holepuncher:
But I do believe that a high fence does keep the animalsfrom traveling from area to area if they chose to do so, Therefore removing them from the citizens of the state.
I've already addressed my thoughts on this in one of my above post, but I'll state it again. In Texas deer that are on private land, especially on large pieces of private land, are in all practical sense property of that landowner. The 250 year old law that says wildlife "belongs to the people" is out of date. The citizens of the state of Texas and the average hunter do very little when it comes to managing whitetail deer. It is the landowner who feeds, water, protects, and enhances the wildllife. The general public and the average hunter only wants to claim ownership of the wildlife when it comes time to benefit from it.
High fences no matter how large or small they might be are no diffrent than zoo's.
Personally I think most pieces of public land, no matter the size, are really nothing more then zoo's as well. Except unstead of having deer walking around you have countless hunters running around in orange jump suits shooting at everything with horns. These are two types of "zoos" yet one is ok and the other is not in the hunting world. I dont know about you but I'll take "zoo" #1 any day of the week.
Replacement monies should be payed to the state
Why in the world should landowners pay the state for deer that are on their land. The landowner high fenced their land because that is their right, the deer just happened to be there, just like the trees, cactus, rocks, and rattlesnakes. Should the landowner be required to pay the state for these things to? You'll probably say no because you dont hunt these things and you dont have a false sense of ownership like you do with the deer, just because some out dated law says you do. And another thing, once the state starts paying farmers, ranchers, homeowners, insurance compaines, and automobile drivers for damages that the "states property" causes then maybe we can start talking about the state charging landowners for the deer on their property.
But most politicans in Texas also own ranches and alot of them are high fenced, so I doubt the "paying the state for the deer" attitude would ever happen in Austin. Its only shared by hunters who dont own land or who dont hunt on high fenced property. Wonder why?