Theft or not?

Consider this. The wealthy Fence their land. The common Post their land. How is one different than the other. Both are meant to stop intruders. The only problem as I see it would be if the large land owner because of having such a vast amount of land leaves gates here and there around the perimeter of his property purposely open to attract game movement from public land to his. But than again how is that any different than another who build food plots or grows grain for an attractant on open land that isn't fenced but Posted. As read the fellow in Oklahoma is using his land in a more productive way by hosting those who prefer to do their hunting on a game ranch and are quite willing to pay for all the owners billed services and conveniences offered. Those folks who have found themselves negatively caught up in the large landowners plans and/or not being allowed to hunt surrounding Posted land will just have to improve their methods in attracting deer on public lands. Or consider someplace else to hunt. Think MN. We like having out-state hunters come to our State._:D
 
Last edited:
Ruger480, consider the purpose of a high-fence hunting ranch. The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.

When you improve a habitat area, you create a situation where, "If you build it, they will come." Without the fence, you're soon back to an overloaded condition.
 
Theft or not. To me it would strictly be determined by the laws of the state. If its legal then in no way is it theft, its good business practice. If I was doing it and it was legal I would build the things that attract the base herd of deer then surround in with the fence. Then maybe import some better genetics and begin to manage the herd for whatever purposes I intended. Obviously it is to be managed for trophy animals so they can sell hunts. I can also see the state might say "hey those deer you trapped belong to the state, you owe us a fee of $??, still probably cheaper than buying the entire stock to start with, might take a little longer to build your genetics up starting from a wild base type, but might be cheaper than buying better stock to start with. Now for my personal opinion I don't like that someone can fence in property of the state (wildlife) and use it for their own benefit such as selling hunts, but opinion and state laws are obviously not the same thing.
 
The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.
Click to expand...

This is true yet not the crux of my issue.

The problem as I see it, is that the organization in question has lured in to a certain location, property belonging to the state/the people.
And after having done so, essentially removed the possibility of harvest by the public, unless certain fees are paid.
That money was previously paid to the state via tags and licenses. Habitat improvement and similarly herd quality came from the Pittman-Robertson Act.
Regardless of the reasoning used to justify these actions, its still qualifies as stealing in my book.

I have no issue with people wishing to shoot domestic cattle, so long as the cattle are legitimately purchased.

Also, if one were to take something rare and desirable because of its rarity and make it the norm, the qualities that made it desirable are gone. They have become common place and the value is diminished. Semantics, I know. But who cares if one shoots a 150 class whitetail if 160 is the average?
 
Originally posted by Art Eatman:

Ruger480, consider the purpose of a high-fence hunting ranch. The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.

When you improve a habitat area, you create a situation where, "If you build it, they will come." Without the fence, you're soon back to an overloaded condition.
Click to expand...

Most high-fenced hunting ranches already exceed the carrying capacity of the natural habitat. Many ranches are in areas that once didn't have deer or had very few deer because there was little or no natural food sources. This is why they use feeders and plant food plots to supplement the diets of the animals that live there in numbers far exceeding what would occur naturally. Making Trophy bucks the norm and not a rarity means they need to fence the place to keep the bucks in. In a natural setting there would never be high numbers of dominate bucks in one area. Big bucks do not naturally tolerate each other. They would spread themselves out and drive their competition away, regardless of how large the area is. Sooner or later some large bucks would leave the property.....if there was not a fence there.
 
Last edited:
In my state, the local game must be removed prior to closing the fence. None of the "state's" deer can remain inside.
 
buck, some might operate that way. But from what I read in the Texas Wildlife Associates magazine when there is discussion of game ranches in Texas, that "some" is likely a quite-small percentage.

It's common to have one or more wildlife biologists regularly observing the system management (cooperative funding among several ranches) and advising on "how to" for best production. "Cross-pollination" with TP&WD wildlife biologists, as well.

FWIW, for any Texas hunters here, TWA is worth the $35/yr for an Associate Member's fee. I was a full member when they first got going in the 1980s, and have dropped back to Associate since they found success. A good bit of clout with the legislature for wildlife and ranching issues. www.texas-wildlife.org
 
Reynolds357:

Some state's have laws where they are responsible for the crop damage done by the wildlife.

Also I understand the insurance laws in some state's are responsible for the auto damage when you hit a deer with your vehicle.
 
Missouri Regulations regarding big game hunting preserves

MISSOURI CODE OF STATE REGULATIONS

TITLE 3 - DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

DIVISION 10 - CONSERVATION COMMISSION

CHAPTER 9 - WILDLIFE CODE: CONFINED WILDLIFE: PRIVILEGES, PERMITS, STANDARDS

The Missouri Administrative Code titles are current through June 30, 2007.

3 CSR 10-9.565 Licensed Hunting Preserve: Privileges

(B) Big Game Hunting Preserve.

1. A big game hunting preserve for ungulates shall be a fenced single body of land, not dissected by public roads, and not less than three hundred twenty (320) acres and no more than three thousand two hundred (3,200) acres in size. The hunting preserve shall not be cross-fenced into portions of less than three hundred twenty (320) acres. The hunting preserve shall be fenced so as to enclose and contain all released game and exclude all hoofed wildlife of the state from becoming a part of the enterprise and posted with signs specified by the department. Fence height shall meet standards specified in 3 CSR 10- 9.220. Fencing for hogs shall be constructed of twelve (12) gauge woven wire, at least five feet (5') high, and topped with one (1) strand of electrified wire. An additional two feet (2') of such fencing shall be buried and angled underground toward the enclosure interior. A fence of equivalent or greater strength and design to prevent the escape of hogs may be substituted with written application and approval by an agent of the department.

