Do they have the right?

Stay out of Texas. Charging by the point, or inch, is a way of life on day leases and game ranches down here. You either accept it, or stay home and drink coffee when you could be huntin'. Growing up here, I learned I couldn't afford to be a "trophy hunter" at an early age. If I didn't have my own land bought and paid for, I couldn't afford a lease anymore, either! Hog hunting is affordable, I'd probably just be a hog hunter.

Game ranches routinely get $5000 or more for a trophy animal in Texas and charging by point or inch is not uncommon. But, you can still get a normal lease. On south Texas ranches, 8 point or better rules are common. I was in a hunting club for a while. Some of the ranches, you could shoot 8 point or better or spikes over 5" only. It's called game management. Each ranch had it's own rules depending on the needs of that ranch. Some were does legal if they needed to adjust buck/doe ratio, some were does not legal even if it was a 5 deer no permit county. Managers use these rules to improve the herd. If you don't wanna play these rules, you won't be welcome to hunt such ranches. You can go hunt the few public areas in East Texas where the deer all hide in heavy cover because of the hunting pressure and there is no management and few trophy deer are ever seen, let alone shot. The choice is yours. No one is forcing you to hunt where you don't like the rules.

When you see those hunting shows on the outdoor channel where they're hunting the triple 7 or the YO in Texas and they shoot that big trophy buck, just know that you could get two guided elk hunts in Wyoming for what that deer would cost you. No matter shoulda, woulda, coulda, it's reality. But those trophy deer are intensively managed, even selectively bred in many cases! This is why down at my place, were there is no management, we have scrawny deer. People see those shows and think, hell, you live in South Texas, you should have killed a 30 incher by now.

Hobbeeman, in Texas, any landowner has an absolute right to tell you what and how you can hunt. The state owns the animals and sets the rules as what is allowed by the state. The state has no power over a rancher's right to be more restrictive if he so chooses.

A varying price for deer is no different than for a varying price for a diamond. More carats = higher price. More points on a buck, or more B&C score, more $$$. It's a scarcity thing. No different from my last three days of hunting: We saw a bit over a dozen deer, but only one spike and no "shootable" bucks.

("Shootable": Big enough to be worth dragging a mile to the truck.)

Whether public land or private land, the owner sets the terms for whomever uses it. As at a gunshow, cash talks and BS walks. More people, more affluence, more leasing at higher prices. Old, old story. Economics 101. Sure, I prefer the old ways and the old days, but stuff keeps changing whether I like it or not. No point in complaining...

Art

Wow... Maybe I really don't want to go hunting out west after all...

Here in New Hampshire, I've never really heard of anybody charging trespass fees. Usually a good neighborly handshake and good manners will get me into anything I want to be in. Much of this turf borders public property, so it makes sense to have landowner permission.

Another good one: In NH, the waterways are owned by the state. A landowner may ask me to leave, and I would likely oblige, but the law is that I can wade or walk up to the highwater mark while out fishing. (After some of the floods we had last fall the highwater mark is quite a ways from the stream... somehow I don't think that's the definition they had in mind.) It blows my mind that in other states I could float down a river, but stop to wade and BAM! Trespass. Crazy.

I don't know the law, but if the landowner is letting you hunt, and you get on his bad side, you won't be back next year. Don't burn your bridges.

State By State ?

In Louisiana, if this situation goes to court, the Judge will read the lease. If game regulations are stipulated in the lease, well, the landowner wins. You shouldnt have signed the lease if you had no intentions of following it or dissagreed wih the terms. If you leased the land with the obvious intent of hunting, and there were no special game - clauses in it, then local, state, and federal game laws are your guidelines.

Lets look at it this way - If I leased a building, and there were no clauses in the lease stipulating what business I am allowed to operate in that building, then the only thing I need to verify is zoning. The leasor cannot come back 4 weeks later and tell me that I cannot run a backery(example only-I dont bake) out of the building. If he does, and tries to evict me for running a bakery, its breach of contract on his part. He Will lose in court.

I am not farmiliar with your state laws, but again, in my state if your landowner leased you land and there is no section in the lease covering any limitations on game, then wildlife laws come into play. The landowner has no say and must honor the lease.

Follow the landowners request or buy your own land! It's that simple.

Steve

Let me get this straight... are you guys actually defending this practice?

Don't get me wrong here - if the landowner asks that you only kill one deer (instead of the 3 the law allows there) or something like that, then I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Doesn't matter if you've paid to hunt on the land or just asked permission, if the landowner has a reasonable request, then I think it's the hunter's responsibility to honor that request or find some other place to hunt.

It's this crap about paying by the point that shocks me. I've never heard of such a thing, and quite frankly I think it's offensive.

So how does this work? Using the example in the ad posted, I pay the guy $250 to hunt for three days on his land. Fine. Then on the second day I luck out and shoot a 10-point or something. Now what happens? This jackass comes out and counts the points and hands me a bill? The bigger the buck the more I pay, eh?

