Question

[TildenHunter]

If it is livestock and they own the deer would they be able to kill and butcher them whenever they want or only during deer season?

In Texas deer are not considered livestock and have to be harvested/shot/killed during the TPWD mandated season. Other places such as Wisconsin, high fence goes up, deer are brought in and they can be killed 365. You want a big velvet buck, you are free to go hunt them late summer etc. Different states have different rules but Texas never considers WT Deer as Livestock.

[Sippy]

Well, I'm not sure about all that, but I know the everyday guy did not push to get high fences way back when all this started. Like I said above, I understand all the mgmt perspectives, and advantages of high fences. I just don't think it should be legal for a person to take a resource that is supposed to be property of the people of the state and make it where only he can use it as he sees fits.

I really hate even responding to these threads (but every once in a while I let myself get sucked in) because there is no way we are ever going to agree on the way we see this issue.

Bisch

Do you hunt near a high fence where you have had one affect your hunting? If not its all speculation. All 4 of my neighbors were worried when my fence went up, and all have killed good deer since I did.

Deer populations rebound very quickly. The 10 deer I trapped in were beyond replaced that year.

And I make sub 50k, so the "rich people" thing isn't always the case. I was fortunate to reinvest into land.

[LemmeOut]

For all you guys thinking I'm trying to steal a deer you couldn't be more wrong. I already have more deer than I need.

I was just seriously wondering if it would be considered stealing in a court of law. I understand they could/probably would bust you for anything else they could throw and make stick.

It might depend on which land owner knows the district attorney best. For this theoretical situation landowner A is the one that had the deer stolen from him and landowner B is the one that has the deer on his property.

First scenario involves landowner A being good friends, and a campaign donor for the district attorney. Landowner A charges big money for people to come hunt on his ranch. He has some kind of proof (recorded confession, trail cam pics, eye witness) that landowner B entered his property and took one or more deer off his ranch. He then provides a price list of what he charges when one of those said deer is killed by a hunter. While the deer may not belong to him, with the right legal adviser, landowner A could make the case that removing the deer from his property is theft of X number of dollars. There could also be destruction of property if fences were cut, trespassing and probably game law violations related to illegal trapping and transporting of game.

Second scenario involves Landowner B being good friends with the district attorney and the same thing happens but instead of a case being made for charges, the whole thing is determined to be a civil matter, landowner A is told to pursue through those channels and out even more money. Landowner B writes another check for a re-election campaign and waits for a lawsuit that won't cost him much because all his assets, including the ranch, are tied up in a trust and won't be touched by a settlement.

Maybe I should write one of those mystery books I had as a kid where you turned to different pages, depending on what you thought had happened.

[SmTx]

Someone tell M16 his next state record needs security guards

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

[RiverRat1]

Someone tell M16 his next state record needs security guards

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

Come on, you just ruined my plan!

How am I going to get the State record now?

[JeffJ]

It might depend on which land owner knows the district attorney best. For this theoretical situation landowner A is the one that had the deer stolen from him and landowner B is the one that has the deer on his property.

First scenario involves landowner A being good friends, and a campaign donor for the district attorney. Landowner A charges big money for people to come hunt on his ranch. He has some kind of proof (recorded confession, trail cam pics, eye witness) that landowner B entered his property and took one or more deer off his ranch. He then provides a price list of what he charges when one of those said deer is killed by a hunter. While the deer may not belong to him, with the right legal adviser, landowner A could make the case that removing the deer from his property is theft of X number of dollars. There could also be destruction of property if fences were cut, trespassing and probably game law violations related to illegal trapping and transporting of game.

Second scenario involves Landowner B being good friends with the district attorney and the same thing happens but instead of a case being made for charges, the whole thing is determined to be a civil matter, landowner A is told to pursue through those channels and out even more money. Landowner B writes another check for a re-election campaign and waits for a lawsuit that won't cost him much because all his assets, including the ranch, are tied up in a trust and won't be touched by a settlement.

Maybe I should write one of those mystery books I had as a kid where you turned to different pages, depending on what you thought had happened.

Or either one of them could call TPWD and let them take it from there.

[LemmeOut]

Or either one of them could call TPWD and let them take it from there.

The DA still has to accept the charges and proscute.

[JeffJ]

The DA still has to accept the charges and proscute.

Yes but with TPWD on your side you wont have to do any heavy lifting. Also, TPWD has shown lately they don't care about deep pockets if you are breaking the law...especially if you are a ***** about it.

[Buff]

The deer that live in my high fence belong to the state. I can't shoot any more than I have tags for and can only shoot them during deer season.

So following your train of thought, someone could not steal one from someone.
They might shoot you for cutting their fence but they couldn't charge you with theft

[miket]

I'm pretty sure this is not correct either!

I understand all the mgmt aspects of high fences, but my one beef with them is the fact that rich guys are taking something that is supposed to be property of the people of the state, and in effect, making it their own!

OP, I don't have a clue what the answer to your question is, but suspect that you would not win!

Bisch

Agreed. They may not technically be making them their own, but they are restricting public access to public property. ( assuming there were deer enclosed when the fence was finished )

[El General]

Just because I'm curious and ask a question doesn't mean I'm trying to pull something off. For all you know I own a large ranch and am debating the pros and cons of high fencing it.

It's not trespassing if you don't enter the HF. Bait out heavy for weeks then cut the fence, lure them over, and then repair the fence. What then? You didn't steal anything and you repaired what you broke.

Cutting the fence is really illegal.