Now this has nothing to do with OK but I'm willing to bet a little googling would provide similar info for OK and every other state.

One note in regard to the original post. The regs say "fences shall EXCLUDE all the state's wildlife" but it doesn't say anything about running them off before the fence is erected.
 
I have no issue with people wishing to shoot domestic cattle, so long as the cattle are legitimately purchased.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. If the wild deer on your land were yours then you would be able to shoot as many of them whenever and however you wanted. The fact that you are limited by state game laws in the harvest of these animals is evidence they are not your private property but are in fact considered public property. That being the case why should you be allowed to imprison them on your property? A river runs through my families property here in Alabama but we don't have a right to build a dam across it so only we get to use it.

Also, if one were to take something rare and desirable because of its rarity and make it the norm, the qualities that made it desirable are gone.
Click to expand...

This is another topic but I agree. This is the reason I have no desire to shoot any of these high fence bucks. Why isn't a spike buck considered a trophy? I'll tell you why. Cause they are a dime a dozen and easy to kill. If you create a situation where 150 class bucks are a dime a dozen and just as easy to kill then you have removed everything that made that animal a rare trophy. The horns themselves have no real tangible value. Their worth is tied entirely to the value we hunters place on them due to the rarity they represent under normal circumstances.
 
reynolds357 said:
If they are the "State's deer" I think I should send the "State" a bill for my crops their deer destroy every year.
Click to expand...

Many State game agencies DO pay damage claims for crops eaten and/or ruined by wildlife. Check with you Fish and Game department.

Wyoming budgets nearly $500K per year or just this problem.
 
One thing we should consider in this is the viewpoint of the clientele of these operations.

Probably less interest in spending many days outdoors or in working up "THE" load for a rifle. Probably less time available to go hunting--but the desire does exist. My own experience with a fair number of high-income people is that I've had a helluva lot more free time than they'll ever have.

So some city guy from NYC or Miami decides that he wants to do the Bambi deal, has maybe four or five days including travel? For him, it's pretty neat. Everybody's gotta start somewhere.`

If the customer is happy with the deal, and the rancher is enjoying doing the deal, I don't see how I'm hurt. And, given the amount of deer country in Texas, a percent or two of the total area is insignificant.
 
Art

Where I feel your point is a valid one, I believe you're drifting away from the intent of the original post. I have zero problems with managed hunting ranches, fenced or not. Truth be told, going on a guided, managed, trophy, or whatever you want to say "hunt" is on my bucket list.

The concern or question made in the original post is how the ranch got the party started. Again as some have said, if the state has laws against the way the ranch came to be then they broke the law period. If not, it's just a question of your ethics on whether or not it was right or wrong.
 
I don't really have a dog in the fight, because I don't use the cabin to hunt from, as I have a lease a little closer to McAlester.

I only posted, because I felt it was a bit funny that we as hunters have to purchase a tag in order to hunt our deer,even on our own property, and the tag money is used to promote wildlife hunting in our state.

I really thought it was odd that someone with big dollars could come in to our state, sucker in the deer, and then assume ownership of the game to be hunted at a profit.

I wonder what would happen to me, if I suckered the game ranger onto my property, then built a fence around his truck, and wanted to assume ownership of the truck. After all, my taxes went to pay for the truck just like my hunting tags go to pay his salary.:D

I know this has really upset a lot of people in the area, because it is a very poor part of the state, and several of these people actually use hunting season to stock their freezers for the year.

I am fortunate enough, not to have to hunt for my meat, but I can certainly see their point, as I fear, just as they do, that once the game is trapped, there will be a lot of deer that get destroyed inside the ranch, to weed out undesirable game that is not wanted, and those will be buried, with no one getting to benefit from the meat.
 
Wild Bill, am I wrong in assuming that anybody who hunts inside that fence must buy a hunting license? Owner or customer, "Ya gotta have a license!" in most states. All states, really, SFAIK.

If there is catering to non-resident hunters, the state's game department sees even greater income.

I really don't see how any "stealing" is going on.

In low-fence country: If owner A does food plots and adjacent owner B does not, is A stealing deer from B? Seems like silly nit-picking, to me.
 
I wonder what would happen to me, if I suckered the game ranger onto my property, then built a fence around his truck, and wanted to assume ownership of the truck.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I was going to use the same argument. I think you may have to put new tires on it though, that way you can make the claim your improving the quality. Seems to make the whole concept legitimate.

Based on the logic used to acquire the deer in this scenario, I'd say it looks like you have a new truck in your future!! :D
 
For the record from someone who worked MO legislators for 10 years

Exclude: to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied.
Click to expand...

technically correct but you forgot to mention how far down the dictionary you had to go to find it.
ex·clude (k-skld)
tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes
1. To prevent from entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an immigration policy that excludes undesirables.
2. To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly obtained evidence.
3. To put out; expel.

Trust me, legislators and regulators don't go that far down for the word they chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top