So next time I go golfing in Texas, if I hit a hole in one, should I expect the course owner to show up and charge me extra green fees?
Does fishing in Texas work that way too? If I rent a boat and catch a 12-pound largemouth, will the boat owner charge me extra?
Years ago in Dallas I got lucky with a girl I met in a bar. Maybe the bar owner should have doubled my cover charge since I scored that night, right?
According to you guys that would be fine, since it's his golf course, his boat, and his bar, right?

Gack. The whole concept makes me want to spit. I've hunted for over 25 years now. Hunting is probably my favorite activity on Earth, but I can tell you without hesitation that I'd hang up my rifles and take up needlepoint before I'd ever agree to give money to any scumbag that wanted to charge me by the point.

Not much different that fishing a pond on private property where you have to buy the fish you catch - usually by the pound. Some streams that are bordered by private property are the same way - you rent/lease the right to fish a certain amount of frontage for a period of time.

THe term "lease" is improper. You're not buying a real lease. You're getting a mere LICENSE to enter land for a specific purpose and a limited amount of time. As far as the scope of it, the first question is, is the instrument in writing? What was agreed?

You are acting like the animals belong to the property owner, like his livestock. They do not. The wild game belongs to all of the citizens (including the hunters) and its harvest is regulated heavily enough by the state.

Click to expand...

But the property belongs to him and you're only allowed on his land to hunt under the terms of the license (not to be confused with a hunting license). If he gives you a right to come and take one animal, that's all you can take without violating the license and being subject to ejection.

Beyond this, there may be limits or bans on charging money to hunt imposed by the state. But you'd have to check with F&G. Absent such limits it's up to the parties to negotiate the terms.

I'm just glad I live here, where there are no hunting "ranches."

In my previous post I probably shouldn't have used the words "jackass" and "scumbag" to refer ro landowners who want to charge hunters by the point. While I find the entire concept absurd and disgusting, the terminology I used wasn't exactly taking the high road and I probably could have found a better way to express myself there. Sorry about that.

Putting my personal indignation aside for a moment... I do have a serious question about the legality of this stuff.

It's been my understanding that in order to set up one of those fenced-in hunting operations, you were required by law to remove all of the existing deer from the land, then put up your fences, and then purchase deer from somewhere else to stock your privately-owned herd. The reason given for this was that the deer originally on the land were the property of the state (and by extension the people of the state) since they can freely move on or off of one person's property any time they wished.

So if that's the case, then how is it legal for someone who hasn't fenced in his property, and hasn't imported deer, to charge by the point? Or even charge by the deer, for that matter? Charging money for access to hunt the land is one thing, and is perfectly legal. Charging money for the services of a guide would be the same way. But everything I read seems to back up the concept that the landowner doesn't own the deer, no more than I could say I "own" the birds that were sitting on my birdfeeder this morning.

Paying by the point here has been a way of life most of my life on the big managed ranches. I don't know how you could hunt and not have heard of such things. You can find leases that aren't managed and you'll harvest unmanaged (normal racked) deer on that land.

Check out the rates here by the B and C point I believe.

http://www.777ranch.com/777_rates.htm

I ain't a rich man. In Texas, to be a "trophy hunter" means you're rich. Up north, people wait to take that "big buck". On my land, I shoot it if it moves. No sense waiting on what ain't there. The big buck stories in south Texas are for those who can afford 'em.

I remember when my grandpa dropped out of his lease in Leaky, Texas. This was mid 60s. It had just gotten too expensive for him to justify, $125 a year per gun. ROFLMAO! It was 2000 prime hill country acres with camp house, butchering shed, freezers, etc. Such a ranch now would probably be over 2K a year per gun.

It's been my understanding that in order to set up one of those fenced-in hunting operations, you were required by law to remove all of the existing deer from the land, then put up your fences, and then purchase deer from somewhere else to stock your privately-owned herd. The reason given for this was that the deer originally on the land were the property of the state (and by extension the people of the state) since they can freely move on or off of one person's property any time they wished.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is correct in TX, additionally, if someone did do that, and then introduced new deer to the area, they would still be owned by the state (even if part of a genetic breeding program). I know there was a court case trying to get the second portion of my statement changed, but I don't know the outcome (it was a couple months ago).

'Card, it's like any deal: Terms and conditions are offered up front by a landowner, and the would-be hunter can agree--and abide by them--or he can go elsewhere. No different from leasing a car, really.

A lot of these high-$, big-buck ranch operations begin with too many deer on the land. Texas Parks & Wildlife has a specific, codified deal where the landowner can remove the excess down to or below the carrying capacity of the land before getting started with the "improvement" program.

The high fences are to keep other deer out. After all, the owner is improving the pastures' growies and the water supply and thus creating a nice banquet. The neighboring deer ain't stoopid; they'd come to a free meal most any chance they get. High development cost = high hunting fees.

Regardless, the landowner has the final say.

