Thanks for the invitation Jason...I wish I had something to offer you.   As you've probably heard by now Texas is over 90% privately owned, and most of the hunting is on leased land.  Simple permission to hunt ot just about unheard of anymore and the leases are usually pretty restrictive.  In particular our family is essentially invited to hunt every year (though we pay), so we're very limited to what we can do.

The only thing I can suggest is getting on TPWD's website and see if there are any more drawwings for WMA hunts left.  Kinda doubt there is.  There's also the opportunity to possibly hunt standby if someone doesn't show on those hunts.  There are also Davy Crockett National Forest and Caddo National Grasslands that can be productive. 

I'm real familiar with the Paris, TX area (my wife's family is from near there).  There are several game ranches and/or preserves in the area - you might talk to them and see if they'd let you come along with them.  I don't know anything about these guys, but here are some suggestions:

Pintail Farms - Honey Grove, TX

LoJo Ranch - Honey Grove

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.  These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.  That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice  or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.  This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.  It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.  The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

James,

I do agree with you that insulting one another does not accomplish anything constructive, and I've hopefully not done that.  And, for the record, one side of my entire family is Democratic, and have been since FDR.  There was a time not too far in the past where this party brought some admirable, defendable ideas (in terms of the Constitution) to the table.  But, let's face facts...the Democratic party of today ain't the Dem party of JFK and FDR.  That's not negative and that's not insulting,  those are just the facts.

For example, JFK was an NRA life member.  THAT democratic party would never had tried to confiscate our guns and intrude on our right to hunt.  That is, not until 1968 when the 'new breed' got in control.  As well, THAT democratic party would never have tried to ram a bunch of social engineering programs down our throat like 'don't ask, don't tell', 'hate crimes', 'separation of church and state', or the like.  That Democratic party believed in civil rights, liberty, and justice for all, not intimidation and forced coersion by a few.  In fact, recent legislation initiatives have been handled more like examples from a Karl Marx textbook than legislative process.

I say all this not to pick on Democrats but to point out to you that things aren't what they used to be (I know, the repubs sure aren't either).  At some point we all have to realize that and get away from the constant propaganda we're hearing day in and day out.  When we do, I think we'll have a lot more common ground that what you'd think.  I'd also like to think we'll wake up and see the desperate plight we're in.  Not only in the areas of hunting and self-defense, but in a number of other areas too.

That's horrible...not only is there paralysis (hopefully just temporarily) but sounds like internal injuries as well.  Let us know if you hear anything else.

You're absolutely right Brandon...if you're going to use a climbing stand or any kind of tree-attached device, or just climb into a tree, for goodness' sake wear a harness.  Years ago I knew a fella in East Texas that used a climbing stand but didn't use a harness.  One hunt he had climbed-up pretty high and apparently fell asleep as the day progressed.  By the time they found him he was dead on the ground.  What made it worse was he had a young family.

In fact I spent a couple days in the hospital when an attached tree stand came apart on me (I made the mistake of not checking the stand out before getting in it because it was dark).  Thankfully the stay was precautionary, and apart from a little blood in the urine and a few stitches no big deal.  But, it could easily have been much, much worse.

One other thing I'd stress is the need for following safe weapon handling procedures getting in and out of the stand.  Should something unexpected occur strange things happen with bolts, safeties, and arrows when falling through brush and tree limbs.

Have a great (and safe) hunt all!

I agree...you go to the right store, pick out your merchandise, pull the trigger, and get the bill.  If that's how someone wants to hunt that's up to them - more power to 'em.  But, even if I wanted to spend that much to hunt not sure that I'd want to.

Hunting for our family has always been more than the horns.  Its the memories, the comraderie, the family times, the conversations, the challenge, the whole ball of wax (not to mention the fried backstrap!).  So, when/if you ever do get one for the wall it makes you savor it even more.

To me this is really not a case of agreement or disagreement, and I have not been saying that you're wrong...I've been saying that I'd like to see more of an explanation than "its true because I said it is" before I believed you.  If this is a case of a trade secret or confidential research, I understand...not wanting to go there.  But, in turn you've got to understand that what you're telling me about a deer's olfactory senses goes against 25 years of dealing with compounds like butanethiols and mercaptans and their effects (on humans), not to mention practical hunting experience and a lot of reading.