting and what is ethical and what is not. However, the reasons I list are the things that they feel are "unsporting". FWIW.

As for poachers, etc . . . I've never met anyone who admits to this criminal activity, so I can speculate as to their motives or whether they think the deer belong to them or not. My discussion of "game belongs to all of us" was in the vein of "legally, wild animals belong to all of us and should be wisely managed".

Troy

You have every right to be frustrated when a large source of deer are shut off from your grounds. On the other hand, if the neighbor is going to invest $30,000 or $40,000 dollars in feed, not to mention $10,000 per mile of fence doesn't he have some right to protect his investment? That's the conflict our system creates. I prefer the European system where the landowner owns the game, just like exotics (for the record I am not a landowner and have to pay to hunt, just like everyone else); therefore I am just a lot less sensitive about high fencing than you. Landowners pay the state an annual royalty in the form of a "lease licence" which is based upon the size of the property being available to commercial hunting (so you as a member of the public are being reimbursed by those landowners). That money goes into the pot that pays for the management of state lands. Also, I think there is quite a bit if public hunting. Have you tried Ft. Hood? There a lot of federal lands many don't research.

We caught 1 or 2 poachers each year on the place I hunt, mostly because it is located right next to a small isolated community that butts up to a fence line. That's only during hunting season when enough people are on the place to keep an eye out. Who knows what they did off-season. We probably had 10 or 15 deer poached for every one harvested legally before fencing that section. The high fence slowed that down tremendously and now the deer that are taken are controlled. No 2 or 3 year old bucks, etc. The difference in the quality of the herd is astounding. One long fence line is left open because that side has responsible leasors who don't shoot up the woods and also have a feed program. Maybe your landowner had a chance to be part of the program and failed to act? How is his relationship with the larger ranch? Most I have known will work with a good neighbor, assuming they will bear a proportional part of the effort.