I've hunted ranches where it was a season deal, handshake, state laws ruled the deal. Other ranchers, particularly nowadays in our high-liability lawsuit era, carry insurance and have written contracts.

Since the local school district doesn't care if a landowner makes a profit or goes broke, the landowner has to do whatever it takes to pay the taxes. Land is now selling for over $2,000/acre in many areas. That's a school tax of around $6/acre. So, if you inherited Grampaw's old 5,000-acre ranch, you start the year $30K in the hole...A lot of west Texas, you can make $15 an acre, just ranching. You do the math.

Art

There's another side to this deal. Think of the money that hunting brings land owners in this state. Without it, would there be near the interest in keeping the sport of deer hunting alive and well? Money talks, BS walks. There's the sales of equipment, guns, ammunition, but there's also the rancher's income from hunting. There is HUGE money in this sport, brings in huge sums in the economy. Doing away with it would surely hurt the economy worse than if there was no leasing system.

And, heck, there's almost as much sport in finding an affordable lease in this state as there is in the actual hunting. For poor folks, though, there's always hogs. Hogs are cheap day hunting. But, where else in the nation could a land owner turn a nuisance into an income?

Yep, you want to play in Texas, you got to pay. Most high-fence operations charge about $2,000 to start with a 110-pt buck and add $100 per inch. The prices on the Triple-7 Ranch website are high IMO.

Yeah, well, the triple 7 is well known, on all the hunting shows. I went there for the shock value.

The state may "own" the deer

OTOH, the land owner may be trying a QDM practice

I've had bowhunters ask to hunt the farm, and I have asked them to shoot does on occassion when the immediate area #s seemed too high. Those that told me they "wouldn't waste a tag on a doe" have been told to find somewhere else to hunt.

Let's say that as a landowner you want to improve your heard so you buy and release a mega buck. At that point I'd say you have some (at least moral) authority in what is taken.

The attitude of "the deer belong to the state, and I'll shoot whatever I want and how many I want, landowner be damned, imo is a socialist, nanny state arguement.

BTW, in Ohio, if you don't have permission to hunt on my property, I don't have to let you remove a deer from my property - even if you shot it on another property and it ran onto my ground. IMO, this is the right approach, it protects those of us who pay the property taxes and sweat to keep the ground open and huntable.

mohican, one of the things I like about the structure of Texas law is that I have not only the moral authority but the legal authority to control what somebody else does on my land.

And it wouldn't even occur to me to make the "waste a tag" comment to some landowner. His land? Okay, his deal. His way or the highway. And, in Texax, the license includes doe tags as well as buck tags.

, Art

Won't waste a tag on a doe? Freakin trophy hunters.

I have my one a year deer tag still in my walet, I would have given anyting to come across a doe before season ended. The first legal deer I see, that doesn't have a fawn or exposed teets, gets a bullet. I hunt to eat not to decorate the house.

ID, it's a simple case of different strokes for different folks. My father's notion was that the first part of the season, look for the biggest buck in the pasture.

Problem is, that means you gotta pass up a lot of good bucks. After all, how else are you gonna know which one is the biggest?

THEN: Ya gotta find him again. A really serious buck generally doesn't make more than one mistake in a season. If his mistake was that first time you saw him, you have some serious hunting-work cut out for you.

It's called, "Challenge".

, Art

ya Art, I get that part of it. Up here we only get one, due to over hunting, loss of land, introduction of new predators, just finding one deer, big or not, is a challenge.

I saw 5 live deer all season, all of them were standing behind the NO HUNTING sign at the state park

Well, my place has plenty of unmanaged deer. My first two buck tags go for meat. I save the last one just in case there really is a muy grande out there I don't know about. I'm in a five deer county, 3 buck, two doe tags. I do fill my doe tags when I get a chance. The buck/doe ratio out there ain't bad, though, from what I can determine. I also have hogs and I'd really rather take a hog anyway. I can actually GRILL hog meat without needing a chain saw to cut it up. I like to make sausage with it 50-50 with deer, too.

You guys are forgetting who actually owns the deer! THEY ARE NOT THE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER!

Click to expand...

You are forgetting who owns the land and who is managing the wildlife on that property for the time that it is there. You are forgetting who owns the land and who governs what activities may be permitted to occur on the land. The lease isn't about the deer, but the activities. It may be legal for you to hunt three deer, but he doesn't have to let you hunt three deer on HIS property.

Does the landowner have the right to set limits and conditions here in Texas? Absolutely, and 100% so for any legal activity.

He can lease you the property for bow hunting and not allow you to use a rifle, even if it may be legal for you to hunt with a rifle at the time. Even though does or buck may be viable as per the state, he can stipulate that you only take does off his property.

The lease is valid so long as all the aspects of the lease are legal and while the landowner may not own the deer on the property, he can stipulate what activities you perform on that property including the number of deer you take, their sex, age, etc.

In short, he is leasing the property to you for one day to shoot one deer which is legal. If you agree to the lease, then you are legally bound to the lease.