High Fence Part#2
12-19-2003, 10:16 AM
#11
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 264
RE: High Fence Part#2
The land owner has to purchase an annual permit to lease the hunting rights to his property.
So if you would like to look at that as purchasing the deer, then yes, they are purchased from the state for purposes of harvesting.
So if you would like to look at that as purchasing the deer, then yes, they are purchased from the state for purposes of harvesting.
12-19-2003, 10:28 AM
#13
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 264
RE: High Fence Part#2
trophyhuntr, I am in complete agreement with you on the high fence thing.
But is there really anything fresh to bring to this topic?
Those of you that like to hunt behind high fences, please continue to do so.
Those of you against it, then don't do it.
Difference in opinions.
But is there really anything fresh to bring to this topic?
Those of you that like to hunt behind high fences, please continue to do so.
Those of you against it, then don't do it.
Difference in opinions.
12-19-2003, 10:42 AM
#15
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fredericksburg Virginia USA
Posts: 13,672
RE: High Fence Part#2
I will be honest, as a business man your customers and the bottom line dictate what you do, not your personal beleifs. If I was running a hunting ranch and my clientle wanted to harvest big bucks and the fact they could not enter them ethically into the record books didn't matter to them I would fence it in. A ranch is a business that allows hunters who have the money to pay to kill the deer they want.
I would have no problem with them killing my deer while my pockets are bulging with their money, if they want someone to take the hunting out of hunting for them and simply come and kill a big buck I would take their money.
Would I hunt it myself? Heck no, except to thin out the does and the culls it would be bad business to kill a $5-10,000 deer! Not when I can go out and with the profits I make buy a couple of hundred acres of wide open property and by doing my own scouting and stand placement keep the hunting in my hunting, with very little cash layed out.
I would have no problem with them killing my deer while my pockets are bulging with their money, if they want someone to take the hunting out of hunting for them and simply come and kill a big buck I would take their money.
Would I hunt it myself? Heck no, except to thin out the does and the culls it would be bad business to kill a $5-10,000 deer! Not when I can go out and with the profits I make buy a couple of hundred acres of wide open property and by doing my own scouting and stand placement keep the hunting in my hunting, with very little cash layed out.
12-19-2003, 11:13 AM
#18
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,137
RE: High Fence Part#2
Spey, I'm sure every state has different laws, this is what I found in the libary.
From the March 2000 deer and Deer Hunting. The article is titled "How hard is it to estiamte a Deer herd. The premise of the article deals with a 900 acre tract of land in Michagan that was enclosed with a high fence. The owner of the land wanted all the deer removed so that he could introduce the genetics he wanted.In the article it states
From the March 2000 deer and Deer Hunting. The article is titled "How hard is it to estiamte a Deer herd. The premise of the article deals with a 900 acre tract of land in Michagan that was enclosed with a high fence. The owner of the land wanted all the deer removed so that he could introduce the genetics he wanted.In the article it states
."Wildlife Place employees were instructed to remove as many white tails as possible during thees seasons, because the buisness had to pay the state $250 for each deer remaining behind the fence after the season ended"
12-19-2003, 11:52 AM
#20
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
RE: High Fence Part#2
Here is what I think is a fresh angle.
1) I doubt and hope that they never make a law against high fencing your own property, and I doubt many of the people opposed to the high fences do either. Do you really want big brother to start telling you what you can or can't do on your own property?
2) I would not think high fencing would be necessary if there were limits put on property as to how many deer/bucks that could be taken off. In other words, as per the oringinal question, a guy with 5 acres next to this big ranch could now legally kill as many deer as crossed his property. Would it be eithical for him to kill 5 bucks, 10, 20, 30? If they would issue "buck permits" which were based on your number of acres and the deer density, then there would not be any need for a high fence.
This question is not hypothetical, it happens all the time in my neck of the woods. Some developer will buy a ranch and split it up into 5-20 acre tracts. Since all the land in this area is full of deer, all the land owners put up a couple of feeders and blinds. If this happens next to my ranch, I am going to high fence it, at least on that side. They should not be allowed to kill more than their fair share. I define that as what their property will support.
Even though we have a ton of deer in this area, the biologists recommend taking no more than a buck per 50-250 acres to have a good ratio of bucks/does for reproduction rates, etc. I would be for a system that would limit the number of bucks by issuing buck permits for each property. In most localities, this would be 1 buck per 50-100 acres.
Is it fair that a "land owner" take more than his fair share? Should he be able to kill indescriminately? I say no, and we should not allow someone with 20 acres to kill more than 1 buck a year.
I also realize that this system might have to be modified due to area differences. Example: 10 acres of woods surrounded by 200 acres of farmland. In that case the 10 acres could support more permits. However, in my area it is all rocks live oak thickets and cedar trees, so the range can't support more than about 1 deer per 5-15 acres.
1) I doubt and hope that they never make a law against high fencing your own property, and I doubt many of the people opposed to the high fences do either. Do you really want big brother to start telling you what you can or can't do on your own property?
2) I would not think high fencing would be necessary if there were limits put on property as to how many deer/bucks that could be taken off. In other words, as per the oringinal question, a guy with 5 acres next to this big ranch could now legally kill as many deer as crossed his property. Would it be eithical for him to kill 5 bucks, 10, 20, 30? If they would issue "buck permits" which were based on your number of acres and the deer density, then there would not be any need for a high fence.
This question is not hypothetical, it happens all the time in my neck of the woods. Some developer will buy a ranch and split it up into 5-20 acre tracts. Since all the land in this area is full of deer, all the land owners put up a couple of feeders and blinds. If this happens next to my ranch, I am going to high fence it, at least on that side. They should not be allowed to kill more than their fair share. I define that as what their property will support.
Even though we have a ton of deer in this area, the biologists recommend taking no more than a buck per 50-250 acres to have a good ratio of bucks/does for reproduction rates, etc. I would be for a system that would limit the number of bucks by issuing buck permits for each property. In most localities, this would be 1 buck per 50-100 acres.
Is it fair that a "land owner" take more than his fair share? Should he be able to kill indescriminately? I say no, and we should not allow someone with 20 acres to kill more than 1 buck a year.
I also realize that this system might have to be modified due to area differences. Example: 10 acres of woods surrounded by 200 acres of farmland. In that case the 10 acres could support more permits. However, in my area it is all rocks live oak thickets and cedar trees, so the range can't support more than about 1 deer per 5-15 acres.